HOW NEWSPAPERS COVER
SCIENCE, HEALTH, TECHNOLOGY
AND THE ENVIRONMENT
By Catherine Cowan
School of Journalism and
Mass Communication
University of North Carolina
at Chapel Hill
May 12, 1999
“The
pioneer spirit is still vigorous within this nation. Science offers
a largely unexplored hinterland for the pioneer who has the tools for
his task. The rewards of such exploration both for the Nation and the
individual are great. Scientific progress is one essential key to our security
as a nation, to our better health, to more jobs, to a higher standard of
living, and to our cultural progress.”
Vannevar Bush,
Director, Office of
Scientific Research,
I.
Introduction 4
II.
Methodology 8
III.
Quantitative Results 11
IV.
Qualitative Results 26
A. General science news 26
Recommendations for Lexington 28
B. Health and medical news 35
Recommendations for Lexington 43
C. Technology news 45
Recommendations for Lexington 51
D. Environmental news 55
Recommendations for Lexington 61
V.
Conclusion 62
Appendix
I: Guidelines for running science and medical stories 71
Appendix
II: Newspaper survey methodology 75
Appendix
III: Professional Contacts 78
Appendix
IV: Science sections and pages by newspaper 80
Appendix
V: Most popular national science stories of the week 83
Appendix
VI: Further reading 84
Appendix
VII: Copies of science, health and technology pages 86
I. Introduction
At the end of World War II, Vannevar Bush, director of the Office of Scientific Research and Development, was highly optimistic about the role of science in American public life. In his 1945 report to President Franklin D. Roosevelt entitled Science: The Endless Frontier, Bush saw scientific progress as the key to curing disease, providing jobs, defending the nation and educating the populace. For the good of the nation, Bush argued, the federal government must fund basic scientific research. Bush’s report laid the foundation for federal science policy during the Cold War, a policy that was only reinforced when the Russians launched Sputnik, beginning the two-decade space race that culminated with the United States putting astronauts on the moon.
Since then, however, federal
funding for science has been steadily declining. In 1965, the federal
government spent 1.85 percent of its gross domestic product on scientific
research and development; by 1995, that figure was cut in half to .9 percent.[1]
As federal funding for science has fallen, private sources of funding have
stepped in to fill some of the gap. In 1997, the entire annual research and
development budget was $180 billion; of that, the federal government provided
$73 billion, with private industry paying for the rest.[2]
Yet private funding often comes with strings attached. This trend means that scientists, who during the Cold War were often given money with no questions asked, are now having to justify the need for their research. Increasingly these explanations have involved an immediate use or practical application. Rather than allowing scientists to explore basic research, private industry wants them to concentrate on new products and technologies that can be quickly brought to the marketplace and sold for a profit.
This emphasis works very
well in some areas of science but not so well in others. For example, the
number of personal technology devices such as personal computers, cellular
telephones and digital pagers is exploding, and many experts do not see an end
to this trend or to the technological research that has produced it. Likewise,
it is easy to argue for the importance of funding medical research, which can
lead to treatments and cures for many human injuries or diseases.[3]
But private companies are highly unlikely to tackle environmental issues such
as deforestation, extinction of species or global warming, and basic scientific
research in areas such as astronomy, geology and archaeology is often simply
lost.
Journalists have not stood
idly by while science policy has changed. In 1939 Science Service, an
organization founded in the 1920s by newspaperman E.W. Scripps and biologist
W.E. Ritter, had 34 members who wrote for newspapers. By 1960, three years
after the launch of Sputnik, 25 percent of 1500 daily and Sunday newspapers
employed one or more reporters who covered science, medicine or technology, a
ten-fold increase over a period of two decades.[4]
Early Science Service members saw their roles as “missionaries” who brought
science to the public, a philosophy that set the tone for science writing
throughout the Cold War. During this time, journalists covered scientists as
stars, a trend readily apparent in stories about Nobel Prize winners. In one
example, Time magazine ran a picture of a large gold medal with a
caption about Nobel winners going to Mt. Olympus; later Family Health
magazine ran a profile of medical researcher Rosalyn Yalow headlined “She
Cooks. She Cleans. She wins the Nobel Prize.”[5]
By the late 1960s, however,
the tone of science journalism was changing. On a political level, the Vietnam
War and Watergate fostered a mistrust of authority figures in general, while
several events in science such as Three Mile Island, the Challenger explosion
and the Bhopal, India, gas leak fostered a mistrust of the scientific
establishment in particular. The dominant journalistic approach changed from
regarding science with awe to putting science in its social, historical and
economic context, and exposing the very human flaws and failings of scientists.
It was during this time that reporting about medical and environmental controversies
began to fill news pages; issues such as the effect of fluorocarbons on the
ozone layer, the likelihood of saccharin to cause cancer and the discovery of a
toxic waste dump in Love Canal all surfaced in the late 1970s.[6]
In the 1980s this perspective continued. One of the best examples of science
journalism designed to show the flaws of a scientist was Chicago Tribune
reporter John Crewdson’s investigation of AIDS researcher Robert Gallo, in
which Crewdson alleged that Gallo had not isolated a new AIDS virus but found
the same virus as French researchers.[7]
If the Cold War era heralded
the benefits of science and the Vietnam era warned about its pitfalls, the
1990s have brought on a third type of science journalism, one that very few
journalists or scholars have written about. This third era of science
journalism, which I will call the 21st Century era, takes no
moralistic stance toward science at all; rather, it simply asks, “How does this
apply to me?” Science is seen not as good or as evil but simply as the place
where new medical treatments and new tools and technologies that can affect the
lives of everyday people are invented. The more information we can get out
about these treatments and technologies, many professional journalists argue,
the better people will be able to decide how to use them.
It is my contention that
just as the Cold War philosophy of science journalism followed governmental
emphasis on science’s good and the Vietnam philosophy of science journalism
followed many conspicuous science disasters, the 21st Century era of
science journalism is following the trend away from government funding of
science and toward private research. As a result, science coverage in
newspapers has not disappeared, but has changed to emphasize the parts of
science that have immediate practical application. While many daily newspapers
once had a weekly science page or section which contained stories about basic
scientific research, only a handful do now; yet most newspapers have health and
medicine sections that emphasize “consumer health,” or news about how to eat
right, stay in shape and treat various illnesses or injuries. Meanwhile,
newspapers across the country are currently launching “personal technology”
sections to help keep consumers up to date on the dizzying pace of change in
the computer industry, as well as on other technologies such as cell phones,
pagers and flat TV.
This trend toward consumer
news is both positive and negative for science journalism. On the positive
side, science has made its way out of its assigned place in the science section
and into the substance of every part of the newspaper. For example, a business
story about the merger of two computer companies has to explain how the deal
will bring about new technologies for using the Internet. Likewise, a story
about stem cell research must explain what stem cells are and why they are
important, while story about a city council vote on whether to approve a
proposed shopping center has to show how development is affecting the underlying
water table and explain how this might damage the water supply. Pick up almost
any issue of practically any U.S. newspaper and you will find that science is
embedded on just about every page.
Yet the negative side of these changes is that journalism is losing sight of basic science. Areas such as astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, geology and archaeology are covered only if there is a major breakthrough and often not even then. When they are covered, it is often by journalists who have no background in the field, and so have no idea what is important or even what questions to ask. The result is stories that do not put the event at hand in any type of context, and so either overhype or underplay its significance. Finally, these science stories tend to run not on any special section or page, but inside the general nation and world news pages, where they are forced to compete for space with all the other news of the day. In this way, newspapers of the 1990s are depriving their readers of the full breadth of developments in the world of science.
In this study, I set out simply to discover the state of science journalism in American newspapers today. To do this, I divided the topic of science journalism into four areas -- general science, health and medicine, technology and the environment – and looked at them in both quantitative and qualitative ways. General science news included stories on topics such as astronomy, physics, chemistry, geology and archaeology. Health and medical news included stories on topics such as research that might one day affect human health, new discoveries in medicine such as new drugs or other treatments, or new diet and fitness trends. Technology news included stories about technological devices such as personal computers, cell phones and high definition television. Environmental news included stories about the planet Earth, whether local or global, and explored topics such as pollution, deforestation and the ozone hole.
In the first part of the
project, I examined thirty newspapers, ten of circulation 100,000 to 200,000,
ten of circulation 200,000 to 300,000, and ten of circulation 300,000 to
500,000.[8]
I surveyed one week’s worth of each paper, noting every science, health,
technology or environment story, as well as how many column inches it was,
whether it was staff or wire-written, whether it had photos or graphics, and
several other variables. To be chosen for this study, a story had to include
some type of scientific information somewhere in its content. For example, in
medical news a story about falling profits at an HMO would not count, but one
about why the HMO was paying for one treatment but not another would; in
technology news a story about Internet stocks driving the rise of the Dow would
not count, but one about a new type of computer search engine would; and in
environment news a story about the city council approving a new development
would not count, but one that explained the new development’s effect on the
city water supply would. I then compiled a database of these findings and used
the statistical program SPSS to analyze them.[9]
In the second part of this study, I traveled to twelve newspapers to talk with
editors and reporters who covered science, health, technology and the
environment. In this way, I was able to put the statistics I found into context
and to identify several trends.
Though I will expand on each
of these areas in the body of this report, here are the general results. 1)
Health and medical news is by far the most common type of science news. It is
the most common type of science news to make the front page, the inside pages,
and to be put into its own section. Most newspapers have at least one health or
medical reporter, often more than one, although their beats can vary from
covering medical research to an emphasis on health and fitness to one on the
health-care industry. The philosophy of most medical news is “consumer health,”
namely, supplying information about new treatments or trends that can lead to
the improved health of the individual reader. Newspaper staff writers generally
shun stories about the latest research in scientific journals, leaving these
stories to the wires; instead they concentrate on topics such as how lasers are
being used in medical treatments or why more and more people are being
diagnosed with sleep apnea. Many health sections include advertising from area
hospitals, doctors’ offices and fitness clubs.
2) Technology is the second
most common type of science news and the most likely to have its own special
section or designated pages. Most newspapers have either recently started or
are currently starting their own technology section or pages; these sections
generate revenue for the paper by attracting advertising from many computer and
other high-technology firms. Technology stories deal mainly with “personal
technology,” or consumer purchase and use of computers and the Internet, though
some include information about other technologies such as cell phones, digital
pagers and flat TV. A few stories deal with what is called the “culture of
technology,” looking at issues such as what it’s like to start your own
computer company or how people manage to remember an ever-rising number of
secret passwords for their accounts.
3) The third type of science
news concerns the environment. Here stories are much more likely to be locally
oriented than nationally or internationally oriented, and to be written by a
staff member rather than retrieved from the wires. Environmental news is the
most likely to run on the front page or the local section of the paper; it is
the least likely to be included in a special section of the paper. Reporters
for many papers, especially smaller ones in the 100,000 to 200,000 circulation
range, see environmental news as a premiere beat. Many papers are willing to
give environmental reporters large amounts of time to put together a major
enterprise pieces. Some of these series have won Pulitzers; others have helped
spur changes in state legislation.
4) News about general science
lags far behind the other three types of science news. In the survey, the
average length of a general science story was shorter than any other type,
despite the fact that readers have less knowledge in areas such as physics or
astronomy and so need more background information. While 14 of the 30 papers I
surveyed had a special weekly section or page for science news, in practice
most of those papers ran much more news about health than science. Three of the
papers I visited had recently transferred their science writers to other beats;
only one had actually hired a science writer but even there tension was
present. As a result, most general science news comes from the wire services
and is relegated into the already overstuffed space for nation and world news.
In the conclusion of this report I will explore some reasons health, technology
and environmental news is doing so well but general science news is suffering,
and I will suggest what can be done to remedy this problem.
III. Quantitative Results
An SPSS statistical analysis
of science stories in one week’s worth of 30 newspapers ranging in circulation
from 100,000 to 500,000 supports the conclusion that medical, technology and
environmental news are all flourishing while general science news is suffering.
In short, medical news is flourishing simply because of sheer numbers; it is by
far the most common type of science news in the paper. Technology news is
abundant because it is the mostly likely to be put into a special section or
page and to attract advertising. Environmental news is doing well because it is
the most likely to be staff written and the most likely to go onto A1. But
general science news is lagging because it is at or near the bottom of all
these trends.
As Table 1 shows, a simple
count of each type of science story in all 30 papers reveals that health
stories were most numerous, followed by technology stories; many fewer articles
were about general science or the environment. Meanwhile, Table 2 shows that of
the total of 1352 stories, science stories accounted for 167, or 12.4 percent,
health stories for 596 or 44.1 percent, technology for 451 or 33.4 percent, and
environment for 138 or 10.2 percent.
Table 1: Simple bar graph:
Type of science story
Story type
|
Frequency
|
Percent
|
Valid Percent
|
Cum. Percent
|
|
Science |
167 |
12.4 |
12.4 |
12.4 |
|
Health |
596 |
44.1 |
44.1 |
56.4 |
|
Technology |
451 |
33.4 |
33.4 |
89.8 |
|
Environment |
138 |
10.2 |
10.2 |
100.0 |
|
Total |
1352 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
|
Although environmental stories are less numerous than stories about general science, this statistic is somewhat misleading. As Tables 3 and 4 show, environmental news was the only one of the four types of science news in which a majority of the stories were staff written. In environmental news, 74 of 138 stories, or 54 percent, were staff written; by comparison, 47 of 167 general science stories (28 percent), 164 of 596 health stories (28 percent), and 167 of 451 technology stories (37 percent) were staff written.
Table
3: Clustered bar graph: Story type vs. staff/wire

|
Story Type |
Staff |
Wire |
Other |
Total |
|
Science |
47 |
111 |
9 |
167 |
|
Health |
164 |
416 |
16 |
596 |
|
Technology |
167 |
274 |
10 |
451 |
|
Environment |
74 |
61 |
3 |
138 |
|
Total |
452 |
862 |
38 |
1352 |
Another key
difference between general science and environment news is the number of times
the stories appear on A1, shown in Tables 5 and 6. [10]
Of the stories that made it to the front pages of the 30 newspapers, only seven
were general science stories while 18 were environmental stories, almost three
times as many; in other words, 4 percent of the total number of 167 general
science stories made it onto A1, whereas 13 percent of all 138 environmental
stories did. In this same count, 52 medical stories made it to the front, over
seven times as many general science stories; however, because these newspapers
ran such a large amount of medical news, that figure represents only 9 percent
of the total number of 596 health-related stories. Technology news is in a
similar situation; here 19 stories made it to the front, only 4 percent of the
total of 451 stories.
Table 5: Simple bar graph:
Types of science stories on A1
Table 6: Frequency: Types of science stories on A1
|
Story Type |
Frequency |
Percent |
Valid Percent |
Cum. Percent |
|
Science |
7 |
7.3 |
7.3 |
7.3 |
|
Health |
52 |
54.2 |
54.2 |
61.5 |
|
Technology |
19 |
19.8 |
19.8 |
81.3 |
|
Environment |
18 |
18.8 |
18.8 |
100.0 |
|
Total |
96 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
|
Another indication that general science news is at a disadvantage is the average column-inch length of the stories. Table 7 shows that general science stories were shorter than the others, despite the fact that readers have little knowledge about science and so a certain number of column inches are required simply to explain the background. One reason general science stories are so short is that most run inside the paper’s A section, which is typically responsible for all national and international news of the day. These pages usually have the tightest space in the paper because a large number of stories must fit there and because many advertisers want to be located as close to the front as possible. Yet as Table 8 shows, 109 of 167 science stories, or 65 percent, ran inside the A section; this compares to 284 of 596 health stories (48 percent), 99 of 451 technology stories (22 percent), and 33 of 138 environment stories (48 percent).
Table 7: Means: Average column inches for each story type
|
Story
Type |
Mean
Col. Inches |
Number |
Std.
Deviation |
|
Science |
15.4 |
167 |
9.39 |
|
Health |
18.8 |
594 |
12.91 |
|
Technology |
19.9 |
450 |
11.88 |
|
Environment |
19.0 |
138 |
11.47 |
|
Total |
18.8 |
1349 |
12.10 |
If health and technology stories are not running inside the A section, where are they going? As Table 8 indicates, the most popular place for medical stories is the features section while the most popular place for technology stories is the business section. This statistic points to the consumer basis of each type of story; medical news is oriented toward personal health and well-being, and so often falls under the province of the features department, while technology news is often oriented toward personal devices such as home computers and so often falls under the province of the business desk.
Table 8: Crosstabulation: Story type vs. location in
paper
|
Story Type |
A section |
Local |
Business |
Features |
Editorial |
Total |
|
Science |
109 |
22 |
9 |
20 |
7 |
167 |
|
Health |
284 |
37 |
15 |
240 |
20 |
596 |
|
Technology |
99 |
11 |
199 |
136 |
6 |
451 |
|
Environment |
66 |
41 |
2 |
13 |
16 |
138 |
|
Total |
558 |
111 |
225 |
409 |
49 |
1352 |
Beyond running as a part of
other sections, however, health and technology stories are increasingly running
on their own stand-alone sections or pages. As Table 9 indicates, only 6.3
percent of stories in a stand-alone science, health, technology or environment
section concerned general science, while 48.9 percent of such stories were
health-related and 42.5 percent were technology related. General science
stories fared only slightly better on special pages located within other
sections, such as a weekly science page tucked inside the A section or a set of
technology pages tucked inside the business section. As Table 10 indicates,
general science accounted for 14.4 percent of all stories on special pages; yet
here again twice as many health-related stories and almost four times as many
technology stories ran on special pages.
Table 9: Types of stories in stand-alone sections
|
Story Type |
Frequency |
Percent |
Valid
Percent |
Cum. Percent |
|
Science |
14 |
6.3 |
6.3 |
6.3 |
|
Health |
108 |
48.9 |
48.9 |
55.2 |
|
Technology |
94 |
42.5 |
42.5 |
97.7 |
|
Environment |
5 |
2.3 |
2.3 |
100.0 |
|
Total |
221 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
|
Table 10: Frequency: Types of stories on special pages
inside other sections
|
Story Type |
Frequency |
Percent |
Valid
Percent |
Cum. Percent |
|
Science |
25 |
14.4 |
14.4 |
14.4 |
|
Health |
50 |
28.7 |
28.7 |
43.1 |
|
Technology |
92 |
52.9 |
52.9 |
96.0 |
|
Environment |
7 |
4.0 |
4.0 |
100.0 |
|
Total |
174 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
|
Unlike news about general
science, medical and technology stories were much more likely to appear in a
special section or page. While 39 of 167 general science stories (23 percent)
appeared on a special section or page, 158 of 596 medical stories (27 percent)
did, and 186 out of 451 technology stories did (41 percent), making technology
news by far the most likely to be organized in this way. Technology stories
were also the most likely of the four types of science stories to attract
advertising, as Tables 11 and 12 show. Only 10 of 167 general science stories
(0.6 percent) attracted advertising, while 98 of 596 health stories (16
percent) and 111 of 451 technology stories (26 percent) did.
Table 11: Clustered bar graph: Story type vs. advertisements

Table 12: Crosstabulation: Story type vs. advertisements
|
Story type |
Advertisements yes |
Advertisements no |
Total |
|
Science |
10 |
157 |
167 |
|
Health |
98 |
498 |
596 |
|
Technology |
111 |
340 |
451 |
|
Environment |
3 |
135 |
138 |
|
Total |
222 |
1130 |
1352 |
If news about general science lags behind news about health, technology and the environment in the overall figures, what happens when the 30 newspapers are broken down according to circulation size? Here the results are mixed, with general science stories faring the best in the Group II newspapers with circulation size 200,000 to 300,000. As Tables 13 and 14 demonstrate, the number of general science stories rose from 48 in the Group I newspapers to 62 in the Group II newspapers but fell to 57 in the Group III newspapers. Group II newspapers also carried the greatest amount of medical news with 244 stories; in this category Group III
Table
13: Clustered bar graph: Story topic vs. circulation
Table 14: Crosstabulation: Story topic vs. newspaper circulation
|
Story Topic |
100,000 |
200,000 |
300,000 |
Total |
|
Science |
48 |
62 |
57 |
167 |
|
Health |
181 |
244 |
171 |
596 |
|
Technology |
135 |
150 |
166 |
451 |
|
Environment |
47 |
35 |
56 |
138 |
|
Total |
411 |
491 |
450 |
1352 |
newspapers actually carried fewer stories than Group I newspapers. In environmental news, Group II fell behind the others, running only 35 stories as compared to 47 stories in Group I and 56 stories in Group III. Here, the real story lies in Group I, which despite smaller staff and fewer resources published almost as many environmental stories as the much larger Group III.
One major reason Group II newspapers run more general science and medical news than the others is that Group II newspapers run more of all types of stories than the rest. As Tables 15 and 16 show, Group II newspapers ran 491 stories as compared to 411 stories in Group I newspapers and 450 stories in Group III newspapers. Group II papers are able to run more stories for several reasons. First, as Table 17 shows, their average story length is much shorter than the rest. One possible explanation for this may be that while Group I does not have the staff to edit long stories down and Group III has the space to let stories run long, Group II does have the resources to edit stories down but not the space to run them long. Another explanation for the varying story lengths might be that Groups I and III are producing more environmental stories, a high proportion of which are long investigative pieces. I have no explanation, however, for why Group II is producing so few environmental stories, or for why Groups I and III are producing comparatively more.
Table
15: Simple bar graph: Number of stories by newspaper circulation
Table 16: Number of all science stories by newspaper circulation
|
Circulation |
No. stories |
Percent |
Valid Percent |
Cum. Percent |
|
100,000 |
411 |
30.4 |
30.4 |
30.4 |
|
200,000 |
491 |
36.3 |
36.3 |
66.7 |
|
300,000 |
450 |
33.3 |
33.3 |
100.0 |
|
Total |
1352 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
|
Table 17: Crosstabulation: Average length of story vs.
circulation size
|
Circulation |
Mean |
Number |
Std. Deviation |
|
100,000 |
19.07 |
408 |
14.17 |
|
200,000 |
17.03 |
491 |
10.10 |
|
300,000 |
20.48 |
450 |
11.84 |
|
Total |
18.80 |
1349 |
12.10 |
A second reason Group II newspapers are able to run the highest number of stories is that they make the most use of the wire services. As Table 18 shows, Group II newspapers used 340 wire stories as compared to Group I’s 281 wire stories and Group III’s 241 wire stories. In other words, as large a percentage of Group II stories came from the wires as in Group I; in both cases, the percentage of stories from the wires was 68 to 69 percent. By comparison, only 54 percent of stories in Group III newspapers came from the wires. This is significant because, as Table 19 shows, wire stories are on average much shorter than staff-written stories or other items such as a calendar of health-related events or an opinion piece submitted to the editorial page. While staff-written stories and other items ran almost 25 inches, wire stories ran an average of 15.7 inches.
Table 18: Crosstabulation: Staff/wire vs. circulation
size
|
Circulation |
Staff |
Wire |
Other |
Total |
|
100,000 |
121 |
281 |
9 |
411 |
|
200,000 |
141 |
340 |
10 |
491 |
|
300,000 |
190 |
241 |
19 |
450 |
|
Total |
452 |
862 |
38 |
1352 |
Table 19: Means: Average column-inch length of staff,
wire stories
|
Source |
Mean Col. Inches |
No. Stories |
Std. Deviation |
|
Staff |
24.29 |
449 |
15.17 |
|
Wire |
15.70 |
862 |
8.92 |
|
Other |
24.32 |
38 |
8.71 |
|
Total |
18.80 |
1349 |
12.10 |
Just as Group II newspapers ran the largest number of wire stories, they were also the most likely to put their science stories on the front or inside the A section. As Table 20 shows, Group II put 214 stories in the A section, as compared to 178 stories for Group I and 166 stories for Group III. In other words, Group II newspapers put as high a percentage of science news in A sections as Group I newspapers did, in both cases about 44 percent. By comparison, Group III newspapers put only 37 percent of science stories inside the A section. Of the stories in the A section, however, Group II newspapers were the least likely to put them on the front page. As Table 21 shows, only 29 stories in Group II newspapers ran on A1, whereas 32 in Group III newspapers did and 35 stories in Group I newspapers made it onto the front page, making the smallest newspapers the most likely to put science news on A1. One explanation for this is that Group I newspapers are producing a great deal of environmental news, which is more likely to run on the front page than anywhere else.
Table 20: Crosstabulation: Section of newspaper vs.
circulation size
|
Circulation |
A
section |
Local |
Business |
Features |
Editorial |
Total |
|
100,000 |
178 |
48 |
80 |
87 |
18 |
411 |
|
200,000 |
214 |
28 |
72 |
158 |
19 |
491 |
|
300,000 |
166 |
35 |
73 |
164 |
12 |
450 |
|
Total |
558 |
111 |
225 |
409 |
49 |
1352 |
Table 21: Frequency: Science stories (all types) on A1
by circulation size
|
Circulation |
Frequency |
Percent |
Valid
Percent |
Cum.
Percent |
|
100,000 |
35 |
36.5 |
36.5 |
36.5 |
|
200,000 |
29 |
30.2 |
30.2 |
66.7 |
|
300,000 |
32 |
33.3 |
33.3 |
100.0 |
|
Total |
96 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
|
While the amount of general science, medical and environmental news rises and falls unevenly with circulation size, the amount of technology news is an exception to this fluctuation, rising in almost exact correlation with circulation size. As Table 13 demonstrated, Group I newspapers ran 135 technology stories, Group II ran 150, and Group III ran 166. One major reason for this is that technology news is the most likely to run on a special section or page, and as Table 22 shows, the number of special sections and pages also rises in an almost exact correspondence with circulation size. Technology news is also the most likely to attract related advertising, and as Table 23 shows, the larger newspapers are the most likely to take advantage of this fact: While only 38 science stories, or 9 percent, in Group I newspapers attracted related advertising, 97 stories (20 percent) in Group II did and 87 stories (19 percent) in Group III did.
Table 22: Crosstabulation: Section or page vs.
circulation size
|
Circulation |
Section |
Page |
No |
Total |
|
100,000 |
48 |
48 |
315 |
411 |
|
200,000 |
76 |
65 |
350 |
491 |
|
300,000 |
97 |
61 |
292 |
450 |
|
Total |
221 |
174 |
957 |
1352 |
Table 23: Crosstabulation: Advertising vs. circulation
size
|
Circulation |
Advertisements
yes |
Advertisements
no |
Total |
|
100,000 |
38 |
373 |
41 |
|
200,000 |
97 |
394 |
49 |
|
300,000 |
87 |
363 |
45 |
|
Total |
222 |
1130 |
135 |
Other results
Finding art to go with a science story has long been a problem for editors, but in the use of photographs general science news fared better than any other type surveyed. As Table 24 shows, in the 167 general science stories counted in all 30 papers, a total of 57 photographs were used; in other words, an average of 34 percent of stories had a photo. For medical news a total of 154 photos accompanied 594 stories for an average of 30 percent; for technology news a total of 136 photos accompanied 450 stories for an average also of 30 percent, and for environmental news a total of 36 photos accompanied 138 stories for an average of 26 percent. As is apparent from these figures, the percentage differences are not great. Still the statistic helps explain why general science stories are so short: they are running mostly inside the A section where space is already tight and they must be cut even further to make room for photographs.
Table 24: Crosstabulation: Number of photos vs. story topic
|
Story Topic |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
8 |
9 |
Total |
|
Science |
127 |
29 |
7 |
2 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Health |
494 |
75 |
11 |
9 |
|
3 |
1 |
|
1 |
|
|
Technology |
350 |
80 |
12 |
5 |
1 |
1 |
|
1 |
|
|
|
Environment |
113 |
16 |
7 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
1084 |
200 |
37 |
18 |
3 |
4 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1349 |
If the use of photos shows the importance of science news, the use of graphics and illustrations shows the importance of environmental news.[11] As Table 25 lists, in news about general science, a total of 13 graphics and illustrations accompanied 167 stories for an average of 8 percent; in health news, a total of 41 graphics and illustrations accompanied 594 stories for an average of 7 percent; for technology news, a total of 59 graphics and illustrations accompanied 451 stories for an average of 13 percent; for environmental news, however, a total of 27 graphics and illustrations accompanied 138 stories for an average of 20 percent. One explanation for this is that because environmental news written by staff more often than it is pulled from the wires, editors and reporters are more likely to work with graphic artists to produce a total package.
Table 25: Crosstabulation: Number of graphics vs. story
topic
|
Story
Topic |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
Total |
|
Science |
154 |
13 |
|
|
167 |
|
Health |
554 |
39 |
1 |
|
594 |
|
Technology |
398 |
46 |
5 |
1 |
450 |
|
Environment |
114 |
22 |
1 |
1 |
138 |
|
Total |
1220 |
120 |
7 |
2 |
1349 |
Just as the size of the
newspaper influences the relative popularity of various types of science news,
the day of publication of special sections and pages also plays a role. Monday
and Wednesday were most popular for general science news, Monday and Thursday
for health news, Sunday and Monday for technology news, and Sunday and Tuesday
for environment news. In interviews I conducted, most editors said there was no
reason other than convenience that their newspaper ran certain sections or
pages on certain days. Some editors cited Mondays as good days for a science
page because it beat The New York Times’ Tuesday science section by a
day; others liked Mondays because their science sections were often used in
school classrooms. Health and medicine sections were popular on Mondays for
some of the same reasons, but many medical stories run on Thursdays because
several major journals such as Nature and New England Journal of
Medicine publish on that day. Technology sections are popular on Sundays,
editors said, because businesses like to advertise on the day with the largest
circulation; Mondays are also popular because it is the first day of the work
week. Sundays are popular for environmental news because many stories represent
showpiece enterprise reporting.
IV. Qualitative Results
A. General science news
Just as results of an SPSS
survey demonstrate that general science news is covered less than news about
medicine, technology and the environment, a qualitative look at the way science
news ran in 30 newspapers during a one-week period shows the same pattern.
First, there were fewer sections or pages set aside for general science news
than for either medical or technology news. Of the 30 newspapers considered,
only 14 had either a stand-alone section, a set of pages or a single page
designated for general science news, while 24 newspapers had sections or pages
set aside for medical news and 24 had sections or pages for technology news. Of
these 14 newspapers which had a section or page devoted to science news, six
had a weekly stand-alone section; however, three of these sections, titled
“Health and Science” or “Science and Health,” were devoted entirely to health
news and carried no general science content whatsoever.[12]
Of the sections and pages
that did carry news about general science, topics varied and included both
general science and medicine. Staff writers covered such subjects as the
Olestra controversy, the age of the universe, scientific research into
alternative medicine, changing weather patterns, chronic care for the elderly,
the spectrum of visible light, new medical lasers, research about moon rocks,
the possibility of life on Jupiter’s moon Europa, and an ancient civilization
in India. Topics among wire stories included a Washington Post story
about unsafe diet drugs, a New York Times story about a mathematical
formula behind why animals grow to be various sizes, an Associated Press story
about a process to remove the membrane from eggshells, a Dallas Morning News
story about a controversy over deformed cats, and a New York Times story
about using the HIV virus to cure disease. Few science sections or pages
carried any breaking science or medical news unless they were published later
in the week; for example, The (Portland) Oregonian’s “Health and
Science” section, published on Wednesdays, carried stories about a new obesity
drug and funding for stem cell research, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette’s
Friday “Health and Science” page ran a story about a new dinosaur fossil, and
the Lexington (Ky.) Herald-Leader’s “Science” page on Thursday ran two
stories about delays in NASA projects. All were stories that most other papers
put in their A sections.
Besides full stories, seven
science sections or pages made room for science briefs; of these, The Boston
Globe, The Dallas Morning News and The (Portland) Oregonian included
various color sigs that could be inserted next to the brief to identify what
area of science was being discussed. The Dallas “Discoveries” section, for
example, uses sigs for the topics of Atom and Universe (physics and astronomy),
Genetics (mainly biology), Molecules (chemistry), Earth (geology), Ancestors
(archaeology) and Numbers (math). Perhaps because it is notoriously difficult
to find art with science stories, eight newspapers carried the Los Angeles
Times syndicate’s “Earthweek” graphic, which illustrates major weather events
on the planet such as hurricanes, tornadoes, blizzards, tidal waves, floods,
earthquakes and volcano eruptions. Four newspapers, all in Group III, ran
calendars of science -related events, and three newspapers, two in Group III
and one in Group II, ran a question-and-answer column about science.
Four newspapers, all in
Group III, run science commentary columns: Science Editor Tom Siegfried writes
for The Dallas Morning News; staff science reporter Chet Raymo writes a
column called “Science Musings” for The Boston Globe; freelance science
reporter Mark Ward writes for the (Minneapolis) Star Tribune; and
physics professor Ron Haybron writes for The (Cleveland) Plain Dealer).
Among Group II newspapers, biology professor Lee Alan Dugatkin contributes a
column once a month to the Science Forum page in The (Louisville)
Courier-Journal. However, according to “Science Forum” editor Alan Wild,
soliciting such material from a non-journalist can be tricky. First, he said, the
newspaper has not allocated any money to pay such contributors. Second, the
contributor must be able to write for a general audience, which not all
scientists can do. To illustrate this point, Wild told of his experience with a
scientist who used a lot of technical language, submitted pieces that were too
long, and did not want to accept editing by a non-scientist. The newspaper did
not use his work.
Currently, the Lexington Herald-Leader has a science page that runs every Thursday; however, the page is not open and is not anchored. This means that it actually contains only about half a page of newshole; worse, one week it might run in the local section and another week in the sports section (next to the strip club ads)! For many reasons, this situation is unsatisfactory, although I have been surprised to find through this survey that even with our little half-page, the Herald-Leader runs more science news than almost every other paper our size and many that are larger. Still, I see two other options for Lexington’s coverage of science news: expanding it onto a full science page or doing away with the science page completely.
1. An expanded science page. We could develop a very good science and health page using stories mostly or completely from the wires. Although a science reporter at the Lexington Herald-Leader could easily write full-time about research at the University of Kentucky and private companies in the state, there is no shortage of high quality stories about science from newspapers such as The New York Times, The Boston Globe, The Philadelphia Inquirer, The San Francisco Chronicle and The Dallas Morning News as well as from the Knight-Ridder Washington Bureau. Most newspapers with science sections or pages run them at the beginning of the week; however, my recommendation would be to keep an expanded science page on Thursdays. Several important science and medical journals such as Journal of the American Medical Association, The New England Journal of Medicine and Nature publish on Wednesdays and Thursdays, so a Thursday page is more likely to include some fresh news.
An expanded science page, however, would need to be
improved over our current page
in several ways. First, besides running on the same day every week, an expanded
science page also needs to run in the same place. Anchoring a page is the
quickest way to build a readership; if the page floats, its likely that the
readers won’t even know it exists because they may not see it consistently. If
possible, the page could go some place where color is available, such as the
back of the B section; if not, it should go somewhere inside the A section or
the B section, but a science page should not
go in the sports section or the editorial pages. Louisville’s “Science Forum”
does appear in its editorial section on Mondays, a practice its readers have
probably grown accustomed to; however, if the Herald-Leader suddenly put
a newly designed science page in its editorial section, readers could easily
confuse news stories with opinion, especially if the page is formatted like an
editorial not a news page, as is the case at The Courier-Journal.
Second, if possible the page
should be open or the very least have as little advertising as possible. Large
ads on the science page make it more difficult for editors to find photos and
graphics to fit the leftover space, especially when there are few to choose
from, and without art it is much less likely the page will attract reader
attention. Large ads obviously also take away from the space that could be
devoted to news. In addition, although medical and technology sections easily
lend themselves to advertising for consumer goods and services, general science
stories do not; however, the page would pay for itself in other ways. In Dallas,
for example, school teachers widely use the “Discoveries” section in classroom
lessons, a practice that helps invest in the long term by getting children to
start reading the newspaper. The Philadelphia Inquirer has also created
special sections for use in the public schools on topics that children like
such as space and dinosaurs. Lexington could work with Newspapers in Education
to distribute our science page in the public schools of Kentucky. A science
page would also pay for itself through the adults who read it. Surveys have
consistently shown that readers of science news are likely to be
college-educated, affluent, and read most other parts of the newspaper.
Therefore it is safe to assume that they are seeing most of the advertisements
in the newspaper. [13]
Third, the page could be
designed much like the Herald-Leader’s current open A3, with briefs down
the left side and three to five stories placed in the positions of strip, lead,
centerpiece and bottom. The page should include a variety of topics both
scientific and medical, but stories should be oriented toward basic research
rather than applications. For example, a story about research on using stem
cells to repair bodily organs could go on the page, but one on the latest
fitness craze would not. Technology topics should for the most part be left to
the technology section unless the story is about technological research, for
example on smaller computer chips; however, environmental stories on topics
such as global warming or the ozone hole could go on the science page. Although
Lexington staff writers could easily include sidebars or inserts into stories
on the science page, especially if it is being prepared in advance, this is by
no means necessary; in fact, other than The Philadelphia Inquirer[14]
few of the larger papers I visited do this, although wire editors will often
consult with science and medical writers about the significance of a given
story. I would not recommend soliciting columns from scientists in the
Lexington area, though we could consider this if a scientist comes to us;
however, this scientist would have to be willing to submit to editing to ensure
the copy was readable and jargon-free. A question-and-answer column, however,
would be a great addition to the page, especially if it were being used in
classrooms; such columns are readily available from The New York Times
and The Dallas Morning News among others, and are surprisingly
manageable in length.
It is difficult to find good
photos to run with science and health stories from other newspapers; however,
there is no shortage of large stand-alone graphics that could at times be used
in lieu of a centerpiece. Knight-Ridder Tribune has a number of weekly features
that the Lexington Herald-Leader might want to include on the science page
or elsewhere such as in “Living Well.” On Mondays, KRT runs a 2 by 3.5 “Healthy
Living” graphic on topics such as the benefits of eating fruits and vegetables
or the nutrients in peanut butter; on Tuesdays it runs a 59p by 4 “Try This”
graphic aimed at children on topics such as proving that air exists or seeing
the world through the eyes of a dog or cat; on Wednesdays it runs a 3 by 10.5
“Science Matters” graphic on topics such as irradiating food or nanotubes (tiny
tubes of pure carbon that are stronger then steel); on Wednesdays it also runs
a 2 by 6.5 “Women” graphic, which often explores topics of women’s health; on
Thursdays, it runs a 3 by 3.5 “Extreme Earth” graphic, a summary of weather
extremes and important environmental developments across the planet that week;
and on Fridays it runs a 2 by 12.5 “Personal Trainer” graphic on topics such as
martial arts training or getting rid of abdominal fat. In addition to these
weekly features, KRT is now putting out three health-related graphics per week
on topics such as Rocky Mountain spotted fever, first aid for losing a tooth
and impotence precipitated by bicycle seats.[15]
These graphics will not run on particular days or be particular sizes, but will
be on topical subjects.
One cautioning note: To
produce a new and improved science page, editors need adequate staff. Here, the experience of Alan Wild at The
Courier-Journal provides a rough guide for what we would need at Lexington.
According to Wild, who has been putting together the page for three years, it
takes about four hours from start to finish, including going through a massive
number of science stories on the wires, choosing the stories, photos and
graphics, laying out the page, editing and putting headlines on the stories,
and sending to page to the composing room. Wild’s deadline for all this is
Sunday night, and the page appears Monday morning; however, it includes very
little breaking news because the work must be done whenever Wild can squeeze it
in between his other copy editing duties. Usually Wild’s editors allot an
entire day of his schedule once every two weeks to finish most of two week’s
worth of pages; only the briefs are done immediately before production. Even
with this time, the science page is unlike all the others at The Courier-Journal
in that it is the only page that is rarely proofread by others on the copy desk
before it goes to press; editors at the paper allows this to happen because
they trust Alan, and because there simply is no time to do it any other way.
With this in mind, it is
clear that an open, anchored science page cannot be simply an afterthought that
comes up on Wednesday afternoon, as is currently the case; it needs to be
planned throughout the week. Wire editors could squirrel away and science
stories not used by the daily paper into a science queue; then someone could go
through that queue each week to pick stories for use on the science page. The
person who puts together the page must
have at least four hours a week of undisturbed time, or one full day every two weeks,
to get the bulk of the work done; only the briefs should be done on Wednesday
afternoon, so the page could include at least some fresh news. Getting this time for the wire editor is
possible only if he or she has some designated assistance, and this might
entail naming an assistant wire editor, at least for heavy days such as
Wednesdays, Thursdays and Fridays. All three of the Group I newspapers I
visited had such a position; at all of them, two wire editors were scheduled on
any given day, with a total of four to six people on staff who were able to do
the job if necessary. At The News and Observer, for example, work is
divided between a wire editor who picks the stories and books the pages, and an
assistant who chooses the versions of the stories and edits them to fit; at the
Austin American-Statesman, work is divided between a day editor who
comes in for the 11 a.m. meeting to coordinate local inserts and sidebars,
picks the stories and books the pages, and a night editor who picks the version
of the story to be used, edits it to fit, and makes any late substitutions.
Either of these systems would lead to a superior wire news product than what
the Lexington Herald-Leader currently produces, though I think the
Austin system is the best because it makes national and international news more
locally relevant.
2. Do away with the
science page. Although I hesitate even to include this as an option,
I do so for two reasons. First, copy editors in Lexington currently have about
all they can handle and cannot take on a lot of extra work. As it is, the
science page is usually an after-thought that ends up being hastily thrown
together on a Wednesday night; it often has no photos and sometimes not even a
stand-alone graphic. Finding an appropriate anchor for the page might be a
problem, and without that it is difficult to attract a consistent readership.
Thus, it is worth considering whether it makes sense simply to do away with the
page and the work it entails.
The other reason I mention
this option is that, to my surprise, a few science writers I have spoken with
actually do not like science sections or pages. These writers think that a
separate section or page “ghettoizes” science news, serving to show readers
what not to read rather than
highlighting what is worth their time. They also say they would rather aim for
A1 than for a special section or page, even if their stories do not always make
the front.[16] Some papers
such as The News and Observer which follow this philosophy do get
science news in the paper; staff-written stories often go on A1 or the local
front, while wire stories sometimes make A1 and often are grouped on the same
inside page with a Science or Science/Health page topper. Such packaging
requires little or no extra work, yet signals the fact that the stories relate
to science.
Still, the only way I could
endorse effectively killing the science page at the Lexington Herald-Leader
is if the paper could somehow make its commitment to science news clear in
other ways. Perhaps there is a way to specify that the space from the Thursday
science page should go to the A section to be used mainly for science stories;
perhaps the paper could simply use more science news on the front and as a
closeup. Regardless of which way the newspaper decides to go on the issue of a
science page, it is vital that it maintain its commitment to science news for
several reasons. First, studies have shown that readers of science news fit
advertising’s most desired profile: college-educated, affluent, engaged in the
world around them. Readers about science are likely to be interested in other
parts of the newspaper such as national politics, foreign affairs and local
news. Most readers do look at science news: in one survey, an average of 33
percent of people read all general science news, and an average of 66 percent
of people read all or some general science news.[17]
Finally, although television includes science content on many medical dramas,
newspapers are still an important source of information about current
scientific and medical events.[18]
If these readers can’t find what they want in the local newspaper, they will
simply buy The New York Times instead.
B. Health and medical
news
A quantitative survey of 30
newspapers from around the country shows that news about health and medicine is
getting the best play of the four types of science news; a qualitative look at
health and medical sections and pages in these newspapers shows the same thing.
Of the 30 newspapers surveyed, 12 had stand-alone sections that were either
devoted exclusively to or included news about health and medicine, while
another 12 had one or more pages set aside for health and medical news. The
emphases of these sections and pages, however, varied widely. On one end of the
spectrum is “science and medical” news: stories about new areas of medical
research and new types of medical treatments. On the other end is “health and
fitness” news: stories about diet, exercise and general wellness. A third
category of medical news concerns health-care delivery: stories about HMOs or
about getting medical treatment to minorities and the poor. Besides stories,
these 24 sections and pages included other features as well: 14 ran a briefs
column, 12 ran a calendar of health-related events, and 14 ran question and
answer columns from doctors, pharmacists or fitness specialists. In addition to
special sections and pages devoted to health news, all 30 newspapers ran plenty
of health and medical news in other areas of the paper, especially the front
page, the inside A pages and the features sections.
Among the newspapers that
lean toward science and medical news are The Philadelphia Inquirer, the Atlanta
Journal-Constitution and the Richmond Times-Dispatch; this is
perhaps no accident because in all three papers medical news runs alongside
other types of science news. The “Health and Science” section of The
Philadelphia Inquirer, for instance, featured a story by Marie McCullough
on the controversy surrounding dietary substitutes, using the examples of
Olestra, a fat substitute, and stevia, a calorie-free natural sweetener. Rather
than simply quoting various boosters and knockers of the two substances,
McCullough puts the controversies into context, explaining what the two
substances are and how they work, and tracing Olestra’s approval by the FDA and
stevia’s use in other countries. In this way, the story becomes an exploration
of the phenomenon of medical controversies at the same time as it presented
practical information that could help readers make decisions about what and what
not to eat.
In another example of
science and medical news, Diane Lore of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
explained how one scientific tool – that of lasers – is being used in several
different fields of medicine including ophthalmology, dentistry and general
surgery. The first half of the story lists some procedures that use lasers,
such as correcting near-sightedness, bleaching teeth and removing birthmarks,
and it discusses the advantages of lasers – they don’t cause pain, they don’t
carry bacteria and their stitches heal faster than with regular surgery. The
story goes on to explain how different types of laser have different
characteristics depending on the crystal or gas used to make the photons; for
example, a ruby laser is different from a carbon dioxide laser which is
different from an argon laser. Thus, with the right type of laser, light rays
that pass harmlessly through the eye lens will melt the retinal tissue,
reattaching it to the back of the eye. The story ends with treatments that are
currently under research, such as one for arthritis in which a laser passes
harmlessly through a patient’s skin but relieves pressure at the joints.
In a third example of
science and medical news, Deborah Kelly and Jerome R. Stockfisch in the Richmond
Times-Dispatch explored the topic of sleep – or rather, the lack of it.
Kelly wrote about sleep apnea, a disorder that cuts off breathing during sleep
for 10 to 60 seconds at a time, causing people constantly to wake up from a
deep sleep gasping for breath. The story explains the difference between
central sleep apnea, in which the brain temporarily stops sending the body
instructions to breathe, and obstructive sleep apnea, in which the tongue
relaxes so much that it blocks the airway, and it explores cures for the
disorder, which affects an estimated 12 million people. Stockfisch wrote about
the epidemic of sleep deprivation, exploring its causes, its costs to society,
and what medical research has shown about the purpose of sleep and exactly how
much sleep most people need. A sidebar looked at ways to combat sleep
deprivation, including allowing workers to take “power naps.”
On the other end of the
spectrum of medical news is health and fitness; newspapers that lean toward
this approach are The Miami Herald, the Omaha World-Herald and
the Austin American-Statesman. Miami’s “Food and Fitness,” section, for
example, included a centerpiece on using turkey in meatloaf, hot dogs and
roasts; a column about playing outside instead of working out indoors as a way
to get moving; and a column about the perils of fad dieting. Meanwhile, Omaha’s
“Health and Fitness” section had a centerpiece headlined “The Disciplined
Dean,” about how the dean of the college of arts and science at Creighton
University lost weight through diet and exercise. And Austin’s “Healthy Living”
page had a story on why beans are good for you, a feature on one city
resident’s workout routine (in this case a psychologist-turned-writer named
Ryan Scott who lifts weights at the local Y), and a list of books and websites
on topics such as nutrition, yoga and Richard Simmons. Such information is of
immediate practical interest to many people; everyone has to eat and most
people are interested in eating well, while anyone who exercises will read
easy, digestible stories about workout routines.
The third category of
medical news concerns health-care delivery; this is the topic of many health
and medical stories. The “Health/Science” section of The (Columbia, S.C.)
State, for example, featured a story by Pat Butler about treating patients
who don’t speak English; this is an important issue because the populations of
Hispanics and Asians are rising dramatically in South Carolina, so hospitals
and clinics must find ways to overcome language barriers. Laura Tutor of The
Birmingham News looked at another important issue in health-care delivery
-- the increasing number of television
and magazine advertisements by drug companies – showing that while companies
say they are only trying to get information directly to the patients, doctors
say patients are increasingly diagnosing themselves and demanding a certain
drug as a cure. In a third example, a story accompanied by a trio of columns in
the “Health and Fitness” section of The Dallas Morning News examined the
difficulty in getting many men to go to the doctor. One column by Art Carey of
Knight-Ridder News Service takes the form of a question-and-answer with a
Philadelphia doctor on why it is important to get a prostate exam; another by
Dr. Ken Goldberg, director of the Male Health Institute at Baylor Medical
Center, encourages women to keep take charge of their husbands’ health care; a
third by reporter Kim Pierce tells the story of her husband who refused to go
for regular checkups and dropped dead of a heart attack.
Besides health and medical
stories, many newspapers also include features such as medical briefs, a
calendar of health-related events, and a question-and-answer column. In some
newspapers, briefs are written by reporters from small events or news releases,
while in others they are garnered from the wires. Some papers separate briefs
by whether they are staff or wire written, while others separate briefs by
topic, for example putting all briefs about heart disease in one place. Health
calendars act basically as a community service; they are usually produced from
news releases, faxes and phone calls by a news assistant or other clerical
worker, and typically include notices for event such as blood drives, meetings,
seminars, classes, fitness and sporting events such as marathons. They can vary
widely in length, running as short as six inches or as long as almost an entire
broadsheet page.
Question-and-answer columns
also vary widely by topic. Of the 24 newspapers with health sections or pages,
14 ran one or more Q-and-A columns; of these, five were written by local
practitioners while the rest were taken from the wires. The five local
practitioners have varying specialties; for example, Dr. John B. Armitage, who
writes for The Charlotte Observer, is a pathologist; Dr. Stephan Conti,
who writes for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, is an orthopaedic surgeon;
Dr. Doug Cutter, who writes for the Richmond Times-Dispatch, is director
of a local sports medicine clinic; Dr. Becky Wang-Cheng, who writes for the Milwaukee
Journal-Sentinel, is a professor of medicine; and various doctors of
unspecified backgrounds at the University of Alabama Medical Center write for The
Birmingham News. Specialties among the Q-and-A columns from the wires are
even more varied. For example, Peter Gott, whose column runs in The
(Norfolk) Virginian-Pilot and The (Memphis) Commercial Appeal, is a
medical doctor; Joe and Teresa Graedon, whose column runs in The Charlotte
Observer, the Richmond Times-Dispatch, The (Cleveland) Plain
Dealer, and The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, are pharmacists; and
Karen Collins, whose column runs in the Detroit Free Press, is a
dietician. Some newspapers put the question-and-answer column on their section
fronts, while others put them inside; some run only one while others use two or
even three. Regardless, they generate a lot of mail and are one of the
most-read items in the entire section.
While some newspapers lean
toward science and medical news while others use almost exclusively health and
fitness news, the best health and medical sections mix both types of news while
not ignoring issues in health-care delivery; they also include features such as
briefs, calendars and at least one question-and-answer column. One example of a
well-balanced newspaper is the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette’s eight-page
“Health” section. A cover centerpiece by Ellen Mazo explored how one Pittsburgh
family is coping with a son’s leukemia; other stories looked at the issue of
HMOs trying to set rates for Caesarian sections, new treatments for migraine headaches,
how handicapped people do household chores, a beginner learning to ski, primary
care physicians who treat mental disorders, the question of whether women can
ever outrun men, the issue of surgeons infected with HIV, high rates of asthma
in high-school athletes, and the shortage of blood in blood banks. Most of
these stories are clearly labeled with various sigs, such as Women’s Health,
Mental Health, Disability News, Fitness, and Teen Health. Besides stories, the
section also includes a question-and-answer column with a local doctor, Dr.
Stephan Conti of the Allegheny County Medical Society, as well as a lengthy
health calendar that lists health screenings, blood drives, seminars, classes
and research projects.
Another example of a
well-balanced newspaper is the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel’s “Health and
Science” section. Here, one section-front story by Neal Rosenberg looked at how
the Badger Association for the Blind is distributing new devices to help the
severely visually impaired see better. Another explored a topic few doctors and
patients have considered: the hazards of fire in the operating room. After
describing a case in which a woman hurt in a car wreck died in the emergency
room not because of her injuries but from burns sustained during a hospital
fire, Rosenberg goes on to explain the cause such fires: lots of
electro-surgical equipment surrounded by plenty of flammable material such as
surgical gloves, cotton gauze, disposable curtains, alcohol swabs and oxygen
tanks. The story ends with a long list of tips for preventing such fires. A
third section-front column by John Fauber considered new research and
developments in the search for drugs to help people lose weight, a topic that
bore fruit three months later when the FDA approved one such drug. One inside
story chronicled how Babe Ruth was one of the first people to receive a
combination of chemotherapy and radiation for cancer, while another by Marilyn
Marchione urged people to get the hearing of their newborns checked. The
section also included a set of local briefs and a Q-and-A column by a local
doctor.
A third example of a good
balance of health and medical news is the “Body and Mind” section of the Detroit
Free Press. On the health and fitness side, a cover story on how one man’s
heart attack has changed the eating habits of his entire family included
heart-healthy recipes and a list of tips for staying on track. On the science
and medicine side, a New York Times story explored how the human genome
may be accumulating an unprecedented number of harmful mutations, while a Boston
Globe story looked at research on how chemo-therapy before surgery may help
breast cancer patients, a reverse of the usual order. The section also includes
three listings of events -- one for various sports activities, one for free
screenings, and one for clinics and seminars – along with two sets of briefs –
one general and one for news about the heart – as well as a question-and-answer
column on nutrition by Karen Collins, a dietitian with the American Institute
for Cancer Research in Washington, D.C. One particular feature of note in “Body
and Mind” is its biannual issue on the best doctors in the Detroit metro area;
this issue simply lists these doctors by specialty, getting their names from
Woodward/White Inc. of Aiken, S.C., the company that compiles the list of the
best doctors in the United States for U.S. News and World Report.
According to features editor Dale Parry, this issue of the Detroit Free
Press sells out every time, and it is also among the most profitable in
terms of sales of advertising.
Finally, the quantitative
survey showed that 98 or 596 health and medical stories, or 16 percent, were
located on the same page or on the facing page to at least one health-related
advertisement; however, the amount of health-related advertising seems to bear
no relation to the size of the newspaper. Newspapers of all sizes have gone out
of their way to include health-related advertising, and newspapers of all sizes
have no related advertising at all. For example, among small newspapers the Austin
American-Statesman runs ads from local health clubs on its “Healthy Living”
page, while The Birmingham News runs ads from an orthopaedic surgery
clinic, a weight loss clinic and an ear, nose and throat clinic in its “Health
and Fitness” section. Meanwhile, among larger papers The Atlanta
Journal-Constitution runs no related advertising on its “Science Watch” or
“Health Watch” pages, while The Dallas Morning News runs only a few in
its “Health and Fitness” section and none in its “Discoveries” section. Whether
a newspaper seeks out advertising from area hospitals, clinics, health clubs
and doctors’ offices for its health and medical news pages depends not so much
on the size of the paper but on its management.
The closest thing the Lexington
Herald-Leader has to a health or medical news section is Tuesday’s “Living
Well” section, which must carry not only health news but also regular feature
material such as Ann Landers, comics and the crossword puzzle. It is certainly
possible to put out a fine health section that is combined with other features
material; The Philadelphia Inquirer does this every week. Moreover,
Lexington’s section has several strengths. First, it is laid out well; photos,
graphics and text are arranged attractively, especially for cover stories.
Second, it includes a good mix of news; the Jan. 19, 1999, issue, for example,
included stories about creative cooking with frozen dinners, the importance of
getting a prostate exam, lawsuits arising from vaginal births after Caesarian
sections and recommendations for use of helmets by skiers.
However, the “Living Well”
section could be improved in a few ways. First, the mission of the section
should be more clear. Is it the newspaper’s health news section? If so, what
type of health news does it want to emphasize – science and medical, health and
fitness, health-care delivery, or a mix of all three? Could a staff-written
medical story – for example, Jim Warren’s story about research on Alzheimer’s
disease at the University of Kentucky -- ever go in “Living Well,” or would
that story go only on A1 or B1? Could an excellent health and fitness wire
story – for example a Dallas Morning News story about how scientists are
experimenting with different types of alternative medicine – ever go in “Living
Well,” or would that run only as a closeup or on the science page? Would the
mission of the “Living Well” section change depending on whether or not the
newspaper ran a separate stand-alone science and health page?
Second, the Herald-Leader
should consider picking up one of the many good question-and-answer columns
from the wires, or better yet, finding a local doctor to write such a column.
My recommendation would be to follow the example of The Charlotte Observer
and do both. From the wires, Charlotte runs “The People’s Pharmacy” a widely
read and extremely informative column by Joe and Teresa Graedon of Durham,
N.C.; this column could doubly serve the Lexington market because no radio
station in the area airs the Graedons’ radio show, which is very popular and
receives calls from people all over the United States. Lexington should also
consider looking for a local doctor who could write a question-and-answer
column once a week. That person’s medical specialty is not important, but it is
important that he or she be able to write well, explain the answers clearly,
and not talk down to the questioners; unlike in the area of general science, it
is much more possible to find a health practitioner who meets these criteria.
Of course I realize that
space in the “Living Well” section is limited, so the Herald-Leader would have
to drop something to make room for one or two new question-and-answer columns.
My recommendation is to drop Dr. Laura Schlessinger. Of all the possible people
to write a health and wellness column in the entire newspaper world, Dr. Laura
is perhaps the least qualified. Despite her title, she is not a medical doctor
or even a qualified psychotherapist; her PhD is in physiology, not any type of
behavioral medicine. Moreover, she isn’t even qualified to appeal to the
conservative morals and politics of many Kentuckians; after all, this is the
woman whose nude pictures were put all over the Internet by her ex-boss and
boyfriend, a man 30 years her senior who helped launch her radio career and
with whom she had an affair with when both people were married to someone else!
Third, readers can hear Laura Schlessinger’s radio show on two stations in
Lexington, so there is no reason for the Lexington Herald-Leader to give
her more exposure. If the Herald-Leader truly wants to include practical
news that real readers can use, just about any other health practitioner’s
question-and-answer column would be better.
Finally, the Lexington
Herald-Leader does make some use of health-related advertising in its
“Living Well” section, but it could push this more. The advertising department
could target the section as a place for ads from hospitals, clinics and health
clubs, among others, especially if the section was better defined as the place
for health-related news. In addition, such advertisers would be willing to pay
a premium for space in a special section on the best doctors in Kentucky; if
the Detroit Free Press can get such information for its readers every
two years, there is no reason the Lexington Herald Leader can’t do the
same thing. Still, the paper must avoid the pitfall of what I call “advertising
run amok,” in which advertising drives content rather than the other way
around. This is what has happened at the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, to
the deep dismay of its reporters and editors. There, advertisers have banded
together to demand special sections on topics such as HMOs or aging, not
because those topics are making news but purely as an advertising mechanism.
Worse, without consulting the editorial side, the advertising department has
started to put out advertorials which are laid out to look exactly like the
regular “Health and Science” section, only with text that touts a certain
product or service; these sections are labeled as advertising, but only in tiny
print at the bottom of the page that is easy to miss. Thus, so long as related
advertising at Lexington does not cross this line, so long as content drives
advertising and not the other way around, it is a good thing for the newspaper.
C. Technology news
Of the four types of science news, technology news is the fastest changing. It is the most likely to be put into a special section or page, as nine newspapers had separate sections devoted to technology and 15 newspapers had one or more special pages for technology.[19] It is also the fastest growing type of science news – if three of the 12 papers I visited were in the process of dropping their general science writers, four were also in the process of completely revamping their technology coverage.[20] But technology news is also the least defined; topics of stories in technology sections range from an explanation of how different types of technology work to stories about new gadgets on the market to advice about how to use computers and the Internet to profiles of local people involved in technology companies to stories about the effects of technology in school or at work to various features such as commentary, question-and-answer columns, computer game and software reviews, calendars of online events and technology briefs, which themselves can include news, gadgets and upcoming events.
Despite the variety of
stories about technology, the major movement in the field is toward consumer
news. Half of the technology sections and pages reflect this in their titles,
carrying such names as “Person@l Technology,” “PC@Home,” “Plugged In,” “Home
Computing,” and “My.Tech.” These sections and pages lean heavily toward news
about computers, and are produced for the purpose of helping consumers make
sense of an industry that is changing faster than most can keep up with.
Editors of these sections argue that newspapers must take this strategy because
of a principle called Moore’s Law. Named after Gordon Moore, one of the
founders of the Intel Corporation, Moore’s Law states that every 18 months
microprocessors will become twice as powerful but become twice as cheap; this
makes the computer industry unlike any other, and makes covering computers
unlike covering anything else. Many editors I spoke with see no end to the
geometric rise in the number of consumer electronic goods or in the demand for
them. Whether they include kitchen appliances that can communicate with each
other over the Internet or little sunglasses you can wear on the beach to read
your email, many editors think that new products will keep coming out, that
they will become cheaper and cheaper, and the people will keep wanting them.
Therefore, they argue, it is part of the newspaper’s responsibility to keep
people informed of these technological trends, to help them sort out what is
and isn’t worth buying, and to help them use the products that they have
already purchased.
Perhaps the best example of
a technology section that emphasizes consumer news is the Sunday “Personal
Technology” section at The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Edited by Susan
Wells, the section was originally envisioned as a complete guide to computers
and the Internet; it includes several computer columns and other standing
features, a page devoted to helping parents and children make the most of the
family computer, and lots of
technology advertising. On the front of the Jan. 24, 1999 issue, for example,
is a column by Ernest Holsendolph about how to get the best deal by using the
Internet to compare prices for items such as plane tickets, books and
automobile insurance; it is accompanied by Bill Husted’s “Technobuddy” column
on how shopping online will eventually become as normal as heading to the mall.
On Page 2 are the “Tech Tools” column by Jack Warner on a monitor attachment
that will help ease eyestrain; a “Mac News” column by Charles Haddad on Apple
Computers expanding into the computer game market; Haddad’s “Tech Media” column
on computer-related items in print and on CD; and the “Tech Report” feature by
Mark Clothier on Star Wars websites, electronic books and cases to hold your
PalmPilot. Page 3 is devoted to “Family Tech”; it includes a feature story on
websites to help people manage their money and debt, one about how to supervise
children’s time on the Internet, and a review of a “The Robot Club,” a computer
game for kids. On Pages 6 and 7 are still more stories to help people with
their home computers: One shows people how to check whether their home
computers are ready for Y2K; another gives a not-so-hot review of a computer
game based on the Final Four tournament; a “Cyberscene” column by Bill Husted
on how parents can find information about movies on the Internet; a fourth
story highlights a new pocket email device. Throughout the section is a massive
amount of technology advertising, including five full pages of ads, one page
that is 2/3 advertising, one that is about 1/2 advertising, and one that is 1/3
advertising. Such sections as Atlanta’s “Personal Technology” section, then,
not only serve a practical purpose for the reader, they also make loads of
money for the paper.
On the other end of the spectrum from consumer news about technology are stories about the effect of technology in society; these stories may not offer a lot of practical advice about how to use computers and the Internet, but they do cover topics such as how technology is being employed in schools, at work and at home, and how it is changing the lives of those who use it. In this way, these stories treat technology not as a product to be bought and used, but like any other topic in journalism to be investigated and assessed for its both promise and its risk. Few sections or pages devote themselves entirely to this type of technology news but many include it in their overall mix. For example, the “tech.life @ inquirer” section of The Philadelphia Inquirer ran a two-story package on the Y2K computer bug. The first explains why the glitch is such a problem for government and business, showing how a computer programmed to delete credit card accounts with no activity for five years could wreak havoc if it only reads the last two number of a date. The second shows people how to make their home computers Y2K compliant, explaining how to upgrade the computer’s BIOS, or basic input/output system. Both stories are accompanied by a graphic showing just how tricky it is for programmers to find references to the Y2K bug buried in the millions of lines of computer code. In other examples, the San Francisco Chronicle’s “Technology” section centerpieced a story about how the companies that sell Butterfinger candy bars, Kawasaki motorcycles and Gatorade sports drinks are paying to place their products in computer games, while The (Portland) Oregonian’s “Tech Northwest” featured a story about a non-profit company that is linking small town residents to the Internet. On the lighter side, The (Baltimore) Sun ran a story about what the Top 10 screensavers of 1998 say about American society, while The (Raleigh) News and Observer ran a story about how computer games are increasingly forcing girls to fight.
A third type of technology
story is the “how things work” piece; this simply introduces people to a new
type of technology and explains how it operates. Sometimes this information is
included in the form of a graphic that accompanies a story about a product that
is just coming to the market; for example, The Seattle Times’ “Personal
Technology” section centerpieced a story on high definition television
accompanied by a large graphic explaining exactly how HDTV gets such a sharp
image, while the Lexington Herald-Leader’s “Technology” page featured a
story about the Global Positioning System accompanied by a graphic explaining
how satellites send information to the user. Sometimes these stories explain
products that are not widely known; for example, The Virginian-Pilot
featured a story about small devices used in corporate espionage such as a
video camera designed to look like a clock radio, while the Austin
American-Statesman ran a story about security scanners that identify people
by palm prints or eye color. And sometimes these stories can be incredibly
basic; in one example, The (Cleveland) Plain Dealer devoted an entire
page to the “Anatomy of a Computer,” running a large graphic of the innards of
a Dell Dimension XPS D266, labeling each item such as the memory, hard drive,
CD-ROM, modem, fan and power switch, and explaining what they do and how to
upgrade them.
A fourth type of technology
news is what I call the “local technology” story; these are done mainly in
cities that have a large technology industry, such as Austin, Raleigh, Atlanta,
Dallas and Seattle, and include news about the industry itself, what local
companies are doing and profiles of the people involved. For example, the Austin
American-Statesman’s “Tech Monday” section led with a profile of Austin
resident Ravi Arimilli, an IBM engineer who has more than 100 patented
inventions to his name; a sidebar from the San Jose Mercury News
interviewed Paul Horn, IBM’s director of research, on the direction he is
taking the company. In another example, The (Raleigh) News and Observer
took an in-depth look at the six men behind Red Hat, a local company that makes
the Linux computer operating system which is giving Microsoft’s DOS a run for
its money because it can be downloaded from the internet for free. Meanwhile,
the San Francisco Chronicle’s Jon Swartz wrote a column about Joe
Firmage, the former head of USWeb Corp., who resigned after negative publicity
over his 600-page online treatise “The Truth,” which stated his belief that all
of humankind’s religious and technological advances are linked to visits from
extra-terrestrials. In other examples, The (Portland) Oregonian profiled
a local radio announcer who broadcasts his show over the Internet, while The
Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s “Atlanta Tech” pages carry news about local
technology companies such as Sprint, Teligent and Mindspring, all of which are
headquartered in Atlanta.
Finally, many technology
sections and pages run numerous special features such as commentary,
question-and-answer columns, computer software and game reviews, online
calendars, and technology briefs. Technology attracts more commentary
columnists than any other type of science news; some of the best are Bill
Husted at The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Mike Langberg and David
Plotnikoff at the San Jose Mercury News, and T.R. Reid and Brit Hume of
the Washington Post Writers Group. There is also no shortage of people who
answer reader questions about technology, mostly about problems with computers;
some of the better ones include James Coates of the Chicago Tribune
(reprinted in four of the newspapers I studied), the very tongue-in-cheek Dr.
Emilio Bombay of the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram (reprinted in two of the
newspapers I studied), and John J. Fried of The Philadelphia Inquirer,
who is notable for incorporating reader suggestions into his columns. Most
technology sections and pages also include information about interesting
websites; sometimes this comes in the form of a graphic, such as The
Philadelphia Inquirer’s ”Web Winners” graphic, but usually it is in the
form of a story on websites about a particular topic. For example, The
(Portland) Oregonian ran a story about state government websites, The
Dallas Morning News ran one on websites about bedtime stories, the Pittsburgh
Post-Gazette ran a story on websites about Michael Jordan, The Seattle
Times ran a story about websites to help small business as well as a review
of a website called “Political Junkie,” and The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
runs a daily feature called “Netwatch,” which points its readers to various
sites on the Internet. Reviews of computer software and games are less popular;
five newspapers do each, mostly farming the stories out to free-lancers or
non-technology staff members; The Dallas Morning News, for example,
gleans all of its software and game reviews from people around the newsroom who
play with computers in their spare time. Finally, five newspaper also include a
calendar of online events, such as online chats with authors and celebrities
and live concerts over the internet; such a calendar is available from Tribune
Media Services although some papers add their own local events.
Although there is a large
variety in the types of technology stories a newspaper can run, as with health
and medical news the best technology sections and pages will carry a mix of all
of them; practical information and a guide to gadgets can be very useful to the
reader, but the one thing a newspaper can do that magazines like PC World
and Consumer Reports can’t is to report on the changes that these
technological devices are making in our society. Add to these stories an
insightful technology commentary, a clearly written question-and-answer column,
a computer software or game review, a list of interesting websites for the day
or a calendar of online events, and you have coverage that will appeal to
almost anyone, as well as to advertisers that want to reach consumers who are
interested in and savvy about technology.
Currently, Lexington has an
open technology page that runs in the Sunday “Your Money and Technology”
section; although it can fit only three or four stories on any given week, a
look at what has been featured on it during a period of four months shows that
it is about as well balanced as one page can be, despite the fact that almost
all of the copy comes from the wires.[21]
On the consumer news side were stories about networking home appliances (Jan.
24), protecting home appliances against the Y2K bug (Jan. 31), researching
family ancestry on the Internet (Feb. 7), a look at the Microsoft website for
women (Feb. 14), a review of programs that block internet advertising (Feb.
21), golf carts that use the global positioning system (Feb. 28), what to look
for in a laptop (March 7), how to check computer programs for bugs (March 14),
websites for chess players (March 28), new features on cellular phones (April
18) and a review of the Linux system (April 25). On the technology in society
side were stories about the growing faux pas of accidentally sending email to
the wrong person (Jan. 24), the increase in internet companies offering free
personal computers for signing up (Jan. 31), controversial websites becoming
targets for disruption (Feb. 7), calculating the value of Internet stocks (Feb.
14), how independent musicians are turning to the Internet to sell CDs (Feb.
21), the lack of etiquette in email messages (Feb. 28), how engineers are using
the machinery of DNA to design ever-smaller computer chips (March 7), the
nuisance of automated phone systems (March 14), the pros and cons of toddlers
using computers (March 21), the marriage of internet systems and telephone
companies (April 11), how computers are helping the visually impaired (April
18), and the lessons of the Melissa virus scare (April 25). Each week the page
also includes features such as the “Hotlink” to an interesting website, the
“Overheard” quote about technology, and the “Tech for you” definition of a word
in technology jargon. Finally, it is attractively designed and usually well
illustrated with at least one large photo or graphic.
I have two suggestions for
improving Lexington’s Technology page: First, give it more room, and second,
work harder to attract technology-related advertising. On the first point,
giving the page more room does not necessarily entail devoting an entire
section only to technology. Most newspapers that have stand-alone technology
sections are located in cities where computers or some other type of technology
is the major industry; this is not the case in Lexington. However, the
newspaper could give technology a little more space inside the Sunday “Your
Money and Technology” section by allowing one story from the technology page to
jump and then running other technology stories on the jump page. During some
weeks one or more stories from the technology page already jump even though
they are starting from the inside; why not designate one story that will jump
every week (possibly even creating its own sig), much like we do with the
Closeup from our daily A3? We would then have more space to run some things our
current Technology page is missing: a regular technology commentary, a
question-and-answer column, software or game reviews and an online calendar.
Some features, such as
software and game reviews, could be written by Herald-Leader staff;
however, there is no shortage of good material about technology on the wires.
For a technology commentary column, I would highly recommend looking at Bill
Husted’s “Technobuddy” column from The Atlanta Journal-Constitution;
Husted never talks over the heads of readers, even newcomers to computers and
the Internet, yet his thoughts are always relevant, insightful and
entertaining. Other columnists to consider are two from the San Jose Mercury
News: Mike Langberg, who writes about new computer products, and David
Plotkinoff, who often takes a wry look at the way computers are being used.
Among those who write question-and-answer columns, I would recommend James
Coates of the Chicago Tribune and John J. Fried of The Philadelphia
Inquirer; both deal with common questions associated with popular computer
programs such as Windows 98 and neither talks down to readers, even relative
beginners. Another Q-and-A columnist is Dr. Emilio Bombay; however, his answers
sometimes becomes so flippant as to be utterly useless.[22]
Commentary and columns that appeal to beginners are especially important to the
Lexington Herald-Leader; unlike readers in such technologically advanced
places as Seattle, Austin or Raleigh, readers in Kentucky may not know a lot
about computers. Still, the use of computers, cellular telephones and other new
technologies is only going to grow, and as these devices become less and less expensive,
they may have an even greater impact in the small towns and rural areas than
they do in the larger cities.
Reviews of computer software
and games are one feature that can easily be written by newspaper staff, even
people who don’t know a lot about technology; The Dallas Morning News,
for example, does all its reviews this way. The Lexington Herald-Leader
has done this periodically when Chris Ware reviews computer games; however, it
is likely that if editors put out a call, they could find enough additional
people that the paper could review a different piece of computer software or
computer game each week. Producing such reviews locally has the added advantage
that the newspaper could review items of particular interest in Kentucky, such
as the computer game based on the Final Four. Finally, a little more room would
allow the Herald-Leader to run a calendar of online events; a service
that tells people when they can chat online with William Shatner, Jimmy Smits,
Scott Adams, Tony Curtis or Lesley Stahl, and when they can hear live concerts
by the Dave Matthews Band, Rod Stewart or Son Volt is bound to attract more
readers, even if they have never tried such technology before.
My second suggestion to
improve the Lexington Herald Leader’s coverage of technology would be to
work more with other departments in the newspaper to attract technology related
advertising. Here, I recommend that we follow the lead of Rich Oppel at the Austin
American-Statesman by forming a committee of key people from news, advertising,
marketing, circulation and Kentucky Connect to look at how we can attract more
advertising for the technology pages; this committee could discuss issues such
as how to let companies know that we already have an excellent technology page,
whether we should expand the page and whether we need more staff-written
stories on the page. Once we start making more money, perhaps staff could be
added and the section expanded or the money could go to support a regular open
science page, which would itself attract more readers who are interested in
technology. Although companies pay some money to be listed in the Internet
Directory, we need to do a better job of getting display advertising not just
from computer companies such as IBM and Lexmark, but from companies that want
to advertise cell phones, pagers and other technological devices.
D. Environmental news
A quantitative examination
of 30 newspapers showed that environmental news was the least common of the
four types of science news because newspapers ran fewer environmental stories
than general science, health or technology stories. However, the few
environmental stories that did run were very important: they were among the
lengthiest of science stories, by far the most likely to go on the front page,
and the only type of science story more likely to be staff-written than pulled
from the wires. In other words, according to the statistics environmental news
at many newspapers is both locally oriented and extremely important, a finding
that a qualitative look at these newspapers backs up. At The (Raleigh) News
and Observer, for example, a 1995 report led by projects editor Melanie
Sill on pollution from hog farms in eastern North Carolina won the Pulitzer
Prize, while an August 1997 series spearheaded by Stuart Leavenworth on urban
sprawl led to the formation of the newspaper’s Growth and Development team. At
the Austin American-Statesman, environmental reporter Ralph K.M.
Haurwitz and photographer Ralph Barrera were given 6 months to produce a July
1998 series on the lack of running water in many poor areas in Texas including
just outside of Austin. Environmental reporting is the premiere beat at The
(Louisville) Courier-Journal, says reporter Andrew Melnykovych, who wrote
an April 1998 series on clear-cutting in Kentucky forests. Editors at The
(Columbia, S.C.) State, The Charlotte Observer and The Dallas
Morning News also said environmental news is among the most important at
their newspaper and that they are willing to give environmental reporters
substantial time and space to do in-depth investigative journalism.
Perhaps the most striking
point about environmental news is that Group I newspapers are doing it as well
as, and in many cases better than, their counterparts in Groups II and III. An
good example of the kind of work being done by smaller newspapers is The
(Raleigh) News and Observer’s five-part series “Driving Forces”; running
July 20-24, 1997, the series examined the issue of urban sprawl in the Triangle
region of North Carolina. It began by looking at how the
I-540 highway, then being constructed as an outer ring around Raleigh, would
shape future growth in the Triangle; already “the Loop” had attracted proposals
for two dozen subdivisions, several new office parks and three shopping malls.
Day 2 showed how different approaches to development in Durham and Chapel Hill
had resulted in traffic chaos along “the Boulevard,” the stretch of highway
between the two cities. Day 3 examined how Raleigh had quietly annexed for
development a 2000-acre tract known as Wakefield Plantation, despite the fact
that the area was five miles north of the city but just across Hwy. 1 from the
town of Wake Forest. Day 4 looked at how other cities are (and are not)
combating urban sprawl; the case of Atlanta showed what the Triangle region
could become, while the case of Austin showed a city willing to try an
innovative approach to building neighborhoods. Day 5 carried the results of two
polls on urban sprawl, one of Triangle residents and one of its political
leaders; both groups viewed growth as generally good, although residents had
more concerns than did politicians about its side effects. Finally, on July 27
the newspaper ran columns from four citizens with different perspectives on the
issue of development who answered the question, “When does growth cross the
line?”
Obviously a series like The
News and Observer’s “Driving Forces” does not just happen; it takes a lot
of time, commitment and teamwork from the entire newspaper. In this case,
reporters Stuart Leavenworth, Sally Hicks and Lynn Bonner, photographer Gary
Allen and graphic artist Grey Blackwell worked with projects editors Melanie
Sill and J. Damon Cain for several months to produce the 21-page series; these
seven people were assisted by nine others, including a reporter, a photo
editor, a graphics editor, a copy editor, two more graphic artists and three
research assistants. The fruits of all this labor were readily apparent in the
overall report: the series was designed attractively, photos were clear and compelling,
and graphics were highly informative and central to the theme. Some examples of
good photos were: horses grazing on a rural farm while on the fence was a sign
saying “Proposed site of a 4 lane outer loop”; visibly dirty water from a
stream diverted by construction workers building a culvert near the airport; a
shot from the air of endless cul-de-sacs in north Raleigh and Cary, with one on
the left under construction; a traffic jam on the Boulevard between Durham and
Chapel Hill, complete with road construction and heat waves; and a huge
collapsed retaining wall behind a controversial shopping center in a wooded
area. Good graphics were just as plentiful: one particularly nice Landsat image
showed clearly how development in Durham is polluting Falls Lake, the main
source of Raleigh’s drinking water; another full-page map of the 70-mile Loop
around Raleigh showed how each proposed interchange might affect nearby
communities; a third graphic depicted the history of development on the
Boulevard between Durham and Chapel Hill, clearly charting the rise in traffic
congestion over the previous 14 years. Finally, stories were accompanied by a
section of quotes from ordinary citizens called “Speak Out,” one on upcoming
meetings, studies and reports called “The Road Ahead,” and one called “City
Limits” summarizing how other urban areas are approaching the issue of
development.
The (Raleigh) News and
Observer is
not the only Group I newspaper to produce excellent local environmental
reporting; at the Austin American-Statesman, a four-part series by
environmental reporter Ralph K.M. Haurwitz and photographer Ralph Barrera
resulted in the governor appointing a task force to look into why a $459
million program to bring water and sewer service to everyone in the state had
hooked up only 36,000 people in eight years while hundreds of thousands of
others in areas along the border with Mexico, in east Texas, and even in Travis
County still had no running water. The two Ralphs found several reasons for
this situation, including a lack of governmental oversight, lack of enforcement
of consumer laws and a lack of consistent health standards. Along the Mexican
border entire neighborhoods referred to as “colonias” had sprouted up; these
were basically shantytowns where poor families had scraped together the money
to buy small, dilapidated housing with the promise that water and sewer service
was on the way. This service never showed up because utility companies did not
want to serve substandard neighborhoods, and Texas law gave state and county
government only limited authority to compel them to do it. The few laws that
existed were not being enforced, such as consumer laws against developers who
make false promises about the availability of running water. Nor were there
uniform health standards across the state concerning drainage, roads and sewer
lines, so that even if the utilities hired an engineering company to bring in
service, there was no guarantee that the work would be done correctly or in any
reasonable length of time. These problems were not limited to south Texas; they
also existed in ramshackle housing and trailer parks in poor areas of east
Texas, and in some cases just outside of Austin. The result was that despite
the millions of dollars spent on the problem, an estimated 400,000 state
residents lived without basic sanitation, posing serious health and
environmental risks.
Response to the series,
which ran from July 12-15, 1998, was overwhelmingly positive. “The American-Statesman’s
work on this issue is an example of journalism at its best – researching and
explaining a complex issue, unknown or misunderstood by most people,” wrote one
reader. “A repeat of this series right before the ’99 Legislature meets might
move our lawmakers to take some long overdue action,” wrote another. More
importantly, Texas Gov. George W. Bush directed Secretary of State Al Gonzales
to look into the situation and recommend improvements; this task was taken over
by Elton Bomer when Gonzales became a state supreme court justice. Bomer’s recommendations,
delivered in February 1999, included:
1) appointing six ombudsmen in border counties with salaries paid half by the
county and half by the state; 2) assigning an official in the secretary of
state’s office to monitor colonia matters full time; 3) giving county officials
in border regions the authority to grant utility easements when absentee
landowners cannot be found; 4) giving the Texas Water Development Board more
authority over local governments’ selection of engineering and construction companies,
and directing it to require monthly progress reports from cities, counties and
other sponsors of water and sewer projects; and 5) amending state la to allow
utility pipelines to be installed along roads that are 30 feet wide rather than
50 feet wide as currently required. By March, several bills in the state
legislature that incorporated these recommendations were receiving bipartisan
support. Meanwhile, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison had secured a $100 million
federal grant for water projects in the state by persuading Congress to soften
a rule requiring the state to come up with matching funds. Political and social
challenges remain, however; for example, in a ruling on whether the Texas
constitution allowed the state to use federal money to provide water and sewer
hookups, the state Water Development Board decided that providing pipes from an
existing water line to a house is legal but that building bathrooms and
installing kitchen sinks is not.
A third small newspaper that
does an excellent job of covering the environment is The State of
Columbia, S.C., where a team led by investigative reporting director Doug
Pardue has taken on such topics as radioactive waste generated by the Savannah
River Site nuclear plant, the contamination of wells that provide drinking
water for half the people in the state, and the disappearance of plant and
animal life in overdeveloped areas along beaches. The environment is a top
priority at the newspaper, says managing editor Carol Hanner, because it is so
important to the state; people move to South Carolina because of its natural
beauty, yet the growth and development spawned by their arrival threatens the
very reason they came. For example, despite its small size South Carolina is
second in the country in the number of nuclear reactors, while the Savannah
River Site in Aiken was once one of the most important nuclear weapons
production facilities in the country. Although nuclear plants are currently
well regulated, environmental reporters Sammy Fretwell and Andrew Meadows found
this has not always been the case, after the U.S. government declassified 2383
documents that showed scientists had linked pollution at the Savannah River
Site to radiation in plants and animals as early as the 1960s. Another
environment issue the newspaper covered was that of polluted drinking water;
the problem is significant because half the population of the state gets its
drinking water from wells yet half of all wells tested were contaminated. Here,
the newspaper was able to pinpoint some of the causes of the contamination:
growth and development that polluted the water table, poorly constructed
landfills that leaked waste, and unregulated drillers who did not properly cap
wells. In a third issue, pollution along the oceans, the newspaper helped spur
state regulation with its stories on how runoff from cars, roads and buildings
was trickling into water at Myrtle Beach while pesticides used on a golf course
at Hilton Head were destroying oyster beds.
With other small newspapers
producing such excellent local environmental journalism, there is no reason the
Lexington Herald-Leader cannot do the same. Certainly there are as many
important environmental issues in Kentucky as in North Carolina, South Carolina
and Texas; some obvious ones are pollution in rivers, clear-cutting of forests
and mining in the mountains. Currently, environmental reporter Andy Mead does a
great job of covering these issues; however, he is also asked to write a number
of stories that have nothing to do with his beat. My recommendation for
improving environmental news at the Herald-Leader is three-fold. First,
the newspaper needs to identify which overall issues (not just environmental)
are most important to the people of the Kentucky; this was done at The State
by asking everyone on staff to join one of several teams, each of which came up
with and ranked a list of issues. In this way, the paper identified its top
five priorities for the year: growth and the environment, education, health and
welfare of children, gambling in casino boats and video poker, and a state
government in transition from Republican to Democrat. If it has not done so
already, the Herald-Leader should undertake a similar visioning process;
we might not go about it in exactly the same way or come up with the same
results as at The State, but we should have a good idea of what stories
and issues we want to tackle in the coming months. My suspicion is that
environmental issues will rank among the top. Second, after we decide what we
want to do, we need to go after it; whether this means forming a team of
reporters, photographers and graphics designers to do an in-depth series or
simply freeing up Andy to pursue longer-range stories, we need to be prepared
to commit more resources, not fewer, to covering the most important issues in
the state.
My third recommendation, one
of Andy’s ideas, is to start a weekly staff-written column about the
environment. This column could run any day of the week, though Saturday might
be good because that is when people are most often thinking of doing outdoor
activities such as boating or hiking. In the column Andy could include small
consumer-oriented items that currently have no home, such as information about
how people can recycle batteries. But the column could also include information
about science and environmental events such as nature walks at Raven Run or
upcoming meteor showers, thoughts about environmental issues such as river
pollution or strip mining, or opinions about how state government might better
protect Kentucky’s natural resources. If the Lexington Herald-Leader did
start an environmental column, it would be the only newspaper in the state to
have one. Yet Kentucky is similar to other southern states in that it has a
great deal of natural beauty that is threatened by lots of growth and
development on the one hand and poor government management on the other. There
is ample material here not only for a weekly column, but for substantial
investigative reporting as well.
Through this quantitative
and qualitative survey, I have attempted to show how newspapers have gone from
covering basic research to practical applications, and how this trend has led
to an emphasis on news about medicine and technology but has hurt coverage of
general science. In their book Worlds Apart: How the Distance Between
Science and Journalism Threatens America’s Future, Jim Hartz and Rich
Chappell discuss four reasons why general science news lags so far behind the
other three types: scientists who don’t speak English, reporters who don’t
speak science, uncertain gatekeepers and an ill-equipped public. Scientists,
Hartz and Chappell argue, are trained not to communicate with the public but to
do research in a laboratory; for them, wordy, jargon-filled language is not
sloppy writing but a way of being more precise. Whereas reporters want to write
compelling stories, scientists want to qualify their statements in percentages
and possibilities; this is because science rarely consists of breakthroughs but
is instead a continuum in which each piece of research builds on what came
before and a consensus emerges only over a period of time. Still, some
scientific research is becoming so narrow that even other scientists have
difficulty understanding it. Worse, some scientists who do try to explain their
research have suffered from the “Carl Sagan effect,” criticized for spending
too much time with the press. [23]
This phenomenon may be a holdover from the days when science was done in secret
labs for the military and scientists were not allowed to discuss their work;
now, however, when science must compete against every other worthy cause for
public and private funding, scientists cannot afford to hold such attitudes.
The second reason newspapers
are not covering general science, Hartz and Chappell say, is that journalists
who leap at the chance to expose government waste, identify private fraud or
relate a compelling human drama balk at the idea of covering science. This is
mainly because they do not understand it; many journalists went into a career
based on verbal skills in part because they disliked math, and few have a basic
understanding of the scientific method.[24]
Even Walter Cronkite writes in his memoirs of the hours of study he went
through to report on the space program, noting wryly that the physics professor
who flunked him because he did not understand how a pulley works was probably
spinning in his grave. Worse than ignorance, however, is a newsroom culture
that increasingly emphasizes sensationalism and tabloidization; such attitudes
are inimical to the gradual endeavor of science and make it even less likely
that accurate reporting will get through. Increasingly, all but the biggest
newspapers are treating science news like everything else, sending in
inexperienced reporters who don’t know the difference between a photon and a
proton to get a quick soundbite before moving on to the next story.[25]
Still, some reporters who don’t start out with a background in science quickly
learn the beat, and given time and resources they can become very effective
communicators of science.
A third reason Hartz and
Chappell see for the lack of general science news is uncertainty among
gatekeepers who decide which stories will be published. As science writer John
Noble Wilford points out, most editors rose to their jobs through covering
politics, business or sports, but few are qualified to judge the relative
merits of stories about science. The power of gatekeepers lies in their ability
to set the agenda, and science must compete with crime, courts, government,
schools and other beats for a portion of the newshole. Ira Flatow of National
Public Radio observes that many editors can easily grasp the importance of a
science story if it involves medicine, but they must be educated if it involves
physics, astronomy or chemistry. Editors cite their own reasons for not making
science news a priority. First, they say, science news does not attract a lot
of advertising; yet, as the experience of The Dallas Morning News shows,
science news pays for itself in other ways, by attracting an audience that is
affluent and interested in the rest of the newspaper, and by drawing in
children who will become the newspaper readers of the future. Moreover,
newspapers are willing to print other things, such as pages of stock quotes,
with little or no advertising, so why not science? Second, editors argue,
readers are not interested in science news. Yet this assertion contradicts
practical experience: the Tuesday issue of The New York Times, which contains
its “Science Times” section, sells more papers than any other day of the week,
Newsweek’s science covers are among its most popular, and the Discovery Channel
attracts more viewers than CNN.[26]
Third, editors contend, readers don’t understand stories about science; in some
cases this is true, but it is no excuse not to report an important development.
Newspapers go to great lengths to explain local zoning issues, questions in
criminal law, and even arcane rules of baseball; there is no reason not to do
the same for science.
The fourth reason Hartz and
Chappell see for the poor coverage of general science is that the public is
ill-equipped to make sense of science news. One survey found that only about a
quarter of Americans consider themselves well enough informed about the “nature
of scientific inquiry” to make adequate judgments about reports they might read
or see in the media.[27]
In another survey, less than half the respondents knew that electrons are
smaller than atoms, that human beings did not live at the same time as the
dinosaurs, or that the earth takes one year, not one day or one month, to go
around the sun.[28] American
understanding of science is so poor in large part because it is not taught well
in schools. Although during the Cold War the launch of Sputnik spurred the
United States to embark on a vast program of science education, this momentum
has come to a halt. Now teachers themselves are barely qualified; according to
one report, less than 4 percent of elementary math and science teachers had
majored in math or science education, while in middle school only 11 percent of
math teachers and 21 percent of science teachers had majored in their
specialties.[29] Another
study found that a quarter of high school teachers lacked college training in their
subjects, and 40 percent of math teachers were not qualified.[30]
The results of this lack of teaching standards are apparent. In 1995, 11,000
American seventh- and eighth-graders were among 500,000 students from 41
countries tested for their knowledge of math and science; the Americans beat
students from only four countries in both areas: Lithuania, Cyprus, Portugal
and Iran. Singapore took the top spot in both science and math, followed by
South Korea, Japan and Hong Kong in math; our top 5 percent of eighth-graders
would rank only in the 50th percentile in Singapore and in the 75th
percentile in Japan.
What can be done? Hartz and
Chappell have a few suggestions for both scientists and journalists. For
scientists, one of their recommendations is to seek out advice and training
from media experts such as public relations officers in universities and
corporations. Such training can help a scientist frame his or her work in terms
of a story, using metaphors such as a detective seeking clues in a mystery or an
explorer discovering new frontiers. Scientists should draw reporters into
genuine conversations and strive to establish long-term relationships with
local journalists who cover science. Scientific societies could make papers
easily available over the Internet, and scientific journals could devise a
system for flagging the most important research. Scientists also must learn to
supply the background necessary to understand their research and put their work
into a scientific context. They need to be clear about the tentative nature of
their findings and not engage in hype. Above all, scientists need to explain to
non-scientists how what they are doing will benefit society as a whole, even if
some of those benefits are years away. NASA Administrator Dan Goldin has made
such communication a priority for scientists who work in the space program,
arguing that “If they can do the wonderful things they do in science, they can
step back and take the time to speak plain English, to understand that the
American public finances a major portion of this work, and [is] the customer –
not their scientific peers.”[31]
Hartz and Chappell also have
some recommendations for journalists. First, journalists do not have to have an
advanced degree in physics to cover science, but they do have to do their
homework. There is a difference between basic questions, which may help a
reporter explain a science story to non-scientists, and dumb questions, which
serve only to irritate scientists. Journalists need to have a basic
understanding of the scientific method, that science is an incremental process
in which the whole is greater than the sum of its parts; two individual studies
may contradict each other, but over a period of time a consensus can be
reached. Central to the scientific method is the process of peer review in
which a scientist’s work is subject to the criticism of his peers, some of whom
are his friends and some his bitterest enemies. At some points in the process a
scientist’s work has not been reviewed by his peers, such as when he or she
presents it at a scientific conference; that is when a journalist must seek out
a second opinion, just as if he is confirming what he heard from one source by
talking to another. Later, such as when the paper has been published in a scientific
journal, the research has been subject to peer review; at that point, second
(and third) opinions have been effectively built in, and seeking outside
commentary on the research is not crucial but might be useful for putting it
into context. Particularly helpful in explaining the steps of the peer review
process, and where different types of research fit in, is a memo prepared by
the science and medicine desk (known as the SMASH desk) of The Philadelphia
Inquirer; I have included that memo as Appendix I of this report.
Second, journalists need to
cover not just the latest scientific study, but to supply the background for
the research and put it in an overall context. This can be done in several
ways. First, the journalist can frame the story as drama, perhaps casting the
scientist as a detective trying to solve a mystery or an explorer seeking out a
new frontier. Second, the journalist must not forget to include the actual
science; for example, a profile of a Nobel prize-winner might show the
scientist riding his motorcycle or playing with her children but neglect to
discuss his or her scientific research. Likewise, most stories about the space
shuttle are written only when something goes wrong with a launch or a landing;
yet every shuttle mission carries loads of scientific experiments that rarely
garner a mention. Third, journalists must make use of lots of secondary
sources, such as other scientists or information from the Internet. One
particularly useful website is the American Association for the Advancement of
Science’s EurekAlert, which provides searchable news releases from
universities, companies and labs announcing either results of or progress in
research efforts. Another useful website is sponsored by the Foundation for
American Communications, or FACS, established by the Detroit News and the San
Diego Supercomputer Center; this site provides access to background papers and
links to other useful Internet sites, providing names, email addresses and
phone numbers for sources. A third service is The Media Resource Center
sponsored by Sigma Xi, the Scientific Research Society, which has an 800-number
for journalists seeking comment and background; more than 30,000 scientists
willing to provide information on a short notice are in its database.
Finally,
journalists and gatekeepers need not to underestimate the public’s interest in
and need for information about science. One poll taken by the Pew Research
Center for People and the Press found that 20 percent of respondents said they
enjoyed watching and reading stories about science and technology; this
category beat out religion, politics, international affairs, entertainment,
consumer news, business and finance, famous people and culture and the arts.[32]
Another survey by the Gannett company found that 29 percent of people were
“very interested” in news about science and technology; when combined with
readers who are “somewhat interested” this figure jumps to 75 percent, making
science and technology news more popular than personal finance, outdoor recreation,
pro and college sports, and listings of stocks, bonds and mutual funds. In the
same survey, 86 percent said they were interested in news about the
environment.[33]
Journalists and gatekeepers
ignore this interest in science news at the peril of their own newspapers and
to the detriment of society at large. Many surveys and polls have found that at
the same time as journalism has turned toward sensationalism and
tabloidization, it has steadily lost readers and viewers. According to the Pew
Research Center, viewership of the nightly network newscasts has fallen from 60
percent in 1993 to 48 percent in 1995 to 42 percent in 1996; for television
news overall, viewership has dropped from 74 percent in 1994 to 59 percent in
1996. A similar Pew survey found that the number of people who “enjoyed
watching TV news a great deal” fell from 42 percent in 1985 to 26 percent in
1997, while the number who “look forward to reading a newspaper very much” fell
from 42 percent in 1985 to 27 percent in 1997. Meanwhile, a Roper poll showed
that while 80 percent of Americans think a free press is essential to the
functioning of our society, a majority feel that the press today is too
sensational, manipulated by special interests and biased. [34]
Journalists also ignore the
public’s interest in and need for science news at the peril of society at
large. First, science is an integral part of American life, something people
need to know about in order to act wisely and vote intelligently on issues
ranging from nuclear waste to screen savers. American society is getting more
complex, not less, and the future will continue to bring uncertainty. People in
a high-tech democracy such as ours need an adequate understanding of science
for society to function. Second, if Americans are not kept well informed of
science, the country may lose the pre-eminent position and material wealth
brought about in large part by the scientific achievements of the past. As
Vannevar Bush stated in 1945, science is central to the American endeavor, yet
Americans are becoming increasingly isolated from it. In the rush to balance
the budget, basic science often ends up under the axe, yet it is the foundation
on which our society is built, and it is too late to go back to a time before
the Industrial Revolution. Finally, there is the spiritual loss from
underestimating the importance of news about science. As the first pictures of
Earth beamed back from the moon demonstrated, science gets to the heart of the
human condition. Any story that can help shed light on the relationship of
humans to the rest of the universe is certainly worth a good home in the daily
newspaper.
APPENDIX I
Guidelines for running science and medical studies
The
following is a set of guidelines to consider in weighing the importance of a
story about a scientific or medical study. It is by the SMASH (science and
medicine) Desk of The Philadelphia Inquirer, and is reprinted here with
the permission of Dorothy Brown, SMASH Editor.
IS A STUDY A STORY?
Some thoughts for reporters, editors, copy and news desks on evaluating
medical, scientific and environmental stories.
Not all studies are definitive. In fact, very few are. Science is most often a continuum, in which one study builds on the last and some clear proof emerges only over time.
Many studies are based on numbers so small or evidence so flimsy that they raise the question as to whether we should publish them at all. At the very least the reporter and editor must feel comfortable that:
(1) The research is sufficiently strong to merit publication
(2) The expert comments are not all simply self-serving; outside (more neutral) experts are quoted
(3) He/she understands how the researchers came to their conclusions: any percentages in the story should be backed by actual numbers (known as the two-number rule). Something can double or triple and still be a meaningless increase.
(4) He/she understands the context of the study – does it contradict or support previous findings? If so, is that explained?
(5) Mostly importantly, if the story raises alarm, that we go some distance to make sure that the alarm is justified and that we are giving readers information as to what they should do if they are, in fact, alarmed
(6) Finally, does anyone really care? Is it important? Or is this just another minutia of science that’s not worth writing about at this point?
Here are some clues to help determine how “strong” or newsworthy a study is.
1. How to judge the sources
a. Government agencies. National Academy of Sciences, EPA, CDC, and other government agency long-term government studies. These are usually multi-year studies done by panels of experts put together by the agency and then reviewed by a second independent panel of experts. These studies tend to be conservative in their findings, so you can usually be sure they are not making wild claims.
b. Peer-reviewed journals. If the study appears in the New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA, Science, Nature or a comparable magazine it means that it was reviewed and approved by a panel of experts. This is not a fail-safe mechanism, but marks the most creditable work put out in the various disciplines. One note of caution – not all specialty journals are peer-reviewed.
c. Conference papers. Scientists and doctors deliver papers at conferences which generate news. These are not peer-reviewed, but usually conference organizers have asked the individual to give the paper because he or she is a recognized expert in the field. That gives some backing but not much.
d. Press conferences. Science by press conference is to be viewed warily. Cold fusion is a perfect example of bogus science by press conference. No story should be run on press conference science without additional reporting, i.e. contacting credible scientists in the field for their reaction. If that cannot be done because of either time or staff constraints, consider spiking the story.
2. What kind of study is it?
a. Controlled clinical studies. This is the best stuff. In this type of study one test group gets a particular treatment and another control group does not. The groups are supposed to be as nearly identical as possible (same disease, same ages, same backgrounds). If there is a pronounced effect (good or bad) – eureka – it’s a story. But sometimes the results aren’t completely clear (see 3, Evaluating a study.) Usually such trials are done in three phases, under FDA guidelines:
Phase I: Small, usually no more than a handful of people, designed strictly to look at whether the drug will cause serious complications – not whether it works or not.
Phase II: A larger version of Phase I, again designed to look at safety, but also looking at efficacy.
Phase III: Considered the definitive look at whether a new drug has merit, involving thousands of people at a number of hospitals around the country. It’s usually the last step before a company asks the FDA for approval. Often the phases blur, with reports of earlier phases coming out while later phases are already in progress.
b. Epidemiological studies. These are studies looking for potential disease-causing or contributing variables and make up a big portion of the health stories we do.
The problem with epidemiological studies is that you can’t – except in a few instances – do clinically controlled experiments, since they would knowingly expose people to a potentially dangerous element. For example, if you wanted to judge how dangerous radon is you couldn’t expose people to varying amounts of radon to see how many get cancer.
In an effort to get around this, epidemiologists have developed the following types of studies:
Cohort studies. A cohort study begins with a group of people who do not have the disease and follows them, measuring suspected characteristics and health performance. For example, in one lead poisoning survey, 516 children were followed from birth to age seven. Periodic blood tests were taken to measure lead exposure and these were correlated with IQ test performance. The so-called “doctors” study, which has followed Harvard doctors for decades found that aspirin helps prevent heart attacks but lots of fish does not. Cohort studies take a lot of time and are very expensive. Cohort studies are the best epidemiological studies.
Controlled studies. Epidemiologists survey a group of people with a disease (cases) and a group without the disease (controls). They try to keep age, sex, socio-economic status equal. The researchers try to find some key element in the histories of the two groups that might explain the disease. Case-control studies depend on recollections and when dealing with mortality a lot of second-hand information. Case-control studies are weaker than cohort studies.
Cross-sectional studies. Rather than dealing with individuals, these studies look at groups – one neighborhood vs. another neighborhood, whites vs. blacks. These studies are very crude. They are used to indicate areas that might bear more detailed study. That’s it.
c. Meta-analysis. Some studies aren’t original research, but rather a review of all previous studies on the topic. Researchers draw on all the findings and try to reach some overall conclusion. Meta-analyses are controversial because they attempt to draw comparisons between studies of different designs. A story based on a meta-analysis should never be case as a brand new finding. For instance, we shouldn’t say, “New study shows Vitamin C prevents colds.” It it’s a meta-analysis, we should say, “A review of all studies on Vitamin C shows it prevents colds”
d. Other science studies. Scientific research in other disciplines – biology, ecology, chemistry, etc. – tend to deal with testing a single hypothesis in a single limited problem. By themselves they aren’t news. What makes them news is the context and implications of the study. One has to be very careful of these extrapolations. A story should contain 1) the researcher’s own assessment of the implications, and 2) the views of some other scientist in the field. If it does not have this, consider spiking.
3. Evaluating a study
Key elements in assessing the value of a study and its newsworthiness are:
a. Size of the study. How many people, plants, or widgets were studied? The more the better. A small study is usually less newsworthy. A large increase in a small population is not a statistically significant as a large increase in a large population. In a small group, there’s a greater chance of the results being simply a fluke – like having a coin come up heads 5 times in a row.
b. Length of the study. How long did it observe subjects and collect data? The longer the better. This varies with the problem in question. A short-term study on air quality and asthma – looking at a few months – might be okay because the cause-effect is believed to be immediate. A short-term cancer study is nearly worthless, since the latency period in cancer is measured in years.
c. Quality of the researchers. When top researchers and top institutions offer research, their work is worth looking at.
d. The findings. Do the findings confirm or conflict with previous studies? If the study advances our knowledge by building on earlier studies, this is easy. If, however, it conflicts with previous studies that should send up caution flags. We are not, however, in a position to know which trend is correct. We should proceed cautiously and give the reader context.
e. The statistics. We ought to subscribe to the “two number rule,” which forbids using a isolated number in a story, particularly a percentage. For example, frog slime increased the risk of skin cancer 100 percent. Sounds like a story – until you see that the rise rises from one case of skin cancer in ten million to two cases in ten million. Or how about, half of the people in California tested for dumb disease were found to have it. But actually only four people were tested, two of whom had the disease, in a state of roughly 30 million. Also, rates should be expressed as clearly as possible. Crude rates, such as one per thousands deaths in the general population, are weaker than rates that are age-specific, sex-specific or disease-specific.
APPENDIX II
Newspaper survey methodology
For the statistical part of this project, I surveyed
all the science, health, technology and environment stories in 30 newspapers
for the week of Sunday, January 17, to Saturday, January 23. Here is a list of
the 30 papers included in the survey and their circulation figures according to
the 1998 Editor and Publisher Yearbook:
Lexington (Ky.) Herald Leader 112,139
The (Columbia, S.C.) State 121,699
The Birmingham (Ala.) News 150,346
The (Raleigh, N.C.) News and Observer 153,408
The Des Moines (Iowa) Register 164,912
The Providence (R.I.) Journal 170,292
(Little Rock) Arkansas Democrat-Gazette 170,766
The (Memphis, Tenn.) Commercial Appeal 174,938
Austin (Texas) American-Statesman 178,643
Seattle Post-Intelligencer 197,921
The (Norfolk) Virginian-Pilot 200,696
Richmond (Va.) Times-Dispatch 209,690
Omaha (Neb.) World-Herald 225,761
The (Louisville, Ky.) Courier-Journal 228,185
The Charlotte (N.C.) Observer 239,016
Pittsburgh (Penn.) Post-Gazette 243,024
The (New Orleans) Times-Picayune 260,552
The Kansas City (Mo.) Star 276,349
Milwaukee (Wis.) Journal-Sentinel 288,173
The Atlanta Constitution 296,669
The (Baltimore) Sun 312,826
The (Portland) Oregonian 342,454
The Miami Herald 356,803
The (Cleveland) Plain Dealer 383,586
Detroit Free Press 384,624
(Minneapolis) Star Tribune 387,412
The Philadelphia Inquirer 428,233
The Boston Globe 476,966
The Dallas Morning News 481,032
San Francisco Chronicle 484,218
For each science story I surveyed, I also recorded a
number of variables. Here is a list of the variables and how they were
recorded:
1) Science story. In the survey, I recorded
any news story relating to general science, health and medicine, technology and
environment. To be counted a story had to include some type of scientific
background or explanation; thus a story about the latest health-care industry
merger would not count, but a story explaining a new procedure that HMOs are
funding would. Likewise a story about rising internet stocks prices would not
count but one about new technologies to be provided by the merger of two
internet companies would, and a story about the city council’s vote on a
development proposal would not count, but one about how that development
affects the nearby ecosystem would. Stories purporting to be guides on how to
use medical treatments or computer technology also counted.
2) Day and date of the story. I recorded this
in an effort to figure out whether there are any generally popular days for
running various types of science news.
3) Page number and section type. I recorded
this to determine how much science news goes on the front page, the A section,
the local section, the business section, the features section and the editorial
pages.
4) Standalone section or page. A story was
counted as being in a standalone section only if it was in its own section that
had its own section front. For example, a science story appearing in the nation
and world pages or an environmental story appearing on the local section front
did not count, but a technology story appearing inside the weekly personal
computing section that had its own section front did count. A story was counted
as being on a special page if it was on an open page that was laid out to look
like a section front but was actually housed inside another section, or if it was
on pages associated with that open page. For example, the Science page of the (Minneapolis)
Star Tribune is actually found inside the A section, and the Discoveries
section of The Dallas Morning News, which is several pages long, is
housed inside the business section.
5) Staff, wire or other. A story was recorded
as staff-written if it was produced by a staff writer of the newspaper. It was
recorded as wire if it was written by a staff writer at another newspaper and
picked up from the wire services. It was recorded as other if it was written by
a non-journalist, such as a local doctor who wrote a question and answer column
for the weekly health section, or a local scientist who wrote a column for the
editorial page.
6) Photos, graphics and art. I recorded the
number of photos larger than a mugshot with each science story, and recorded
the number of graphics and illustrations larger than a half-column sig with
each story.
7) Column inches. I measured the number of
column inches in each science story. In cases of bastard column width (common
on news pages) or of text spread around photos and graphics (common on features
pages) I had to estimate the number of inches based on length and width of the
text.
8) Advertisements. I recorded a story as
being accompanied by related advertising if such advertisements appeared on the
same page or the facing page as the story. To count, the advertisements had to
fall into the same category as the stories around it; for example, an
advertisement for a cancer clinic inside a technology section would not count,
but one in a health section would.
9) Refers. I recorded the number of items
pointing the reader to each science story, including refers from the front
page, the A2 briefing or other stories; whether the story or special section
was included in the index, whether the story had a science, health or
technology page topper; and whether the story had a special label or sig.
APPENDIX III
Professional Contacts
Karen
Garloch, Health Reporter
Bruce
Hendrickson, Environmental Reporter
David
Boracks, Technology Reporter
Jon
Franklin, Science Reporter
Leland
Senn, Wire Editor
Trish
Wilson, Specialties Editor
Dan
Barkin, Business Editor
Stuart
Leavenworth, Growth and Development Editor
Mike
Fitts, Wire Editor
Grant
Jackson, Business Editor
Andrew
Meadows, Business Reporter
Doug
Pardue, Investigative Reporting Director
Carol
Hanner, Managing Editor
Amanda
Husted, Health Editor
Nick
Tate, Science and Medicine Editor
Susan
Wells, Business Editor
Tim
Green, Technology Editor
Ralph
Haurwitz, Environmental Reporter
Kathy
Warbelow, Managing Editor
Rich
Oppel, Editor
Tim
Lott, Metro Editor
Gretchen
Heber, Macintosh Systems Editor
Tom
Siegfried, Science Editor
Karen
Patterson, Discoveries Editor
Bob
Bersano, Personal Technology Editor
Randy
Loftis, Environmental Reporter
Chris
Kelley, Metro Editor
Alan
Wild, Science Forum Editor
Andrew
Melnykovych, Environmental Reporter
Judy
Rosenfield, Personal Technology Editor
Dick
Kaukas, Medical Reporter
John
Mueller, Copy Editor
Marilyn
Krause, Health Editor
Marilyn
Marchione, Health and Medical Reporter
Neal
Rosenberg, Health and Medical Reporter
Carl
Schwartz, Senior Nation and World News Editor
Stan
Miller, Technology Reporter
Mark
Ward, former science writer
Karen
Samelson, Copy Editor
Steve
Grimmer, Assistant Features Editor
Dale
Parry, Assistant Managing Editor for Features
Marta
Salij, PC @ Home Editor
Ellen
Craeger, Health Writer
Dorothy
Brown, SMASH Desk Editor
Susan
Fitzgerald, Assistant SMASH Desk Editor
Huntly
Collins, Public Health Reporter
Marie
McCullough, Women’s Health Editor
Paula
Fuchsberg, Assistant National Editor
Tony
Gnoffa, Tech.life Editor
Beryl
Adcock, Copy Editor
Kathleen
Carroll, Bureau Chief
Larry
Williams, Science Editor
Usha
Lee McFarland, Science Writer
Robert
Boyd, Science Writer
Seth
Borenstein, Science Writer
The
(Baltimore) Sun
Rebecca
Corbett, Special Projects Editor
Susan
Luce, A2 editor
Margaret
Alford, National Editor
APPENDIX IV
Science sections and pages by newspaper
Technology
page, Sundays
Living
Well section, Thursdays
Science
page, Thursdays
Health
and Science section, Tuesdays
My.Tech
page, Mondays
Health
and Fitness section, Mondays
Health
and Fitness page, Mondays
Personal
Technology pages, Mondays
Computers
and Technology page, Sundays
(Little
Rock) Arkansas Democrat-Gazette
Business
Technology pages, Mondays
Health
and Fitness section, Mondays
Home
Computing page, Fridays
Tech
Monday section, Mondays
Healthy
Living page, Fridays
Personal
Technology pages, Saturdays
Personal
Technology section, Sundays
Health
page, Sundays
Business
and Technology section, Mondays
Health
page, Mondays
Technology
page, Sundays
Health
and Science section, Thursdays
Health
and Fitness page, Mondays
Science
Forum page, Mondays
Technology
page, Mondays
Health
section, Mondays
Technology
pages, Thursdays
Internet
@ Post page, Sundays
Science
and Environment pages, Mondays
Health
and Science pages, Tuesdays and Fridays
Health
section, Tuesdays
Health
page, Thursdays and Fridays
Fitness
page, Mondays
Sharing
the Planet page, Tuesdays
Health
page, Saturdays
Health
and Science section, Mondays
Science
Watch page, Sundays
Health
Watch pages, Wednesdays and Fridays
Personal
Technology section, Sundays
Atlanta.Tech
pages, Wednesdays
Plugged
In section, Mondays
Tech
Northwest section, Mondays
Health
closeup page, Wednesdays
Science
and Health pages, Wednesdays
Environment
page, Fridays
Technology
pages, Mondays
Food
and Fitness page, Thursdays
Science
Notebook page, Sundays
Personal
Technology pages, Mondays
Health
and Fitness section, Mondays
Body
and Mind section, Tuesdays
PC
@ Home page, Sundays
Tech
Report page, Fridays
(Minneapolis)
Star Tribune
Technology
page, Sundays
Health
page, Sundays and Wednesdays
Science
page, Wednesdays
Health
and Science section, Mondays
Technology
section, Thursdays
Health
and Science section, Mondays
Plugged
In page, Thursdays
Discoveries
pages, Mondays
Health
and Fitness page, Mondays
Personal
Technology section, Tuesdays
Computers
and Technology page, Sundays
Business
and Technology section, Mondays
Personal
Technology page, Thursdays
TOTALS:
Subject Section Page(s) Total
Science 6 8 14
Technology 9 15 24
Environment 0 2 2
APPENDIX V
Most popular national science stories for the week of Jan. 17-23, 1999
At
Home-Excite merger, 30 newspapers plus 12 sidebars
Fiber-colon
cancer study, 30 newspapers plus 2 sidebars
Stem
cell research funded, 28 newspapers
New
obesity drug, 26 newspapers
Stem
cells may repair organs, 20 newspapers
Cancer
minorities study, 19 newspapers
Pluto
may be demoted, 19 newspapers
JAMA
firing, 18 newspapers
Chinese
cyberdissident sentenced, 16 newspapers
Diet
supplement unsafe, 16 newspapers
Working
families study, 13 newspapers
Autism
cluster in New Jersey, 12 newspapers
Heart
tissue burn procedure, 12 newspapers
Intel
scrambler chip, 12 newspapers
Transplant
waits, 12 newspapers
Infertility
treatment, 11 newspapers
NASA
telescope delayed, 11 newspapers
Brighter
headlights, 10 newspapers
Treasure
chest found in Death Valley, 10 newspapers
Fiber-colon
cancer study, 15 newspapers
Stem
cells may repair organs, 5 newspapers
Proposed
missile defense shield, 4 newspapers
Stem
cell research funded, 3 newspapers
Autism
cluster, 2 newspapers
Cell
phone etiquette, 2 newspapers
Poor
posture at school computers, 2 newspapers
Transplant
waits, 2 newspapers
Working
families study, 2 newspapers
APPENDIX VI
Further reading
Anton, Ted and Rich McCourt,
The New Science Journalists, New York: Ballantine Boks, 1995.
Blum, Deborah and Mary
Knudson, eds. A Field Guide for Science Writers: The Official Guide of the
National Association of Science Writers. New York: Oxford University Press,
1997.
Burkett, Warren, News
Reporting: Science, Medicine and High Technology, Ames, Iowa: Iowa State
University Press, 1986.
Burnham, John C. How
Superstition Won and Science Lost: Popularizing Science and Health in the
United States. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1987.
Bush, Vannevar. Science:
The Endless Frontier, A Report to the President. Washington, D.C.: United
States Printing Office, 1945.
Butterfield, Herbert. The
Origins of Modern Science, 1300-1800. Toronto: Clarke, Irwin and Co., 1968.
Cohen, Victor. News and
Numbers. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press, 1989.
Dunwoody, Sharon. Science
Writers at Work. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Center for New Communications
Research Report No. 7, 1978.
Friedman, Sharon, Sharon
Dunwoody and Carol L. Rogers, eds. Scientists and Journalists: Reporting
Science as News. New York: The Free Press, American Association for the
Advancement of Science, 1986.
----------. Communicating
Uncertainty: Media Coverage of New and Controversial Science. Mahwah, N.J.:
Earlbaum Associates, 1999.
Gastel, Barbara, M.D. Presenting
Science to the Public. Philadelphia: ISI Press, 1983.
Greenberg, Daniel S. Science
and Government Report. Washington, D.C. newsletter
Gregory, Jane and Steve
Miller. Science in Public: Communication, Culture and Credibility. New
York: Plenum Trade, 1998.
Gross, Paul R., and Norman
Levitt. Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994.
Grove, J.W. In Defence of
Science: Science, Technology and Politics in Modern Society. Toronto:
University of Toronto Press, 1989.
Hartz, Jim and Rick
Chappell. Worlds Apart: How the Distance Between Science and Journalism
Threatens America’s Future. Nashville, Tenn.: First Amendment Center, 1997.
Jarmul, David, ed. Headline
News, Science Views, Vol. 2. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press,
1993.
Krieghbaum, Hillier. Science,
the News and the Public: Who Gets What Science News, Where They Get It, and
What They Think About It, A Report of the National Association of Science
Writers. New York: New York University Press, 1958.
LaFollette, Marcel C. Making
Science Our Own: Public Images of Science, 1910-1955. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 1990.
National Association of
Science Writers. Science News Communications: A Guide for Scientists,
Physicians, Public Relations Officers, and Information Specialists. New
York: NASW, 1968.
Nelkin, Dorothy. Selling
Science: How the Press Covers Science and Technology. New York: W.H.
Freeman and Co., 1987.
Oppenheimer, J. Robert. Science
and the Common Understanding. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1953.
Price, Derek do Solla, Science
Since Babylon. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1975.
Relyea, Harold. Silencing
Science: National Security Controls and Scientific Communication. Norwood,
N.J.: Ablex Publishing Corp., 1994.
APPENDIX VII
Reprints
of section fronts and pages
[1] Daniel S. Greenberg, “Shortchanging Science,” The Washington Post, Feb. 19, 1997; cited in Jim Hartz and Rick Chappell, Worlds Apart: How the Distance Between Science and Journalism Threatens America’s Future, Nashville, Tenn.: First Amendment Center, 1997, p. 4.
[2] Hartz and Chappell, p. 4.
[3] A classic example of this is the human genome project, which both private industry and the federal government are spending millions of dollars to fund. Industry’s motive for funding the project, led by Craig Ventor, is to patent parts of the human genome so that when drugs are later developed on the basis of that information, the industry can make money from it. Government’s motive for the project, led by Francis Collins, is to have the information in the public domain precisely so that no one can profit from it. Both sides of this race have received funding for their research based on the idea that knowing the sequence of the human genome will allow for drugs to be developed that can cure all sorts of human disease, and eventually that gene splicing will literally take disease out of the human body. Yet such therapies are at best decades away and bring with them a host of social, legal and ethical issues.
[4] Sharon Friedman, Sharon Dunwoody and Carol L. Rogers, eds., Scientists and Journalists: Reporting Science as News, New York: The Free Press, American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1986, pp. xiii – xiv.
[5] Dorothy Nelkin, Selling Science:How the Press Covers Science and Technology, New York: W.H. Freeman and Co., 1987, cited in Ted Anton and Rick McCourt, eds., The New Science Journalists, New York: Ballantine Books, 1995, p. 9.
[6] Nelkin, pp. 55-68.
[7] Nelkin, pp. 15-21, pp. 86-91; also see Ted Anton and Rick McCourt, eds., The New Science Journalists, New York: Ballantine Books, 1995, p. 10.
[8] I included a larger range of circulation sizes in Group III newspapers because as circulation goes up the number of newspapers published goes down. According to Editor and Publisher figures for September 30, 1997, of the Top 100 newspapers in the United States, 43 fall into the 100,000 to 200,000 range, 28 into the 200,000 to 300,000 range, 12 into the 300,000 to 400,000 range, 8 into the 400,000 to 500,000 range and 9 into the 500,000 and above range. However, I purposely left national newspapers such as The New York Times, USA Today and The Wall Street Journal out of my survey because I wanted my findings to be relevant to middle-sized newspapers such as my employer, the Lexington Herald-Leader in Kentucky. A paper like the Herald-Leader, circ. 125,000, will never be able to hire 15 science writers like The New York Times has, but it might be able to run some of the Times’ science stories on a weekly science page. That at least is my hope when I return to the paper.
[9] More about exactly what variables I measured and how I counted them can be found in Appendix II.
[10] Note that the percentages given in Table 6 differ from the percentages I have listed in the text on pages 9 and 10. That is because the two sets of percentages are measuring two different things. Table 6 concerns only the science, health, technology and environment stories on A1; according to it, 7.3 percent of the stories on A1 were about general science, 54.2 percent were about health, 19.8 percent were about technology, and 18.8 percent were about the environment. My percentages, however, compare the number of science, health, technology and environment stories on A1 with the total number of each type of story as listed in Table 2.
[11] I counted graphics and illustrations in the same category because they are usually produced by the same graphics department in the newspaper. I counted photographs separately because most newspapers have a separate photography department.
[12] Newspapers with science sections, at least in title, were The Boston Globe (Health and Science on Mondays), The Philadelphia Inquirer (Health and Science section on Mondays), The (Portland) Oregonian (Science and Health section on Wednesdays), Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel (Health and Science section on Mondays), Richmond Times-Dispatch (Health and Science section on Thursdays), The (Columbia, S.C.) State (Health and Science sections on Tuesdays); however, the last three of these sections contained no general science content whatsoever. Newspapers with one or more science pages were The Dallas Morning News (Discoveries on Mondays), The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (Science Watch on Sundays), Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (Science and Environment on Mondays, Health and Science on Tuesdays and Fridays), (Minneapolis) Star Tribune (Science page on Wednesdays), The (Louisville, Ky.) Courier-Journal (Science Forum page on Mondays), The (Cleveland) Plain Dealer (Science Notebook page on Sundays), The Kansas City Star (Sharing the Planet page on Tuesdays), and Lexington (Ky.) Herald-Leader (Science page on Thursdays).
[13] For example, see Robert C. Davis, et al., The Public Impact of Science in the Mass Media: A Report on a Nationwide Survey for the National Association of Science Writers, University of Michigan Survey Research Center, 1958, pp. 57-85.
[14] At the Inquirer, science, health and environment writers not only give their opinions about wire stories, but often rewrite significant portions of the stories such as the lead to emphasize how the story fits into what is going on in Philadelphia. The paper is even debating whether science, health and environmental stories should originate with the science desk (known as SMASH), with its editors pulling the stories from the wires and reworking them before offering them to the paper in the daily news meeting.
[15] With the exception of “Extreme Earth,” all of the weekly graphics cost slightly more than the regular subscription rate to KRT; however, some such as “Science Matters” are worth it. The three health graphics per week will be included in the regular price for news graphics.
[16] Two science writers I spoke with voiced this opinion: Jon Franklin of The News and Observer and Seth Borenstein of Knight-Ridder. It is worth noting that I have never heard this opinion from a health or technology reporter or editor; in fact, health editors who don’t have their own section, such as Rebecca Corbett of The (Baltimore) Sun, feel they are not serving their readers.
[17] Davis, et al., p. 64. These figures varied if readership was broken down by gender and amount of education, but averaged out to be 33 percent and 66 percent.
[18] Nelkin, p. xi. Nelkin cites several studies to back up her point, including Evan Witt, “Here, There and Everywhere: Where Americans Get Their News,” Public Opinion 6, August/September 1983, pp. 45-48; Lawrence W. Lichty, “The News Media,” Wilson Quarterly 6, 1982, pp. 49-57; and Serena Wade and Wilbur Schramm, “The Mass Media as Sources of Public Affairs, Science and Health Knowledge,” Public Opinion 33, Summer 1969, pp. 197-209.
[19] In general, newspapers located in cities where technology is an important industry tended to have separate technology sections, whereas those in cities without a lot of technology tended to have only one or two pages for technology news. Newspapers with separate technology sections included The San Francisco Chronicle, The Dallas Morning News, The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Seattle Times, The (Portland) Oregonian, The Atlanta Constitution, The (Baltimore) Sun, The (Norfolk) Virginian-Pilot, and the Austin American-Statesman. Not included in my study, unfortunately, is The San Jose Mercury News, which has at least seven people who write technology columns; I was unable to get copies of this newspaper at UNC or Duke, and the newspaper was unable to send any to me.
[20] Two of these were the same newspapers: both the Austin American-Statesman and the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel had recently taken the general science writers off their beat, but were revamping their technology coverage, and in the case of Milwaukee had transferred a writer onto the technology beat. Other newspapers revamping its coverage of technology is The (Raleigh) News and Observer, the one paper that had also broken the trend away from general science to hire a full-time science writer, and The (Columbia, S.C.) State.
[21] As Judy Rosenfield of The Courier-Journal pointed out, even a year ago there were not much good information about technology to be found on the wires, but now there is a good variety of technology stories.
[22] For example, during the week of Jan. 17, 1999, Dr. Bombay answered a question from “Why Too Kay,” who had cut out his previous column on testing home computers for the Y2K bug but now could not find the article. Could he help? “Why sure!” replied Dr. Bombay. “It’s right behind the refrigerator.”
[23] Sagan, whose Cosmos was the most successful series about science ever produced for television, was denied membership in the National Academy of Sciences in part because many of his colleagues found it distasteful that he was so popular.
[24] Jon Franklin cites one especially frightening poll taken at the Columbia school of journalism, in which 57 percent of graduate students believed in ESP, 57 percent believed in dousing, 47 percent in aura reading, and 25 percent in the lost continent of Atlantis.
[25] As a science reporter for the student newspaper at Indiana University, I actually had to convince a scientist at the university particle accelerator to speak with me because a previous reporter had screwed up this point. It took several tries to get the scientist even to return my phone calls, and some assurances that I would not do the same thing to get an interview.
[26] I cite an interview with “Science Times” editor Cornelia Dean as the source of the statistic about the New York Times. Hartz and Chappell cite senior science writer Sharon Begley for the argument about Newsweek, and they cite the “1996 Media Effectiveness Study,” Corporate Research, Gannett Co., Inc. as the source for their argument about the Discovery Channel and CNN.
[27] Dennis Normile, “Global Interest High, Knowledge Low,” Science Magazine, Nov. 15, 1996.
[28] These results are from a quiz given by the National Science Foundation as part of the National Science Board’s Science and Engineering Indicators 1996. The quiz was given to 2006 people by telephone in October 1995.
[29] National Science Foundation, Science and Engineering Indicators 1996.
[30] Rene Sanchez, “Teacher Standards Called ‘National Shame’; Bipartisan Commission Cites Inadequate Training, Poor Treatment,” The Washington Post, Sept. 13, 1996.
[31] Daniel Goldin is quoted in Hartz and Chappell, pp. 38-39.
[32] This poll was conducted for the Pew Research Center for People and the Press by the Princeton Survey Research Associates. It is discussed by Hartz and Chappell, p. 101.
[33] “1996 Media Effectiveness Study,” Corporate Research, Gannett Co., Inc. This poll is discussed by Hartz and Chappell, p. 101.
[34] The two polls for the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press were conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates in 1996 and 1997. The Roper poll was taken for the Minnesota News Council in 1996. All three are discussed by Hartz and Chappell, p. 101.