Is blogging journalism? (and what the question should be)

Blogging is heralded by some, mostly bloggers, as the answer to crap science journalism and the crisis heralded for the business model of traditional journalism. Blogging, they contend, is journalism just published by a different, cheaper medium. Even better, instead of generalists writing half informed articles further butchered by mindless sub-editors, content is written by experts in their field.

On the face of it, this sounds an attractive future and perhaps the potential loss of science journalists from national news outlets is nothing to mourn. Yet the debate over the desirability of this possible future, or indeed if blogging is journalism, rages on. Ed Yong wrote a good critique of this debate a while back (although I contend it's not 2006 to still talk about this).

On one level, and as Yong points out, this is a silly debate. Blogging is no more or less journalism than writing something that goes into a newspaper – the medium through which words are made public is a moot point. What matters is the meaning of those words, where they came from, the process by which they came to be written and who they are intended for.

For the record, journalism has many definitions but my favourite is writing that reflects superficial thought and research, a popular slant, and hurried composition, conceived of as exemplifying topical newspaper or popular magazine writing as distinguished from scholarly writing. But I really don’t think the definition of journalism is that interesting.

What I am much more interested is, from a science perspective, can writing about science on blogs replace writing about science in newspapers? My own feeling is categorically not yet. This is simply because, like them or loathe them, newspapers command an authority that blogs do not. Read something in a newspaper and, whilst you know there is an editorial line to toe, you expect that the story has been written as an attempt to represent rather than twist the facts. You might disagree, and “editorial line” is a euphemism that contains a multitude of sins, but I still trust what I read in a paper more than what I read in a blog I have no knowledge of. Newspapers have a brand to maintain, a reputation to uphold, a bank account to ravage with defamation cases. Blogs can fold and reform at no cost.

This becomes clearer in the inverse. The blogosphere is full of misinformation on science, from vaccines to climate change, but the science community are not nearly as exorcised by this as they are by a single bad headline in the Express. Climategate became a story when mainstream papers picked it up, not when the blogs were spinning. This is because they know that the Express has much greater potential to cause harm because it is seen, by some, as a trusted source of information, an opinion former. Newspapers matter because millions of people read and believe what is in them. The same simply is not true of most, if not all, blogs.

This fact is, at once, implicitly understood by those that call for the heads of journalists when they get things wrong and ignored by the same people when they suggest blogs can replace them. Until blogs command the same kind of respect, authority and balance as, rightly or wrongly, journalists that publish in newspapers are held to, they will not replace them. Perhaps the answer is a curated site, like Comment is free, or Discover Blogs, but we know they are not immune to controversy. Furthermore, what level of curation is required and would that kill the very thing that makes blogs attractive?

The question I think we should ask is will blogs meet the needs of the science community and a diverse readership? Working out how to provide blogs the kind of authority newspapers enjoy will go some way to answering that question but that will not be trivial to do and, to me, appears some way off.

Science Journalism: right or left?

In his essay My Country: Right or Left? George Orwell argued that whilst he was, evidently, prepared to fight fascism in another country, he could not fight against his own – regardless of its politics. Even if we’re not talking about nationalism I’m sure many people can identify with this – we choose “our own” and stick with them for better or worse.

Jeremy Laurence’s critique of Ben Goldacre, author of the Bad Science column blog and darling of the sceptic fraternity, has rekindled a debate between him and Fiona Fox, Director of the Science Media Centre, about their different approaches to science journalists. Both are clearly passionate about science journalism. Fox regularly argues that whilst there are examples of bad coverage, the vast majority of articles by specialist science journalists are good and we should all champion them. Goldacre counters that whilst there are some good examples of coverage, the majority of science coverage is of the rubbish "causes or cures cancer" type and, by misleading people about illness and treatments, a public health issue.

Fox dismisses this kind of coverage as “not science journalism” and silly. Goldacre argues that to dismiss this stuff, when people are unlikely to make the same distinction, is silly itself. Reading the subtext of their posts, I don’t think they actually disagree on much, but their choice of emphasis is instructive. Fox appears to have made her camp with specialist science journalists and is unlikely to say anything to threaten her relationship with them. Goldacre has made a name for himself by mercilessly exposing crap journalism and sees any mention of the good stuff as a distraction from a real problem. He is unlikely to deviate too far from the received wisdom that journalists are either lazy or wicked.

Both would clearly like better coverage of science in the news, so whose approach is more likely to bring this about? Fox’s bet seems to be that supporting science specialists, increasing their status and encouraging scientists to talk to them is the best way of improving coverage. The consensus seems to be that coverage has improved since the dark days of the early naughties, when MMR was fresh in the minds and the SMC was set up, so who is to argue with her approach? One could criticise for going native and getting into bed with what some scientists see as “the enemy” but it makes sense to me that you engage with the people best placed to change what you want - those that write it.

As Laurence’s ire demonstrates, this is in stark contrast with the crap-busting approach. Goldacre doesn't have to compromise on his principles and is free to vilify journalists he sees as complicit in misleading the public. But will his approach affect the change he seeks? I think there are limits to its potential, because he hardly endears himself to journalists and they’re unlikely to listen to him. I’m sure Goldacre could counter that he has no faith in journalists’ intention to improve, that the problems he identifies are endemic and that we should be looking at alternative models of reporting science. I have heard him argue as much, and his ideas about getting more experts to contribute to newspapers are impressive. Further, he could fairly point to the many thousands of readers on his blog and others like it as evidence that an alternative exists and has mass appeal.

But, and this is the crux, how many of the readers of Bad Science are misled by the exposed nonsense? I suspect very few. Most of these readers will have a science background, or at least a sustained interest in science. They are as capable of seeing through the headlines as Goldacre, if less gifted at deliciously dissecting the misrepresentations. People that he worries about being taken in are, I assume, not so interested in science, maybe haven’t had the benefit of post-18 education and, I fear, are unlikely to read his blog.

That’s a fairly paternalistic view actually, and I’m much less pessimistic about “most people.” I believe most people read the cause or cure coverage with more than a pinch of salt. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the very people Goldacre fears for when he reads the latest Express headline about vaccines or cancer, are the last people who will read what he has to say. Ultimately, apart from a host of adoring and like-minded fans, how much would he achieve were his the only approach to this problem?

In my view, to make lasting change, you have to get involved. Vitriol serves a valuable role in highlighting an issue and science needs Ben Goldacre to defend it in the newspapers. But without someone willing to get their hands dirty and find solutions to them, the problems we all see aren’t going anywhere. Each will stick to their own tribes but my money is on the Foxes to fix things.