Science blogging or Science journalism or Science advocacy ?
There is an interesting article in Nature News about Science blogging and it’s possible impact on Science journalism. PZ Myers on his blog Pharyngula writes that
It’s good stuff wrapped around a slightly silly question — can blogging replace science journalism?
I don’t see point here, I guess question is not silly as much PZ Mayer thinks, anyway there is another interesting blog post by Michael Tobis about Journalists, Advocates and Scientists, which might be a better read. He writes
Now that I understand that people read news and advocacy, and do not read science, I at least have a better grasp of the compromises and issues required to increase traffic. The expectation of “news” is neutrality among competing parties, and of advocacy to choose one side regardless of evidence. Both are fundamentally lazy.We, the public, the whole world, need to learn how to think, collectively. It’s a tall order. I am not sure that either of the two types of nonfiction feature writer that get most of the attention are up to the task. Science blogging is important, even if nobody has noticed yet.
And I am surprised to know that ScienceBlogs pays its bloggers on the basis of how many hits their posts receive, GREAT 
advocacy with money.
One Response to “Science blogging or Science journalism or Science advocacy ?”
Latest Tweets
-
Dear Entrepreneur, CXO of unknown start-up with uncertain business model, be grounded and humble. cheersFebruary 10, 2012 at 2:53 am -
Apache Giraph, a framework for large-scale graph processing on Hadoop, reaches 0.1 milestone http://t.co/ymaoSXtTFebruary 10, 2012 at 1:57 am
-
Got this today, nice collection of Studio Ghibali Songs. Yeee http://t.co/mtauzVI7February 10, 2012 at 1:46 am
Science blogging or Science journalism or Science advocacy ?: There is an interesting article in Nature News abo.. http://tinyurl.com/d8hxc8