Month: March 2013

  • A Science Media Centre for ERA? / Why science journalists must be vigilant

    A Science Media Centre for ERA? / Why science journalists must be vigilant

    From the Spring 2013 issue of EUSJA news

    A Science Media Centre for ERA?

    The UK Science Media Centre (SMC) has just celebrated its 10th anniversary and is widely acclaimed for its positive role in (re)engaging the media with science and acting as an intermedi- ary between the research community and journalists. The SMC concept is being adopted in other countries too. But how would a SMC for the EU work and what would its role be?
    This was the subject of a brainstorming workshop held in Brus- sels on 12-13 November 2012. The meeting followed an initial discussion in Berlin and an expert roundtable at ESOF in Dublin in July that year. Around the table in Brussels were representa- tives from the EU institutions, the European Science Foundation, COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology) and a handful of media including EUSJA members. Also present was Ed Sykes from UK SMC and Sile Lane from Sense about Science. Erika Widegren of Atomium Culture, who initiated the EU SMC discussion, led the meeting.
    The two-day meeting looked first at the mission, remit and services of an EU SMC and then at financial and governance issues. A clear outcome of the discussions was that trust would be a defining element in determining whether the centre would work or not.
    The EU Chief Scientific Adviser, Anne Glover, joined the meet- ing briefly and is clearly a supporter of the idea. She is keen that initiatives such as an SMC are established to support the environment for evidence-based policy-making within all the EU institutions.
    The mission of an EU SMC was jointly defined as: ‘Serving the public by facilitating communication between European media and research communities’. The EU SMC should also cover ‘Europe’ as defined in the European Research Area (ERA), i.e. EU-27 + associated states.
    Three core areas of activity were proposed. Firstly, activities relating to ‘press office’ functions and other services for journalists, secondly training services and provision of material for both scientists and journalists, and thirdly activities relating to coordination and support for existing and new national SMCs in Europe.
    The independence of an EU SMC was vital and although it was likely that EU funding would be needed to initiate the organisation, the medium to long-term financial model should look to that of the UK SMC where funding was obtained from a very broad spectrum of bodies. Following the Brussels meeting, Atomium Culture is putting together a project plan for the start-up of an EU SMC with a five-year timeline. The plan should be available for discussion in the near future.
    The SMC debate continued at a major science communication meeting that took place in February 2013 as part of the Irish Presidency of the EU and could be part of the agenda for WCSJ in Helsinki. If plans run smoothly, the ideal kick-off for an EU SMC would coincide with the new EU research framework programme (Horizon 2020) in 2014.
    For more information on the proposed EU SMC contact Atomium Culture at eusmc@atomiumculture.eu or contact me via• email at tim.reynolds@intacomm.net.

    Tim Reynolds
    (ABSW)

     

    Why science journalists must be vigilant

    Let’s say it clearly from the beginning: I have a big interest in the whole issue because I have been working at a project for establishing an Italian Science Media Centre managed by science journalists since before the Doha World Conference in 2011.

    I have been actively working with the existing International network of Science Media Centres and with several fellow science journalists to increase the value of this model: I think it can be very useful for a well informed society, upon the condition of being applied in full transparency, and with the goal of serving the journalists first, and the science second (and industry third, if ever).

    I produced a panel on the SMC model at the PCST conference in Florence, in April 2012, with among others The EU Chief Scientific Adviser Anne Glover and Fiona Fox, Executive Director of the UK SMC, and later was at several meetings, including the “secret” one (not in the official programme, and on invitation only) that was held at ESOF Dublin, and the one in Brussels where I personally invited Tim Reynolds to write for EUSJA.

    At the end of the Brussels meeting, we were all told that the project would not be discussed in Dublin – as it was originally intended by the organisers at Atomium Culture – because many among the participants agreed with me that after two full days it was still too much a preliminary project.

    As I said repeatedly in Brussels, all the crucial issues about the beneficiaries of the project (many insisted that good journalism needs a National angle and strong root), its goals and its independence were systematically skipped, while the attention was put almost exclusively on bureaucratic matters.

    Erika Widegren agreed that the project was still too immature, and reassured us all citing a time frame of 5 years.

    Now the crucial questions are still there.

    I can only repeat once again what I said repeatedly in person to Erika Widegren: if you use expressions like “proactive trasparency” and promise to send the info about “your” conference to the critical journalists, then you have to keep your word (especially when that conference is heavily funded with public EU money). If you don’t, instead of establishing the good base for a healthy relationship with journalists, you end up being perceived as a threat, as someone willing to hide things and to cut corners.

    My friends who run the UK Science Media Centre and the SMCs in other parts of the world know well – probably because they live in countries in which the power of the media is still quite strong and respected – that every attempt at avoiding open debate would be very counterproductive.

    I hope the science journalism community will be consulted and actively involved starting from Helsinki (I suggested Atomium Culture to do so), and I am sure that the debate will continue online.

    You’re all invited to contribute.

    Fabio Turone
    (EUSJA board member)

     

  • Keep up with change – a letter from the President

    Keep up with change – a letter from the President

    From the Spring 2013 issue of EUSJA news

    I am sure most of you know that the UK’s BBC has been under attack for what has been described by the chairman of the BBC Trust, Sir Chris Patten, as “its shoddy journalism”.
    He says that the worldwide reputation the Corporation achieved for its first class jour- nalism has been seriously compromised by basic mistakes, and he is deeply ashamed and apologetic. Basically the Beeb, as it has been affectionately known here in the UK, has become embroiled in a huge scandal that links one of its best known presenters, the late Sir Jimmy Savile, with alleged massive paedophile activity over many decades, some of it on BBC premises.

    With continuing huge interest in sex scandals on social networks (and perhaps attempt- ing to recoup some of its tarnished reputation), the BBC’s respected Newsnight programme intimated that a certain Thatcher-era establishment figure had been involved in paedophile activity during the 1980s. The programme took its information from external sources and failed to contact the individual concerned for his comments. Nor did it bother to check the material it was given. Although the programme didn’t name the individual concerned, there was plenty of innuendo sloshing around on social networking sites that identified him.

    This person is completely innocent of any paedophile activity. Apparently one phone call would have been sufficient to demonstrate he was not where he was alleged to have been and when.
    This furore serves as a timely reminder to us all that the basic rules of journalism we learn on the first day of our training – Who, What, Where, When, Why and How? – should on no account ever be forgotten or overlooked. It also is a warning that even on social networks we must all be careful not to pass on any rumours, innuendos or hear- say without first checking for ourselves.

    We are trying to organise a series of “speed dating” sessions
    at the World Conference of Science Journalists in Helsinki

    With this in mind it is absolutely vital that all EUSJA members are up to speed with their training, particularly with new media. Our profession is in a state of constant change, we must all keep up. Many young journalists have entered journalism after completing only a science degree, and many have never undertaken any structured journalistic training. The board is now involved in looking at training, attempting to raise funds for training programmes linked with study trips. We are also trying to organise a series of “speed dating” sessions at the WFSJ conference in Helsinki. Here we hope to have well-established journalists giving short one-to-one interviews. These sessions will cover everything from how they entered journalism, how to get the essence of a story into the opening paragraphs, how to get and check information, to pitching a story, selling copy, and the laws of libel/defamation. We plan to use reporters and broadcasters covering the conference to act as our “speed daters”, and we also welcome suggestions and offers of help from those of you planning to be present.

    We are also pursuing our proposed Investigative Journalism Award. This will be particularly relevant in light of the bad press some investigative journalism is receiving at the moment. We will keep you all informed via emails to delegates and on the EUSJA web- site of our progress in these spheres.

    A specific problem for many science journalists is accessing all the research articles needed. I was invited to speak on “Open Access and Science Journalism” at a recent EU/Atomium conference in Dublin. Whilst applauding the concept of true open access I did raise the point that this could have an effect on members’ jobs. I also mentioned the problems of “churnalism” – copy written without time to check information and place it in an historic context in a rushtogetthestoryout.Willthisleadtodumbingdown? How does it impact on newcomers to the profession? I shall write more about this for the EUSJA website and for the next issue of EUSJA News. Meanwhile, I am eagerly looking forward to visit- ing Prague for the 2013 EUSJA General Assembly on 16 March. There are many interesting topics lined up for discussion and I hope we have a fruitful meeting.

    Barbie Drillsma,
    EUSJA President

  • The Spring issue of EUSJA news is out

    The Spring issue of EUSJA news is out

     

    Click on the image to download the pdf file
    Click on the image to download the pdf file

    The Spring issue of our newsletter has just come out: the first, highlighted articles are also published online.

     

     

  • EUSJA News Spring 2013

    Click on the image to download the pdf file

    Click on the image to download the pdf file

  • Are we for sale?

    money1The conference came to an end with a great scandal. No other scheduled speech could be of an interest after the statement of a deputy minister for communication. He was invited to speak to the conference “Journalism in 2012” organized by the faculty of journalism of Moscow University. One could expect some boring address like the officials usually do, but the words of deputy minister broke an academician atmosphere in a lecture hall. “Do you really trust that the journalism has a mission? Then you are giving a wrong motivation to your students. Journalism has no mission, but busyness. Better if you will explain your students from the very beginning: they will do what their boss will say!”

    I have never heard  to conference such emotional and angry protests that followed after the statement. The next day it was news number one discussed in Russian media and different social nets. Of course, journalists felt insulted. Teachers of journalism were shocked. But there were also voices to support scandalous opinion. “Journalism is for sale indeed”, – these persons were saying, – “See, the newspapers will publish any stupid article if it will attract the readers and bring money, the TV channels will produce any false story to be attractive for advertisers and to take the lead over the competitors. Do you find pseudoscience articles every day or pseudoscience movies on TV? Since the audience pays for it, the newspapers or TV channels will produce it. Is not it for sale? Then is journalism busyness or no?”

    These arguments reminded me a discussion during the conference in science journalism we had last October to the North of Russia, some German science journalists participated also being invited by German-Russian Forum. There were a lot of interesting talks, but really hard discussion started when somebody mentioned that nowadays science journalism is nothing but science PR as science journalist works to sale the scientific idea. The audience immediately divided into two opposite groups. One (bigger) insisted that science journalism has its noble goals which are knowledge, progress and so on, the second (smaller) part was saying: it is a relic to speak of a mission of journalism. Media is for sale, thus it will be honest to admit that a journalist works for sale. If so, there is no difference among science journalism and science PR; those who deny it do not get the things evident. This group appealed to us: “Open your eyes! Everything is for sale. Journalism as well” There were Russian as well German journalists from the both sides of our hard discussion.

    Are we really blind relics – those who never agree that journalism is busyness or science journalism and science PR are equal?