I do have to quibble a little with Alan’s opinion that specialized science education is unnecessary for science writers. Many today entering the field do have science undergrad or grad degrees, and I think that it’s an emerging trend. While a journalist can of course develop specialized knowledge in science over time and after writing many stories, it certainly helps if they can hit the ground running with a solid foundation in the field they are covering, and they will spend a lot less time having to research key concepts and mechanisms if they’ve all ready been exposed to them through their education. It helps if they have taken some journalism courses too, and don’t come from a pure science background. I can write a story about ecology in a lot less time than one on chemistry, for example, because of my background in ecology and natural resources management. Having specialized knowledge (whether accrued over time in the field, or in school) also helps the writer to better gauge what is important or how a story fits into the broader context of the field. Just my thoughts on that.

I’m totally with you on the “what if journalists used blogging not to entertain or opine but to inform.” I think it’s a good experiment. It’s definitely challenging me to think about how I approach writing in both mediums.

I tried to explain that to some of the blogging scientist at the conference, but I didn’t get very far. They argued they are experts in their fields, that they know more about that field than a journalist who reports on many different topics. That’s certainly true, but an expert writing about his/her own field is an insider looking out while a journalist is an outsider looking in. The viewpoint makes the difference. The scientists responded that the information on their blogs is better than nothing. Unfortunately, they have a point. Science and technology reporting is a franchise that U.S. newspapers are shedding fast.

But what if journalists used blogging not to entertain or opine but to inform. Science in the Triangle tries to do that. It’s a blog that provides straight information on what goes on in and around North Carolina’s Research Triangle Park, something the two local newspapers stopped doing in the past two years. DeLene and I write for the blog. Financing the effort and maintaining operational independence is a nut we have yet to crack, which is why DeLene and I blogged about the missing money in online science writing. We also talked about it and thought it would be good to do a session about a science blog that is local and about ways to pay for the reporting at the next ScienceOnline conference.

I hope Alan is right and the lines between bloggers and journalists are blurring. Maybe that’ll also give rise to ideas how to generate revenue.

Any thoughts on this?

But re US publications paying less than they used to, I’ve had multiple journo friends tell me they’ve asked for more $ and been told, however politely, that they should be grateful to have work, or happy to have a foot in the door, or other things along those lines. Which I really think comes in part from this disturbing new model of expecting journalists to produce content for free. If the Huffington Post has no trouble getting people to write for them for free, then why would they pay anyone? But what we’re left with is people publishing articles for free as a marketing tool for a book or other project they need to promote. That’s not a sustainable model.

Someday we’ll look back on this moment in time and laugh…

There are some truly stellar blogs out there, in many cases doing a better job than a lot of print publications. But the fact remains that most bloggers aren’t getting paid. As a full-time freelancer, I make my income from my output. Meaning no one is paying me for all the background research that goes into coming up with story ideas. And now, more and more, people are asking for the output itself for free or at rates that are largely insulting. But this seems to be the model that’s emerging. And that makes it increasingly difficult to do science journalism of the sort Alan describes–the kind that involves phone calls and interviews and time during the work day. The thing that I’ve thought of as my “job” for the past decade.

I don’t know what the answer is. I’m glad that David Dobbs and others are “encouraged.” I alternate between feeling passionately hopeful about the future of science journalism (and my job) and borderline despondent. If the economics of the profession stop making sense, then the only people left to do it will be either 1) the independently wealthy or 2) those with some other day job. I certainly didn’t mean to bring down the mood here, especially with everyone on such a high from the conference. But this is how it looks from where I’m sitting.

A last quick point: Ed Yong mentioned Wired UK and the fact that the British market hasn’t been as hard hit as the US market. That does seem to be true–but unfortunately it’s also true that British pubs pay peanuts compared to US pubs. Just for comparison, standard rate for a feature at Wired in the US is $2 a word. Standard rate at Wired UK is 60 cents a word. (And no, I don’t mean 60 p–I mean 60 cents. American, not Euro!) I can assure you that it’s impossible to earn a living at 60 cents a word.

All that said, I’m not planning on changing careers anytime soon. I love my job, and when I’m not selling off possessions to pay the mortgage, I think I’m the luckiest person in the world.