Rebooting science journalisTS
Sunday, January 17, 2010, 7:24 am 26 Comments | Post a CommentWhat will become of science journalism, and the good ‘ole days when a writer could actually make a career from writing for mainstream media about science? Four panelists wrestled with this question in the “Rebooting science journalism” panel on Saturday at ScienceOnline 2010. Budding science writer that I am, my feet carried me to the talk like a moth flapping to a flame.
Ed Yong, who writes Not Exactly Rocket Science, a blog that has made an international splash, talked about the future of science journalism as a blending of old and new: retaining the best skills from the specialized training journalists receive and blending it with new mediums like blogging. He also compared the shifting landscape to that of filling a new set of niches in an ecosystem that had just undergone a significant disturbance, you can read his eloquent explanation here. I have to point out though that he talked about the role of science journalism in society, but less so the preservation of that one keystone endangered species: the science journalisT. What role does this rare breed have in a landscape where generalists and hobbyists are attempting to fill the vaccuum left by fewer and fewer professional science journalists? Yong has a day job that pays his bills, his blog is something he does on his own time (and I like his blog, it’s good and worth visiting). So as successful as his exposure is, it does not fully answer the question for me as to how science journalisTS will be preserved in the future. Will they become hobbyists who have day jobs that pay the bills and the health insurance and cushion the retirement account?
David Dobbs, a professional science journalist (and blogger at Neuron Culture) touched on this idea. He talked about the difference in his longform feature writing style, and the types of stories he writes. There are the “wow, this is cool” science stories, or the “this is an interesting take on an old idea” stories (think: something new under the sun); then there are the “something smells funny stories” (think: investigative); then there are what he called the “larger seismic level interplay between science and culture stories” (think: science in society). All of these require time and lots of money to produce. (Ah, I thought, now we’re getting to the meat of the problem.) Dobbs has been in the business long enough to be able to talk about the divorce between a writer’s payment for services and the venue where they are publishing. He said they used to be one and the same (think: big glossy magazines with big glo$$y paycheck$) but now the emerging trend is for foundations to pay for the production of a good story, and the publication platform to be elsewhere. For example, Spot.us recently helped raise funds for Lindsey Hoshaw to write a story about the Great Pacific Garbage Patch that ran in the New York Times. This was a bit more satisfying answer for the budding career science writer, but it’s unclear whether this trend is an emergency “fill the gap” measure or if it is here to stay.
But it was the economics behind Carl Zimmer’s talk that flummoxed me the most. I greatly admire Zimmer’s writing, and the fact he can make a natural history story become a whizbang mainstream story that people want to read. But he recounted an anecdote in which he had a really cool, totally whizbang story idea, and his editor said “no thanks.” Now, Zimmer is a staff writer, so I’m guessing it’s not as big of a deal if his editor says no… whereas if I receive a “no thanks,” that also means “no paycheck” and that is a significant problem for my bank account. {NOTE: Please see comments below. Correction: Zimmer is not a staff writer, and is freelance with the New York Times.) So I thought he was going to talk about shopping the story around… but instead he talked about using video the researcher sent him, embedding it in his personal blog, and watching it go viral on the web because it was all about duck sex. (Like I said, whizbang, baby!) Funny story, and it spoke to the issue of the multiple modes by which a person can disseminate an interesting science story to the masses and get people exposed to and interested in science… but it did not address the fundamental question of how to make a living from telling and writing science stories.
So I left the session wondering, “whither the science journalisTS”? Rebooting science journalism and envisioning the future, I heard a lot of talk about the different forms science journalism would take, but I was thoroughly let down that there was virtually no discussion of how to preserve — even the necessity to preserve — professional, career science journalisTS. If we are headed to a future filled with hobbyist journalists, then I envision a landmine of issues for both the public receiving this information, and the scientists and the science that become the content and the focus of hobbyist storytellers and reporters. True, there are exceptions. Ed Yong is a great blogger. I read his blog, and I like his blog. But not every one is — or will be — an Ed Yong. And most science journalists, like me, expect that we will be able to do our jobs and, sorry to sound crass, but still be able to afford to eat and maintain our homes and send our kids to college. And that is the question left unanswered. Would love to hear your comments on this evolving conundrum.
That is, indeed, the big question that is never answered of. Thanks for the synthesis.
Delene, Thanks for this nice report and perspective.
A (provisional) correction: Carl Zimmer is not a staff writer at the NY Times, but contributes as a freelancer on a per-story basis. He writes for them so often that it would be easy to think he's a staffer; but he's on a per-story basis. So when his editor say "No," it is a lost sale and income.
In Carl's case, he'll likely fill the time with something else, as he is (rightly) in high demand. But he must sell individual stories to get paychecks, and as a freelancer faces, though perhaps in less urgent form, the same uncertainties that all freelancers now face as the publishing business changes.
To my eye, however, this is actually a relatively GOOD time to be a freelance, at least if you have fairly steady work — good in the sense of being, finally, a more secure spot than being a staffer. Most freelancers have long lived with far more financial uncertainty than staffers have. Now it's a bit turned around — not because things have gotten better for freelancers (for things have gotten harder for them too), but because they've gotten so much worse and uncertain and unpredictable for staffers.
To put it another way, I can't get fired all at once, while a staffer can. It's a very tough environment for everyone. But the toughness is of a sort that most freelancers have faced for a while now. Conceivably, then, that may give them a leg up.
As to how to preserve a spot for professional career science journalists: That's something I've given a lot of thought to, believe me, and which I was trying to address in my comments about pay structures. A few journalists are already putting an income foundation beneath themselves by securing fellowships funded by foundations of various sorts. Meanwhile, others are turning partly to per-story financial-support mechanisms, like ProPublica and Spot.Us, that are emerging. I certainly don't KNOW that those structures will combine with reduced per-word income, blog income (what's that?), speaking fees, etc. to reliably support a healthy number of skilled journalists in full-time work. But because so many of these efforts are rising so fast, I'm more confident than I was a year ago that they might.
Obviously I could be wrong about that. No one knows where this is all going (except that it's going somewhere new). But while a year ago the most obvious and emotionally salient thing was that the old house is being taken down, I'm now encouraged to see other structures being framed to keep out the rain and cold.
This is a tremendous period of adjustment, and for writers, an immense environmental upheaval. The flexible and adaptive will find ways to survive and perhaps even thrive. It's going to be tough. But it's tough now, and for most writers, it's been tough for a long time.
So yes: How to make it pay is the $64,000 question. (And $64,000 would be an attractive answer.) If Ed, John, Carl and I knew the answer, we'd have given it. (We'd probably also be patenting it or counting truckloads of venture capital money, but that's another story.) But it's going to get answered slowly.
PS. I started the comment above calling my Zimmer/staff writer corretion "provisional". That word was left from the first draft, before I checked with Zimmer to confirm he's freelance with the Times.
Thanks so much for your continued contribution to this conversation, David, and for the kick-in-the-pants to get my facts straight before hitting "publish." Funny, I thought he was freelance, then a little birdy told me "no." (Note to self: don't trust little birdies.) Last year, 50 percent of my time was invested in freelance work, and it worked out to about 50 percent of my income too. Starting in February, I'll be 100 percent freelance and so the economics of the business are weighing heavily on my mind. I certainly was not expecting any answers in the Saturday session, just hopeful for some insight from people who have been in the field much longer than I have. ($64K is a curious number to choose, is that a national average for science writers? Or just random?)
To be honest, I was slightly surprised that this issue wasn't raised more often in the Q&A bit - I sort of predicted that with 40 mins of discussion, it would inevitably rear its head. That isn't to say "Well, it's the audience's fault" by the way - I totally appreciate this perspective on the session and I enjoyed catching up with you afterwards Delene, and getting a chance to talk about it more.
As David says, this really is the critical question and if we had the answers, Rupert Murdoch would currently be over at our houses polishing our shoes.
A couple of thoughts though:
If I seem unreasonably optimistic, it's possibly because the sitaution in the UK seems less perilous than in the US. Our specialist reporters aren't being jettisoned at an alarming rate and there seems to be a lot of newsroom/public appetite for science stories. The Guardian and BBC have increased their number of specialists in recent years and the Times have just launched a monthly supplement. So there's still a lot of room for being a professional staff science reporter.
I've said elsewhere that I was struck by the number of people who are doing lots and lots of different things - reporting, sure, but also writing books, teaching, speaking and so on. From my own experience, I essentially have two careers, both intimately linked to science and both driven by a need for truth, accuracy and good communication. This ties in with David's point about 'many efforts, rising fast' - I suspect that part of the solution to making this stuff pay will be to add many strings to one's bow.
Nice piece, very interesting, and an interesting comment by David. I suppose there's no getting around it, but for me the problem with freelancing is that you've got to be constantly out there selling yourself. Personally I'd rather be writing, and I wish there was some better model for publishers to be doing the publishing and selling, and for writers to be writing.
P.S. I think the "$64K question" was an old game show (which pretty much followed the same format as "So you want to be a millionaire"). By the time I was watching it as a kid, they had raised the prize to $128K. Still, somehow everyone still calls it the $64K question.
Delene, the phrase "$64,000 question" comes from a tv quiz/game show in the 1940s.
Excellent post. I enjoy reading Ed Yong's blog and am surprised that it is not his day job as he is so great at it. I certainly hope honest science journalism lives well and prospers because I use these articles in my classroom. There is so much poor and erroneous reporting that I subject my high school science students to entire units on literacy.
Wouldn't it be nice if we could all afford to have a retirement account or send our children to college? As a school teacher these things are luxuries for me.
Great comments, Ed. Reading between the lines, you are telling me — young in my sci-writing career as I am — to move to England where there is growing opportunity, yes? (Kidding.) I agree with your comment about the diversity in activities. Just as wise people diversify their investments, I firmly believe that science writers/communicators will have to diversify their clients and activities. That's the stage I'm in now, seeking out new publications, local clients, editors and such to work with. It's good to hear that in the U.K. some of the bigger, more stable news outlets are holding onto and even growing their science teams. Perhaps they will start hiring foreign correspondents in the Carolinas!
Dave — true, freelancers do have to constantly be "out there" marketing themselves. In the short year that I've devoted to 50 percent freelancing, I've found Twitter and blogging to be excellent ways to do this. But I've also combined that with in-person networking at local events and conferences, with good results. The marketing part feels like it is non-stop. Would be interested to hear/know what other freelancers do to get themselves "out there" (aside from pitching).
On diversification:
I can't speak for in the US but in the UK there is apparently rising demand for multimedia journalists, who can produce audio and video packages as well as print, photography and online. This is why I decided to do the multimedia MA (oh, and that was the only one that would have me). With cost-per-word going down it seemed like a good idea to have a full hand in the cherry pie.
Have you seen Adam Westbrook's blog? http://adamwestbrook.wordpress.com/ It is full of handy advice on multi-media journalism. He's also on Twitter.
There is also a new breed of super-instant multimedia online journalism emerging that combines many apps such as Audioboo for quick on-the-spot interviews such as http://www.theberlinproject.com/ The project was funded by Reuters off the back of a similar but smaller multimedia project covering the G20 protests. I don't really know the others but you might want to get in touch with http://twitter.com/alexwoodcreates if you want to find out more. It would be interesting to see how something similar could apply to science or an event around science. Mash-ups around maps and earth sciences might be fairly easy to programme and possible to monetise, depending on what value they bring?
Just riffing now, in a hopeful way, as I will be looking at very similar challenges in June.
While it's true what Ed says about the Guardian and BBC increasing science and environment specialists - even The Sun has its own environment reporter these days - this means it may be more tricky for freelancers to get a look-in, as budgets are still tight and something has got to give. More staffers can equal less for the freelance pot. But it sounds like, from what David is saying, the converse is true in the US. Hurrah!
Ha! There are certainly worse fates. People here complain so much about the brain drain to the West that anything I can do to counterbalance that is a win
Also FWIW, in the year or so when I was really trying to break into freelancing and was taking up everything I could, I was earning around 20-25% of my actual salary even though I was essentially working on stuff in my spare time.
Ed: Good to know … I'm pretty happy with my 50-50 on time and income from last year. My part-time job was telecommuting, and it's time to let go of it. Feels like jumping off a bridge but then again, I always have cherished that stomach-jolting free fall feeling.
I was thinking too about your earlier comment re: waiting for someone to mention the economics of blogging and freelancing. I think in our culture it's a tad taboo to talk about money and income publicly. It also seemed that the crowd composition was weighted more so in the direction of people who had jobs but were blogging/writing/communicating on the side, or as part of their job.
I was sorry to have missed the conference — and this session in particular, as it’s a topic close to my heart. (Alas, I was at home writing one of those books-on-paper things.) Like Ed, I was somewhat surprised that the money issue wasn’t more openly discussed. Because at a practical level, I think, money is the main thing that separates a “journalist” from a “blogger.”
For the moment at least, those two categories represent slightly different activities, or two slightly different approaches to the same raw material. A “blogger” reads an original paper, or the news about the paper, or both, and offers some analysis of or commentary on it; often (increasingly, and impressively) the blogger brings some expertise of his/her own to bear, maybe some grad work in neuroscience or biochemistry. In any case the main resources involved are the blogger’s time and a general comfort with translating raw science. (Of course there are plenty of blogs that offer nothing but shallow, offhand repostings, but I’m talking about the worthwhile and heart-in-the-right-place blogs.)
A “journalist,” on the other hand, makes phone calls. Good ones also read the original papers, can view science developments in a broader perspective, and may even have some science training of their own (although that’s less common in my experience - and I’m not convinced it’s necessary). Mainly what they do is directly ask some version of the same basic questions: “What did you discover? “What does this finding mean?” “How did you reach that conclusion?” “Dr. X, what do you make of Dr. Y’s results and methods?”
In short, they converse, and they listen. Maybe it’s a heap of phone calls, maybe it’s a string of emails, maybe it’s hanging out in the field with some scientists for a day or a week or a month. Sounds basic and dumb, perhaps, but it’s an acquired set of skills. More important, it’s a fundamentally different activity than reading papers online and translating/commenting on them. (And I don’t mean to sound pejorative; good blog commentary is increasingly valuable yet still hard to find.)
One can (and should) debate the nature of “objectivity” and varying degrees of agenda in journalism. But I think we can agree that when “news” breaks-somebody discovers a photosynthetic snail, or there’s a leak of climate-change emails, or there’s evidence of malfeasance in a federal nuclear-waste agency-we want to hear from the scientist directly (i.e. we don’t want to simply read a peer-reviewed paper about it), but we don’t want to hear from the scientist *too* directly: Quotes disseminated from the scientist’s blog, or from a university press release, alone won’t cut it.
Why? Because we’re skeptical; we’re interested; we want it to sound human. Whatever the reason, we want a mediator, somebody we can trust to wisely ask and fairly listen. That’s a “journalist” for you. Again, “trust” and “wise” and “fair” — all loaded words. But the element of mediation — of “getting out there,” calling around, canvassing, reporting back — isn’t something that we get from individual science blogs. That may well change, and the line between “blogger” and “journalist” will increasingly blur. But for the moment that’s what the line looks like to me.
What draws that line is access, which is made possible by money. If I call (or email) a scientist for a comment or a quote or some background information, I’d like them to call me back. So I’ll say, “Hi, I’m working on a story for [X] and would like to talk to you about your research.” And that works, if [X] is a magazine or newspaper that the scientist deems intelligent and trustworthy, i.e. not likely to misrepresent their work. (E.g., “The New York Times” gets a more positive response than, say, “Maxim.”) Or if [X] is my next book project and I’m a published author/writer/journalist with a name familiar to and trusted by the scientist (e.g., Carl Zimmer). Or if [X] is a blog, but only if that blog is widely recognized, which means it’s almost certainly affiliated with a major, trusted media outlet: The Discover Blog, Seed, The New York Times, etc. If [X] is merely “MyBlog,” on the other hand, chances are I won’t get a call back — unless “MyBlog” is a blog like Carl’s (terrific) “Loom,” which established its credibility (even before its Discover affiliation) based on Carl’s previous, mainstream-published work.
In short, somehow or other, I have to be “connected.” Why? Because scientists are busy; because they know that accurately reporting science requires more skill and subtlety than reporting on football; because they don’t trust many people to get it right; and because the consequences of being misquoted or misrepresented could reverberate online around the world instantly and for months to come. And because … why bother? They could as easily post their findings on their own website, or give canned quotes to the university PR flak to disseminate. With the generational shift, as more scientists look on blogs as intelligent, trustworthy“outlets,” perhaps they’ll open up and be more likely to call back. But there will also be more blogs than ever, more bloggers feeling empowered enough to call/email with direct and probing questions. The scientists will still have to choose — and, as now, they’ll choose the outlets with the best track record and/or the best audience.
Well, I’m running on here, but my point is: doing “journalism” takes money. I can read journals and comment on papers on my own time, for free; nobody’s waiting for me to hit “publish.” (Please speak up if I’ve missed anyone, but I don’t know a single writer who makes decent — or often any — money from blogging, and none that do it exclusively.) But if in addition I want to make calls, report, get out in the field, travel, write an in-depth article (much less a book), I need more time and (crucially) the money to afford that time. Until recently, being “affiliated” or “connected” — i.e. being the sort of journalist who could get one’s calls returned — went hand in hand with making money; being “hired” provided both an income (usually modest) and professional credibility, which the journalist could leverage into access and an improved body of work.
That link is dissolving. Newspapers, magazines, book publishers, and major blogs still want “journalism” — but they’re paying less than ever (and increasingly, nothing) for it. Maybe that’s not all bad; it opens the ranks to ambitious, previously unknown writers who’ll work for less, and to a kind of grassroots journalism. But I feel strongly that, on the whole, citizen-journalists are not a replacement for decently paid, professional journalists, who are granted the resources and institutional cover to get it right, any more than citizen-politicians are a viable alternative to our current, paid politicians (much as we may dislike them or their privileges). Information is free, sure. But good information isn’t: it costs to make, to recover, to translate, and to broadcast. We can pay nothing, but in the end we get what we pay for.
Re: the point in Christine's final para - I think that's certainly true for news. It was getting to the point a year or so ago when people were phoning me up asking me to write up news pieces for them as a freelancer. The recession pretty much killed that. But there's still lots to play for in terms of freelance feature writing and, with the rise of new publications like Eureka and Wired UK, new playgrounds to dive into.
[...] https://scienceinthetriangle.org/2010/01/rebooting-science-journalists/ [...]
Really interesting discussion here. Like Alan, I too was sorry to miss ScienceOnline (almost made it there, but not quite). I think Alan is (as usual) spot-on about the money issues. I've been a journalist since 1993, and freelance since 2000, and while I'm not lacking for work right now, it's frequently being offered to me at rates that are half and sometimes less than half what I'm used to making. And that rate I'm used to making has itself not changed the entire time I've been at this.
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.
Christine: Thanks for these resources, I will have to investigate them further when I have some spare time. I'd not heard of Adam's blog, so thanks for sending me in that direction. Can't fully explain why, but I feel like I'm more hard-wired for writing than doing multi-media… still, never say never, right?
Hillary — thanks for your perspective. I hear the same thing said on the NASW Freelance list-serve, about the rates being half what they were. And since I just got into this a year ago, it's this sort of history of the profession that I'm lacking. Do you think the pay disparity between American and UK markets as exemplified by Wired hold true across the board? Or is it just that case?
I think the pay disparity holds true across the board-for freelancers, in any case. I know several successful British freelance journos who relocated to the US because they could make double, triple, or even quadruple what they'd get paid in the UK. Salaries are probably more on par, though I'm not actually sure.
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…
I couldn't agree more with the distinction Alan made between "journalist" and "blogger." This distinction is crucial. Too often, blogging ends up being one person's opinion. That can be entertaining depending on who that person is, but journalism is more than entertainment. It is supposed to give readers tools to improve their lives and the lives of others, which is one of the building blocks of democracy.
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?
[...] trying to understand the results of a paper or mechanisms behind a phenomenon. But after making an error in a blog post that hundreds of people have now read (and thankfully being called out on it early), I see more [...]
Sabine, the largest difference I've noticed in my personal blogging at Wild Muse and my professional writing is one of having an editor and using reporting. I don't tend to report on Wild Muse, but I do on Science in the Triangle (minus the more personal blogs I wrote about the conference, but the other posts were totally reporting efforts — heck! I even interviewed a Harvard professor for the Acid Oceans post). But for me, turning my work in to an editor and knowing I'm reporting a piece makes me approach it differently, more objectively.
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.
No argument with any of that, and thinking about whether I want to spend time on a personal blog.
Re: writing vs multimedia - yes but with a project like the Berlin Project they had a team of them that played to their strengths - so it wouldn't be neccessary to have a handle on all things m-m. Also, with the mapping thing, it is possible to make money from these kinds of mash-ups with a bit of set-up effort and then a bit of maintenance along the way, freeing you up to write. That's the idea anyway. I will try and find an example and ping it over to you.
[...] Ed Yong before and after, Christine Ottery before and after, David Dobbs, DeLene Beeland before and after and some more after, Andria Krewson, Sabine Vollmer, Ryan Somma, Janet Stemwedel and Eric [...]
[...] https://scienceinthetriangle.org/2010/01/rebooting-science-journalists/ [...]