Futurity and ‘almost-journalism’

Explore Harvard's Nieman network Nieman Fellowships Nieman Lab Nieman Reports Nieman Storyboard

Nick Denton says Gizmodo's new design focus is aimed at taking advantage of Gawker's discussion platform, Kinja. nie.mn/18QzLAz

Pushing to the future of journalism — A project of the Nieman Foundation at Harvard

Sept. 24, 2009, 2:28 p.m.

Futurity and ‘almost-journalism’

By Jim Barnett

More knowledge is a good thing, especially when it comes from top-flight research institutions. But the launch of Futurity, a nonprofit news service specializing in science and medicine, underscores what Dan Gillmor describes as the challenge of the “almost journalist.”

Futurity was created by universities frustrated by the disappearance of newspaper reporters and column inches dedicated to covering their work, according to a story last week in the San Jose Mercury News.

Many of Futurity’s articles are written by the universities’ public relations departments. And while the articles might be factually accurate, the problem with almost-journalists is that they don’t always apply the principles of journalism to their work, Gillmor wrote in an article last year. Foremost among them is applying some standard of fairness — or as others might call it, skepticism.

This is the chief problem with Futurity, according to former science reporter Charlie Petit, who is quoted in the Merc article. “The quality of research university news releases is quite high. They are rather reliable,” Petit tells the Merc. “But they are completely absent any skepticism or investigative side.”

How to solve this problem is not entirely clear. Petit suggests clear labeling of articles as a start. Kaiser Health News, a project of the Kaiser Family Foundation, has a national advisory committee of distinguished journalists to oversee its work. Gillmor is less specific, but says the problem is one that should be addressed by journalism educators.

Whatever the solution or solutions, they are certain to be put to the test as more and more advocacy nonprofits, think tanks, and universities fill the void left by newspapers. According to Gillmor, almost-journalists will find that adhering to the standards of journalism ultimately will help them raise their game.

“By doing so, they can strengthen their own arguments in the end. At the very least they are clearer, if not absolutely clear, on the other sides’ arguments, however weak,” he writes.

What to read next

Mark Coddington May 17, 2013

This Week in Review, Spy vs. Spy edition: Backlash against snooping by DOJ and Bloomberg

Plus: New developments in online video, The New Yorker’s Strongbox leak submission system, and the rest of the week’s future-of-news news.

http://www.kathlynclore.com Kathlyn Clore

Couldn’t journalism educators have students enrolled in upper-level classes or post-grad internships review the releases before they’re sent on to Futurity? That way appropriate questions could be raised, new journalists could get experience and Futurity would receive more balanced reviews.

Or Futurity could institute peer reviewing of press releases. Let University of X review and question Y College’s releases prior to Futurity publication – that should also yield more balanced reviews (and maybe ideas for future scientific work).
http://www.nasw.org/users/emhollan/ Earle Holland

The basic point of science/research releases from universities is — or at least should be — to provide a clear, accurate assessment of the science at hand. For the journalist, it should be a place where they can begin their own reporting. Since journalism as a whole has whittled away at the cadre of skilled science writers, more and more general assignment types are being pressed into service to cover this beat without even the most rudimentary skill sets required for covering this field

Petit’s comment about releases lacking “skepticism or [the] investigative side” is fair and accurate but no one expects that of releases from public information officers. That’s the journalists’ responsibility but it isn’t fulfilled by simply finding an opposing source to provide dissent in a false search for “balance” either.

Futurity’s fundamental flaw is that it touts itself as an alternative or supplement to science journalism but then it fails to follow the basic tenets of best practices by university science writers. Specifically, it fails to insure that the editing and alterations it makes to usually well-written science releases did not alter the sense or facts of the story, a flaw easily correctible if the Futurity version was vetted by the original author, whose work is usually vetted initially by the researchers who achieved the discovery.

Futurity’s braintrust have argued that their practice of altering original releases is intended to enhance the readability of the text by a lay audience, but virtually all university science writers will affirm their copy is written for that same lay audience, not a readership of scholars. No, Futurity is more a marketing effort than it is an attempt to fill in the gaps of science journalism. If it were the latter, its stories would link directly to the original releases and, when possible, to journal articles reporting the science, rather than to the university’s generic “home page.” It would also vet the altered copy with the institutional science writers, or do its own original reporting. No, Futurity is a rewrite service with more intent at touting member universities than it is explaining the science.

Lastly, the suggestion that journalism students review releases before they’re sent out shows just how separated the commentor is from reality when it comes to best practices in university science writing. I’ve taught graduate-level science writing classes for more than two decades and only an occasional student would capable of writing a decent research release, much less reviewing the work of the professionals trained and experienced at doing that work.
Pingback: Wie heeft nog journalisten nodig?