Category: Blog Entry 1 (Page 1 of 3)

If I was an author in the New York Times, my goal in a popular science article would always be first and foremost to inform my readers and tell them the absolute truth about what is written in a scientific journal. I think it is most important to put the truth ahead of any sort of inaccurate clickbait headline which will just cause more people to read the article but give them inaccurate information. One thing I would do is make sure that all relevant information in the article is mentioned, maybe leaving out certain technical details but not anything which affects the conclusions of the research or experiments. I would talk about possible future implications of the research but phrase it in a way so that the readers can clearly differentiate what is known for sure from the research and what may be possible in the future due to this research. If possible, such as in the ketamine depression article written by Vox which I presented on, I would have some anecdotal interview with a person who underwent such a trial and how they were affected, getting both someone who was treated effectively and someone who was not if possible, in order to have both sides, while including statistics on the rate of effectiveness. This way people will be more able to relate to the research and how it could effect them.

One of the most important insights that my classmates and I made through the Hot Topic project is that popular media reports synthesize scientific studies in a way that makes the information more accessible to the common public. Certain magazines, news outlets and blogs choose which information to include, and curate it in a way that makes it more understandable for their readers. Some popular media sources even misconstrue scientific findings in order to make more definitive claims and gain more readership.

If I were a scientific journalist New York Times, I would simplify information in a way that stays true to the original peer-reviewed scientific article. In order to still keep the essence of the scientific study, I would include short quotes of necessary information, as well as some convincing numerical data. In addition, I would try to create some very simplified graphs of whatever results were collected, especially if there is a visible trend, because I feel like simple graphs could be made sense of easier.

I believe that good scientific journalist should always maintain a healthy skepticism in their writing, like the author of my popular media article did. Journalists should mention that although the studies may support one argument, there is still room for more development. A popular media article would be really helpful if it even included some counterclaims, or evidence for the other side because it would explore the topic in more depth, and would help the reader develop other theories or questions.

If I had to author an article in the New York Times, there are a few elements to make it appeal to a broader audience while still being scientifically sound. One of the things everyone would do is simplify the information from the primary source. I think that sometimes this can be dangerous because the information from the primary source can be oversimplified. This could cause the facts to be distorted which can create some fallacies in the report. Other than simplifying scientific jargon, a good representation of scientific research in a popular report is providing data with visual aides. This is a good way to simplify data, but not distort it.

The whole theme here is oversimplification. I think that is something that authors of popular reports about science need to improve upon. However, I think that has more to do with the authors’ backgrounds than the authors themselves. If the author has a degree in the discipline that they are writing in, they most likely will already know how to simplify the information is the primary source, but authors who don’t have degrees in the discipline they write about may not have a working knowledge of the topic and therefore may dumb down the facts too much.

      It is imperative that scientific articles in popular news media outlets thoroughly explain the research, it’s findings, and provide an explanation. I have an incredibly minimal knowledge of science, because of this an issue I encountered while reading my article and other ones was not understanding many terms of diseases or what they were. Because this was an assignment for a class I looked up numerous diseases, but I can see that this would potentially push readers away especially people who don’t have much time. Also, I would ensure that statistics and graphs are included in my articles. Not many presentations mentioned statistics, but for me, in particular and perhaps for others I am much more trustworthy if I can get statistics on a topic. Also including opinions from other experts was something that was found in a few presentations which provided a different perspective for the reader which is helpful in order to make a conclusion. These are all elements I would include if I were ever to write a scientific article for a popular news outlet as well as aspects that make for a good representation of scientific research for popular media outlets. The only piece of information that stuck out to me was when AJ mentioned that the author of his article had sexual harassment allegations towards him because it was shocking and upsetting to me.

It is such a significant experience to have personally researched a scientific journal and watched all the other educational and profound presentations made by classmates. Not only I have gained knowledge of different creative healthcare innovations that are introduced to better people’s lives, but I also have concluded some essential elements needed in popular media reports in order to appeal to a broader audience and yet remain scientifically sound.

If I had to author an article in a comparable periodical on a scientific paper, I would certainly make sure to include some graphs that show the statistical information of my scientific topic. Any scientific discovery, to my understanding, involves multiple times of conducting experiments and collecting data before being published. Therefore, to make sure the credibility of my scientific paper, I would definitely include the statistical numbers since it is also my respect to the public audience who put their trust in me. Additionally, I would also make sure that the article has been consistently objective throughout because scientific articles, unlike personal narrative, are very serious and profound. The content has already been so abstract and the scientific jargon has already been so sophisticated, so it is more appropriate that we don’t express our own thoughts to further confuse the audience into thinking if that is the writer’s feeling or the researchers’ who perform such experiment.

From the presentations that I have seen, I believe that an effective popular media report, in order to best represent the scientific research, should contain mixed parts of interview with the primary scientists, quotes from them, and the paraphrase to show the writer’s understanding of the scientific journal. By including these three elements, the writer will be able to cater to the public audience more by demonstrating the authenticity of the report. And this is what I have realized after browsing through different popular reports.

Furthermore, I did not realize it at first, but later came to notice from some classmates’ presentations that including some related video clips might   also be a useful strategy in catering to the audience because nowadays as the technologies are getting so advanced, we are more likely to be attracted by the use of the internet rather than just be educated orally. Therefore, I found out that it could be a helpful tool in making a PowerPoint and delivering a presentation in the future.

It was a fascinating and informative experience in general!

If I was an author for the NY Times and was tasked with writing an article on primary scientific literature, I would need to include several things in order to appeal to a general audience while staying in line with the primary literature.  To begin, I definitely would need to refrain from making any conclusion that wasn’t made in the original study. I would need to be able to include quotes from the study itself or even reach out to the researchers in order to get their own take.  Doing this would ensure the legitimacy of my own article while also using my platform as a popular media reporter to educate the general population.

A good representation of scientific research in a popular media report requires including all aspects of the study itself.  Something I noticed with a majority of the articles (including mine) was that certain parts of the study were left out in order to center the popular article around a specific point (e.g. in my article, the fact that the airport security trays that were tested had more viruses than the toilet seats was pretty much the crux of the article). I think this is something that could be improved on when journalists write about science.  Something in my own and my classmates’ research my that really struck me as interesting was the fact that the bigger the claim made in the title of the popular article usually correlated with a less reliable article. I think that journalists in the Information Age often times need to get those views on their article to stay relevant and including a bold claim in the title of the article they write is a way of achieving a higher click ratio.

In order to write an appealing article, it is incumbent upon the author to understand their audience. If I were writing an scientific article to the general public, I would be sure to emphasize why this scientific topic or innovation was so important. The best way to do this is to relate the scientific discovery to them directly. For example, I would include how this could directly affect their life. Thus, I would have hooked my audience to continue reading my article. I would also include statistics and my own background to establish my credibility with the audience. I think scientific research is well represented in the media when it is relevant to the audience. For example, a population in New York City might not be most interested in a scientific innovation on the other side of the world if it has no correlation to them. However, if it is an innovation that will raise the standard of living in New York, it will appeal to them much more. I definitely think science in the popular media can improve because right now, most popular media science articles either are too anecdotal or too scientific. By finding the perfect balance between storytelling and sharing research, authors will ensure that they are delivering important news as well as capturing their audience’s attention. Something that I found interesting in other people’s presentations was how the popular media reports would draw conclusions not originally included in the research to capture the audience. For example, some articles failed to mention the innovation was used in animals and not yet in humans just to capture the attention of the audience.

If I were to write an article for the NYT or another paper I would most likely end up doing many of their common practices including a strong and interesting headline and try and appeal to a large audience. I would try and include interviews from the authors of the studies for a more personal appeal. Most of the articles that we read that were based on Scientific studies, they popular reports often left out the process of the experiment and only mentioned what was included in the introduction and abstract. For many of the popular reports they did not include some important details that could help clarify specifics of the experiment that could clear up some possible  misconceptions about the study. Along with simplifying some of the scientific jargon, I think it is also important to keep your personal takes out of the popular report. I believe that when it comes to reporting on science the only important opinions to include would be the opinion of the scientists. The authors of the popular report should try and keep their reports as unbiased as the original study or else they are changing the meaning of the results of the study. Out of all the studies that were done I was the most surprised by the studies on therapy cats and therapy clowns. Both of which are terrible Ideas in my opinion. Also for both of those studies it is very difficult to get any quantitative data so both of those studies were not incredibly conclusive.

Reading through numerous popular reports about scientific and healthcare innovations, it is obvious that authors portray their writing differently, depending on the type of discovery, how the author wants to appeal to the audience, and knowledge of the topic.

If I had to author an article in the NY Times or a comparable periodical on a scientific paper, I would make sure that the content both caters to a broader audience and educates readers at an appropriate level. I would make sure to state the main points discussed in the scientific paper, but expand on them in a little more detail. This way, readers will clearly understand what the paper is about, while also gaining more insight on the paper’s synopsis, through graphs, data, and quotes from the scientists and researchers involved.

Other than simplifying scientific jargon, including data from the scientific paper and any vital details not in the abstract, introduction, or conclusion will make the popular media report a good representation of the scientific research.

When writing about science, the authors should definitely know what they are writing about. They need to thoroughly read the scientific research to be able to paraphrase and simplify the paper for a popular media report. From what I have noticed, a lot of authors do not include data or any other specific findings in their report. That is something the author should absolutely touch on to make the report more educational.

Looking at all of the presentations, it surprised me that the degree of detail and scientific jargon in the reports were mixed. I would have expected the authors to know the research and include that important information. However, based on the source of the popular reports, I could see why some authors write in the style that they do. Regardless of how much information the author includes, the ultimate goal is to appeal to as broad of an audience as possible.

In scientific journalism, I think it’s important to be as objective as possible when relaying facts. It’s okay for authors to include their own opinions at times, but it should be clearly separate from what is scientifically proven and  factual. To my surprise, I felt many popular media authors skewed information to convey a certain feeling or opinion. Whether it was overly positive/hopeful language, exaggeration of statements, or leaving details out altogether, it was clear when comparing the journal and the popular media reports that the author was conveying their own version of the facts. Even if the changes were subtle, the impact on the article as a whole was significant. Therefore, I think scientific journalists can improve on being more objective. In addition to being objective, I think a good reproduction of scientific research should also include more angles and alternative views. It shows the author has done thorough research on the topic and also helps cancel out some possibility of bias. In order to keep readers interested, I think it’s helpful to include relatable analogies and reference to modern day applications. Rather than spinning the facts to engage the reader, authors can retain their credibility, while also appealing to the audience by keeping content relevant. Whether that’s making reference to a popular movie or mentioning a famous celebrity, this could help lighten the load of all the scientific talk. One point I found interesting in the presentations was the fact that certain scientists had financial stake in the company they were reporting on. Personally, I did not know this while reading, but it definitely changes my perception of the report now. It brings some controversy to the credibility of the writers who perhaps may be biased.