| Tweetovi |
|
Maddie Stone
@themadstone
|
41 min |
|
This is true! And I never mind explaining if folks ask nice.
|
||
|
|
||
| Maddie Stone proslijedio/la je tweet | ||
|
Maddie Stone
@themadstone
|
6 h |
|
Right now, hundreds of scientists are doing research on a ship frozen into the middle of the Arctic Ocean. The sun never rises, it's wickedly cold, and they are surrounded by polar bears. But science is happening.
Also, I'm back in Earther this week 💜earther.gizmodo.com/beneath-the-ar…
|
||
|
|
||
|
Maddie Stone
@themadstone
|
5 h |
|
What a completely predictable and preventable nightmare.
vice.com/en_us/article/…
|
||
|
|
||
|
Maddie Stone
@themadstone
|
6 h |
|
Ughghg
|
||
|
|
||
|
Maddie Stone
@themadstone
|
6 h |
|
Right now, hundreds of scientists are doing research on a ship frozen into the middle of the Arctic Ocean. The sun never rises, it's wickedly cold, and they are surrounded by polar bears. But science is happening.
Also, I'm back in Earther this week 💜earther.gizmodo.com/beneath-the-ar…
|
||
|
|
||
|
Maddie Stone
@themadstone
|
6 h |
|
Worth noting that Google science news is often a garbage heap of conspiracy theories, too. Not so much climate denial but I frequently see stories on asteroids and volcanoes ending all life on earth, etc.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Maddie Stone
@themadstone
|
22 h |
|
That’s ok! Just trying to improve understandings all around, I know this is a controversial topic
|
||
|
|
||
|
Maddie Stone
@themadstone
|
22 h |
|
I always appreciate scientists who volunteer their time, and thank them for doing so. Many don’t take your cynical view, though—I’ve spoken to many many scientists who have thanked me for the opportunity to communicate about an important topic with the public.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Maddie Stone
@themadstone
|
22 h |
|
LOL you don’t have to do anything you don’t want to do, friend. I’m just explaining the rules.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Maddie Stone
@themadstone
|
22 h |
|
Veto power and input are fairly standard at places I’ve worked, yes
|
||
|
|
||
|
Maddie Stone
@themadstone
|
22 h |
|
I’m always happy to talk about it! (Clearly.) it’s an area rife with ideological disagreement
|
||
|
|
||
|
Maddie Stone
@themadstone
|
22 h |
|
And scientists ~are~ like politicians in the sense that they (like all humans) prefer to shape the public narrative about themselves and their work.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Maddie Stone
@themadstone
|
22 h |
|
Review for accuracy is called fact checking and many science journalists do it very well. I haven’t had to issue a correction on a story in months and most of my stories are loaded with technical facts.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Maddie Stone
@themadstone
|
22 h |
|
But the “most significant aspect of the work” is not an objective fact. Very often I’ll interview half a dozen experts about a study and ~each one~ has a different takeaway about what’s most significant or interesting. Which gets us back to editorial control over the story.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Maddie Stone
@themadstone
|
22 h |
|
Sorry you, had bad experiences, though. I know some fields have it worse than others.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Maddie Stone
@themadstone
|
22 h |
|
Yes I’m aware bad articles can reflect badly on scientists who participate. Journalism at large can’t compromise its ethics because of bad actors, though. Imagine if your funding agency was allowed editorial input on the conclusions of your research articles.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Maddie Stone
@themadstone
|
22 h |
|
This, for me, is the main point. Very few stories I write regurgitate one the scientist’s POV without any additional input, and the additional input often paints a different picture.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Maddie Stone
@themadstone
|
22 h |
|
Or others in the field might be highly critical of their work and it’s the journalist’s job to present a balanced view. If the scientist whose work is being critiqued gets to read the whole thing before publication they might try to un-balance it.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Maddie Stone
@themadstone
|
22 h |
|
Letting someone look over an entire draft allows them to see and impose opinions on the entire direction of the piece, not just facts. A scientist might not like a certain aspect of their work being played up, but it might be the part that’s most interesting to a general audience
|
||
|
|
||
|
Maddie Stone
@themadstone
|
22 h |
|
The principle here is respecting the fact that the journalist has full editorial control over the story they write which is incompatible with letting sources review it. What if the story is critical of the scientist’s work? Science journalism isn’t science PR.
|
||
|
|
||