|
Controversial Training
(October 8, 2004) -
While political reporters dig beyond the stiff statements of government
ministers, science journalists eagerly translate the technical
jargon of lab rats. With a critical eye and plume fine, the reporter
analyzes scientific news because science is also in the public
interest. Where do you find that rare bird, both curious and rigorous?
Some turn to science faculties, while others firmly believe journalism
schools are the place to look.
In fact, half the members of the Canadian Science
Writers’ Association (CSWA) have a background in science
according to outgoing director Andy Vasser. He points out that
most members with a degree in both fields are rather young. Generally,
the older ones have no scientific training. Do science journalists
have to specialize in science to do their job properly? "Learning
to write is very hard," says Sharon Dunwoody of the University
of Wisconsin. "Often the employer has two options: hire
a physicist, for example, and teach them to write, or have a reporter
learn physics. Usually the employer opts for the reporter."
Specialists in journalism
Science cover a wide variety of fields. "How
can a reporter claim to be well-informed about all the different
types of science that exist?" asks Toronto Star
science journalist Peter Calamai. According to him, it’s
important to learn the vocabulary shared by all scientific fields,
such as the periodic table. You also have to be able analyze the
statistics in a research report to judge its value. Calamai believes
that a reporter’s general education can be in any field from
history to philosophy. He describes himself as a journalist writing
about science rather than the opposite.
"Above all, reporters have to be experts
in journalism," says journalist Bertrand Labasse, who
teaches at the Centre d’étude en communication publique
in Lyon. "There’s no pigeonhole of human activity
called ‘science’ with everything else on the other side."
In his view, what makes science writers unique lies in the realm
of complexity. These reporters, forced to arouse public interest,
push the boundaries of journalistic expertise to the limit. "All
reports should have the know-how of science journalists,"
Labasse believes.
Where’s the rigour?
The specialists interviewed all agree on the importance
of scientific rigour. For UQAM professor and science communicator
Bernard Shiele, a background in science is necessary, but not
enough. "You learn by reorganizing prior knowledge," he
said. Since our world is teeming with science and knowledge is
becoming increasingly complex, in his view such training is highly
recommended. Moreover, journalists have to understand the history
and sociology of science, as well as the development of ideas.
In his opinion, these concepts are essential. According to Danielle
Ouellet, editor-in-chief of the magazine Découvrir,
this rigour is more easily acquired in a science faculty. Well-organized
thought, a passion for science, a knack for translating scientific
jargon: all of these characteristics are often found in science
graduates. Yet while she doesn’t consider a science background
essential, it’s preferable.
Calamai, who also has a degree in physics, disagrees.
In his view, that background often interferes with explaining
science for the general reader. Physicists adjust their language
to the listener’s level of understand. "I want them
to explain their research to readers who have no background in
science," says the reporter. "He has to translate
that occupational jargon for the public. It’s not the researcher’s
exact words that get printed," he notes, "but
the journalist’s interpretation of those statements."
For Dunwoody, while a science degree can help a
reporter, it’s no guarantee of good science journalism. "Experience
is the most important factor," in her view. "The
best sign of a good reporter is the number of years spent in the
field."
Marie-Hélène
Verville
|
