TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

The Science Reporter: Who is ultimately responsible for reporting significant findings to the public?

Are science reporters like other reporters? Reporters are suppose to be objective and independently investigate stories that are of public interest. They are generally proactive and go after the story rather than having the story come to them. They are also knowledgable enough to present the dynamics and content of a story to the public. Who is ultimately responsible for reporting significant scientific findings to the public when science reporters are unable to act as other reporters?


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Feb 11 2013: Re: "Reporters are suppose to be objective and independently investigate stories.."

    You seem to be confusing a "reporter" with an investigative journalist.
    Am I correct to observe that you are not a part of the science community?

    My suggestion is that you read the book "The End of Science" by John Horgan.

    "As a staff writer for Scientific American, John Horgan has a window on contemporary science unsurpassed in all the world. Who else routinely interviews the likes of Lynn Margulis, Roger Penrose, Francis Crick, Richard Dawkins, Freeman Dyson, Murray Gell-Mann, Stephen Jay Gould, Stephen Hawking, Thomas Kuhn, Chris Langton, Karl Popper, Steven Weinberg, and E. O. Wilson, with the freedom to probe their innermost thoughts? This is the secret fear that Horgan pursues throughout this remarkable book: Have the big questions all been answered? Has all the knowledge worth pursuing become known? Will there be a final "theory of everything" that signals the end? Is the age of great discoveries behind us? Is science today reduced to mere puzzle solving and adding details to existing theories?"
    • Feb 11 2013: Yes, I am part of the science community. I am a teacher whose role is not only to support the creative minds of the future but to show them that the answers to the questions below are all "NO". We believed the answer to all those questions was "yes" before the turn of the last century and we discovered phenomena that made us think again. Einstein's creative genius lit the way. Now we are are faced with new phenomena which as not been answered by the individuals who John Horgan routinely interviews or their followers. John Horgan has never in his life interviewed a creative genius. Science reports are not investigative journalist but they are the front line for protecting the credibility of science as it is articulated to the public. Instead they appear to be simply mouth pieces for the science community and has little ability to present the story objectively.

      John Horgan did an interview with the author of "Science on the Fringe" and they made fun of John Carter. They put him on display as a crack pot. I really don't know what he is but they used him to degrade the work of independent researchers who do not have access to the federal funds that their tax dollars go to for research. I challenge John Horgan and any science reporter to interview me concerning my research. Of course they would refuse because they are there to sell books and papers and sensationalize science. Any story, no matter how important, if it does not fit that mold they are unavailable.

      Religion vs. Science. Crack Pots. Multiple Universes and dead end scientific investigations. That's their game so no wonder they think this is "The End of Science". When media budgets are cut, its just the end of a science reporter's job spent too much time making him/herself irrelevant in the world of reporting.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.