What should any researcher expect from a journalist beyond the keen intelligence needed to see the newsworthiness of the researcher’s work, and the ability to spell his or her name correctly? For some scientists, the answer is probably ‘Not much’. Many tend to think of science journalism as a kind of public-relations service, existing purely to explain new scientific findings to the masses.
Die Fachzeitschrift “Nature” macht sich anlässlich der 6. Weltkonferenz der Wissenschaftsjournalisten (30.6-2.7. in London) Gedanken um die Zukunft des Wissenschaftsjournalismus. In drei Essays werden die Defizite und Herausforderungen für Journalisten und Naturwissenschaftler benannt.
Boyce Rensberger, bis 2008 Leiter des Knight Science Journalism Fellowship Programm am MIT, bringt es auf den Punkt:
If science journalists are to regain relevance to society, not only must they master the new media, they must learn enough science to analyse and interpret the findings — including the motives of the funders. And, as if that were not enough, they must also anticipate the social impacts of potential new technologies while there is still time to make a difference.
Bei dem Anspruch wird der real existierende Medizinjournalismus in Deutschland zum hoffnungslosen Fall.
