Duncan Article Part 2

Question 1

Duncan believes we live in what times today when it comes to science writing?

Answer 1

We live in the best of times and the worst of times – some of the best science writing is happening now, but science journalism may be contributing to science ignorance

Question 2

Science writing has what kind of learning curve?

Answer 2

A steep learning curve – it takes time to understand the basics

Question 3

What are the problematic “two ways” media frequently report science?

Answer 3

“Cancer cure around the corner” or “They’re killing our babies” stories
Both screaming headlines attract readers but they add to the eye-glazing effect: the public’s heard these stories so much they lack credibility aka “crying wolf” impact

Question 4

What is the “Africa Effect”?

Answer 4

When publications say, “Hey, we already did a story on African this month”
→ Same thing with science, “Hey, we did a story on cloning last month, why do one again?”

Question 5

What does Duncan claim about incremental reporting?

Answer 5

Editors think science stories move so slowly & incrementally that they don’t need headlines to attract and inform readers
But Duncan thinks science reporting should cover incremental changes b/c the science behind the “gee-whiz” factors are fascinating if written well for Americans that are literate – writing only about breakthroughs is outdate and unhelpful

Question 6

What crisis does science journalism share with journalism in general?

Answer 6

It spends too little money chasing complex stories, and there are too many cases of hype stories and passive recitations of industry/university press releases