Chemistry Reference
In-Depth Information
rated by pictures of statesmen and criminals. Believe me: the scientist
had his 'day' in the way of publicity this time. 28
Journalists also had to convince scientists to share information about
their research, which sometimes meant persuading them to release results
before formal publication. Given the competition in the news business,
timeliness was essential. Editors liked to know that results were 'just
announced' or that a story might 'scoop' rival papers. Science Service
could not wait for scientists to release results according to their own
timetable (which might give the appearance of staleness). In science,
rushing into print had not yet become the norm. Davis tried to explain
this situation to one newspaper editor in 1936: “News of science does not
develop like news of war, politics, crime and sport. Practically all scien-
tific news is the result of months or even years of patient research, and it
is produced by men who would rather remain silent than make an
announcement that was not thoroughly authentic.” 29 To secure research-
ers' cooperation in the news process, Science Service had to build their
trust, had to convince them that while it valued accuracy over haste, there
were deadlines to be met.
The most persistent conflicts centered on who should determine the
quality of science news. Should scientists alone be the judges of what
was accurate and important? Many newspaper editors thought that scien-
tists gave little indication of understanding that communicating success-
fully beyond their circle of experts required some compromise. A.H.
Kirchhofer, managing editor of the Buffalo Evening News , complained in
1932 that scientists gave “little or no credit to the newspapers” for recent
progress in science reporting and that their unwarranted criticism actu-
ally contributed to “misunderstanding” between the two groups. Scien-
tists need to “come out of their shells” and take a “human as well as sci-
entific view-point” if they want more attention to their work, he argued
(Kirchhofer 1932, pp. 154-155). Another editor observed that the articles
28 H.L. Smithton to W.E. Ritter, January 2, 1924; SIA RU7091, Box 23, Folder 6.
29 W. Davis to J.N. Heiskell, Editor, The Arkansas Gazette , October 22, 1936; SIA
RU7091, Box 424, Folder 14.
Search WWH ::




Custom Search