False information spreads much faster and farther than the truth on Twitter-and although it is tempting to blame automated “bot” programs for this, human users are more at fault.These are two conclusions researchers at Massachusetts Institute of Technology drew from their recent study of how news travels on the microblogging site.
It’s been a rough year or so if you are a woman. Or a person who loves science. (Or part of any underrepresented group for that matter). A quick online search easily locates where science intersects with the #metoo movement. (See the #astroSH hashtag as one example, including new allegations against a famous physicist/cosmologist just a couple of weeks ago). And despite decades of effort, the number of women and minorities in highest levels of academic science remain painfully low due to a variety of factors.
Lorsque je m’adresse à vous en me présentant comme un « journaliste scientifique », l’une des choses les plus importantes que vous devez comprendre, c’est qu’un journaliste scientifique, ce n’est pas un scientifique qui fait du journalisme. C’est, d’abord et avant tout, un journaliste. Un journaliste qui s’est spécialisé en science, de la même façon qu’il existe des journalistes sportifs ou des journalistes politiques.
The rise of artificial intelligence has recently led to bots writing real news stories about sports, finance and politics. As yet, bots have not turned their attention to science, and some people still mistakenly think science is too complex for bots to write about. In fact, a small number of insiders are now applying AI algorithms to summarise scientific research papers and automatically turn them into simple press releases and news stories. Could the science beat be next in line for automation, potentially making many science reporters — and even editors — superfluous to science communication through digital press? Meanwhile, the science journalism community remains largely unaware of these developments, and is not engaged in directing AI developments in ways that could enhance reporting.
Should journalists allow scientists to review their quotes or text before publication? At first glance, this fundamental journalism question appears to be black and white, but it turns out to have a lot of gray.
Here’s a recipe for misinformation: Take two topics well known to generate clicks: alcohol and longevity. Find a study that suggests alcohol increases longevity. Fail to mention the study is observational but still emphasize cause-and-effect language in your headline.Here’s what you get: Drinking Alcohol Key to Living Past 90 (NY Daily News)
A great piece about the shift of public perception of media bias, facts, truth, fake news and why journalists not only need a soul, but a spine, too: It’s the Reuters Memorial Lecture delivered by Martin Baron, Washington Post Executive Editor, at the University of Oxford on February 16, 2018
A terrifying look at the future — not just of “fake news”, but of a world where information is so freely available and manipulatable that people begin to doubt that anything is actually real, or that truth even exists.