Scientists often complain: Science journalism just doesn’t take up with the necessary level of complexity. Information relevant for decisions is not getting the attention of those who should be concerned.

Is this true?

And: Should journalism just become more like science?

All these questions have been brought up by Matthew C. Nisbet, professor in the Schhol of Communication at American University and author of a blog that have been mentioned recently at http://www.blog.mediaforscience.eu/.

Surprisingly, it’s not all that easy. In fact, news media do a pretty good job in delivering news from science to a broader audience, as several studies show. Neither seems there to be a significant lack of literacy amongst the lay public.

Does this mean that, after all, an information failure doesn’t exist?

This is where the debate starts (click image to enlarge):

See what’s in it. Clicking on the fields (and on “back” and “up” in the upper line) lead you through the outline of the argument.

(Note: Do not yet click  “Go to the Hub” and on the small arrows on the lower right side of the elements. These will lead you to a different view. If this has happened, you can return by clicking “Change view”, selecting “Zoom”. See instruction here.)

Basically, there are two lines of thought. One question is whether or not news media have a problem rendering the necessary facts to the reader – in a fashion that they can be used an understood. The other question is if, beyond the mere facts, science should me more concerned about how scientific contents are framed.

Now, turn to a more inclusive representation of the argument that allows you to see not only the basic structure, but also the details of each element in the discussion-tree. Do this by clicking “the HUB” in the upper left corner in the diagram above.

This is how you navigate in the “Hub”: 

The ‘steering wheel’: For navigation between the elements, click on the bubbles or on the elements in the tree. (Click image to enlarge.)

‘Change gears’: You can also change the appearance of the field in the left hand side. If you choose “context”, the elements of the debate will be rendered in a tree-like fashion. If you choose “detail”, you will see the details of an element.

An asterix (*) indicates that there is an roll-over text to an element. A plus (+) tells you that the element also has some details.

Return to the previous, more simple view that you started with by selecting “Zoom”, as shown in the instruction here.

Do you agree with the arguments presented here? Anything missing? Please leave a comment. We’ll fit it into the map!

Tags: communication failure, framing, information deficit, information failure

This entry was posted on 2010/05/06 at 12:22 PM and is filed under Information failure, Topics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.