2. 职称英语
  3. Below are some common criticisms and requests that science journalists recei

Below are some common criticisms and requests that science journalists recei

游客2024-10-13  50
问题     Below are some common criticisms and requests that science journalists receive from researchers. I’m not arguing that science journalism cannot be improved, but responding to these criticisms by changing what we do would do nothing to improve the coverage of science. Here’s why.
    The standard structure of news stories doesn’t work for science. There’s been some shrewd criticism of the "inverted pyramid" model of writing news but there’s a reason we stick to it doggedly. It works. Some readers come to news sites wanting a quick hit. Others want to know more about each story. The ’inverted pyramid’—essentially presenting the new results at the top then filling in the background—can satisfy both camps if it is done well. Those who suggest otherwise should look at their blog posts and work out how far down the page most of their readers get. They may be surprised.
    Your headline is hyperbolic. The purpose of a headline is not to tell the story. That’s the purpose of the story. The purpose of the headline is to pique the interest of readers without lying. So the next time a multi-squillion pound experiment reports evidence of neutrinos going faster than the speed of light, don’t expect the headlines to say "Astonishing but esoteric particle physics finding likely to be flawed though no one can see how yet".
    Change my colourful quote at once! No. Quotes serve many functions in a news story but one important reason they’re there is to inject some humanity into the piece. Most scientists are human and, thankfully, don’t speak in the arid tone that characterises an academic paper. They get excited and say things like "If we do not have causality, we are buggered" and "I don’t like to sound hyperbolic, but I think the word ’seismic’ is likely to apply to this paper". That’s nothing to be ashamed of. It is no secret that reporters go fishing for a good quote. That’s nothing to be ashamed of either.
    Why did you emphasise the ’tabloid’ implications of my work? There’s a fundamental misapprehension among many in the scientific community that the principal job of science journalists is to communicate the results of their work to the general public. It’s not. A journalist might emphasise one part of the research and ignore other parts altogether in an effort to contextualise the story for their readers. That does not, of course, justify spinning the story out of all recognition so that it fundamentally misrepresents the work.
    The story didn’t contain this or that "essential" caveat. Was the caveat really essential to someone’s understanding of the story? Are you sure? In my experience, it’s rare that it is. Research papers contain all the caveats that are essential for a complete understanding of the science. They are also seldom read. Even by scientists.
                                                From The Guardian, January 17, 2012 [br] What can be inferred from the passage?
选项 A、Scientists don’t understand journalism.
B、Science reports can’t be always true.
C、Science journalism attracts few people.
D、Science journalism is a challenging.
答案 A
解析 本题为主旨题。文章讲了许多科学家对科学报道的方法有意见，但作者认为科学报道的方式有其原因，可见科学家不明白科学报道的要求和目的，所以选项A正确。
转载请注明原文地址:https://www.tihaiku.com/zcyy/3798732.html
相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)