Science Journalism :: Article :: Trusting science news in a Web 2.0 world

ARTICLE

Trusting science news in a Web 2.0 world
By Anna Olejarczyk
November 20, 2007

What people want from science, health, environment and technology reporting on the Internet isn’t much different from what people want in the print media. It boils down to accuracy, real-world insight, analysis and trust.

The difference is that in traditional print journalism, editorial staff selects the news. In the world of new media you, the news reader, finds the news.

With growing interest in finding news online, the question becomes: who wants this news and why? In the United States, the web is viewed as a source for science news, primarily for the young, who enjoy seeing their news in a non-linear format that explains complex issues without being too technical. Twenty-one percent of readers go online for science news, but only 11 percent follow science closely, according to Richard Black from BBCNews.com.

Not only do journalists need to struggle to present accurate information and convey complex scientific results, they now face the challenge of presenting the latest progress without hyping it up to a web audience that doesn’t stay on one web page for more than a couple of minutes.

The challenge of presenting science news to an online audience was discussed on Nov. 10, when a panel of experts met for the “Future Directions in Science Journalism” conference, held at the University of British Columbia.

People like the web. It’s convenient. It allows users to search for specific issues and it’s easy to check information and facts. But two of the most critical issues facing the web are accountability and trust. Trust has been a hot topic lately for traditional media and now the web is facing the same scrutiny.

The web offers multiple sources and that can lead to the lack of control. “It then becomes a force of evil in society,” said Black.

Black asks, “Do we expect trust to rise or fall because of multiple sources and easy cross-checking?”

Through content analysis on the BBCNews.com website, Black says it’s easy to determine how often people look at stories and what interests them. It’s clear that users like interactivity and that they can jump around from page to page. They like disclosure in stories and links to original sources. “People like clarity, insight, balance and information,” says Black.

But what people are mostly drawn to are quirky stories. “People like curious stories…that have the ‘omygawd’ factor,” says Black.

In the world of Web 2.0, personal web, and social networking, the “omygawd” stories get a lot of attention. It’s word of mouth that spreads their popularity. The new online tools give people control, letting them learn and check facts in their own way.

“They want the ability to access content on level of detail, check facts when they want and most importantly, they want to check if we got it right,” says Black. That’s positive, since he points out, “we need to build trust in the new media when trust in the media is declining.”

François Heinderyckx, Professor at the Department of Information and Communication Science at Université Libre de Bruxelles, finds glitches in a new technology that tries quickly to disseminate information to the masses.

“Everyone can spread their thoughts on the web,” he says. “When it comes to science, for better or for worse, when the ideas are conflicting and when they grow on the web, truth and fallacy are on the same foot.”

He says that nothing is certain anymore. If a user doesn’t have a preconceived idea of a topic that is less mainstream, a simple Google search might throw a user into pages and ideas they didn’t know existed.

What needs to happen is crucial analysis of the shamble that is the web. There’s too much information and not enough filters, says Heinderyckx.

“One of the core promises is speed, instantaneous information,” he says. “Speed can lead to haste and haste can lead to manipulation.”

Validation is not only needed for traditional media, but even more so on the web. Accuracy, legitimacy and the expertise of the user will determine whether the information is fact or fiction.

“Society was organized in such a way that validation of something was based on relevance and accuracy,” he says.

Today, it is based on the “snowball effect.” Word of mouth will snowball into a climate of opinion. If one “omygawd” story is of interest, it will get passed down.

“Instead of finding information, being exposed to new ideas, the web is doing the opposite,” says Heinderyckx. “It is putting groups of people together who validate their own ideas.”

Meanwhile, Anne Casselman from Inkling Magazine http://www.inklingmagazine.com/, looks favourably at the new generation of web users. Inkling Magazine was designed to cover science stories that can use exposure in a unique angle.

“Headlines that are made popular by the masses,” she says, “have large human angle to them.”

Not every science story gets picked up by Google or Digg, and unique ways of presenting a story or creating an interesting headline could circulate the story through word of mouth.

“It’s hard to filter through everything and therefore people are drawn to what is already filtered for them through other eyes,” she says. This gives smaller outlets like Inkling Magazine an opportunity to capitalize on the readership.

It’s through an online community that science news is given a dialogue and a face. But, Black reassures us that the web hasn’t taken over. “No world domination yet,” he says. “Online isn’t the ultimate place to get the news.”