Will blogs replace science journalists?

[Soylent Brice]

IS BLOGGING replacing the old-fashioned science journalism found in newspapers and magazines? Can science blogs do a better job than mainstream media? These questions have been much discussed recently, and a few bloggers are convinced the answer is yes and yes.

It was with these questions in the back of my mind that I read The Open Laboratory, a collection of 50 blog posts chosen by a panel of judges from 520 submissions.

Series editor Bora Zivkovic seems to have no doubt that blogging is ultimately a force for good. "Small groups of people peddling misinformation are capable of... temporarily gaining online prominence, but over time, the larger groups tend to prevail and ensure that true quality wins the day," he writes. Really?

Take the most important scientific issue of our time, climate change. For the last two years, the "Best Science Blog" in the Weblogs Awards, which are based on readers' votes, has gone to blogs by climate change deniers. Such blogs may be having an influence: polls show more and more Americans now think the threat posed by climate change is exaggerated even though denialism has become rarer in the mainstream media, with even Fox News finally embracing the truth.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227035.800-review-the-open-laboratory-edited-by-jennifer-rohn.html

[jody]

1. Don't know but already I see yellow journalism of the worst type where scientific results are

prematurely touted and hyped as the cure for deadly diseases.

Science journalists from the old school at least made some effort to confirm their articles.

[Soylent Brice]

2. what i thought was frightening about this was that

bloggers are having a negative impact on how climate change is viewed. RWer bloggers are spewing ignorance, and people are lapping it up.

i agree with your point, but with every shift in how information is transmitted there is always a sketchy period where facts get skewed.