So faced with the challenge of writing my press release, I started to read the article at hand. And the first thing that hit me… this was HARD to understand. The scientific paper upon which my press release had to be based was abbreviations galore. Seriously, were there even any full words in this thing? I found myself lost and googling every second “word” I came across.
This got me thinking, how is a journalist, with little knowledge of the area, meant to not only understand this but translate it into an accurate and readable form. It makes sense that so often science is miscommunicated.
One thing that I have learnt from my lecturers over the last two years is that they are NOT, on the whole, a big fan of the media. Their work isn’t always communicated in the media in the way they would like. Is this really the fault of the media though? And could this be a two way street? I imagine that people in media have an equal dislike for scientists with their endless abbreviations and long lists of methods. Is there perhaps a way that we can bridge the gap between scientists and the media, meaning that the information that is getting out is equally accurate and accessible?
adk2013 on Living in Space?? I’d th… vanarm on How does it glow? vanarm on Bring out your inner child… an… hmisles on It’s like talking a fore… hmisles on Inspiring Science