Pages

Showing posts with label science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label science. Show all posts

Saturday, 30 October 2010

Tech journalism, science journalism - tips & thoughts from London Girl Geek Dinner





The recent London Girl Geek Dinner on tech journalism was one of the best and most useful ever, for anyone who writes or broadcasts video or audio - whether or not as a professional journalist - eg tips on how to shoot professional looking video. Thanks as always to Judith Lewis and the team for organising this practical and interesting event, I think the first I've been to since the Regent Street shopping event.

Journalism is still very much a male dominated profession, about 60% male, and in technology and science journalism the percentage is the same if not worse.

Equally bad is the fact that, as the attendees agreed, far too many technology magazines and journals are seemingly aimed just at men (see my rant on tech magazine sexism in GirlyGeekdom - about T3 magazine, which I don't subscribe to anymore, quelle surprise. And, while I'm at it, much stuff aimed at women seems to be designed by men too, like pyjamas. Humph.)

Even Wired UK, who provided for the event free copies of their mag and some discounted subs, received some criticism for being written almost exclusively from a male perspective.

It seems that the market is nicheing or fragmenting. There is probably room for a magazine which caters for (or at least doesn't ignore) the growing female appetite for technology - indeed it's likely to be welcomed with open arms, at least by the attendees!

Now on to the individual talks.

The 3 journalists / broadcasters, who kindly gave their time to share their experiences and tips with us, were (in order of appearance) Angela Saini, Connie St Louis and Ramaa Sharma, and all of them have been or still are connected with the BBC.

Angela Saini - tips on being a journalist

Angela Saini, now a freelance journalist and author (blog), gave some practical tips on how to be a technology journalist or science journalist (her own background is engineering).

She doesn't seem to have put her slides online. I didn't make many notes as most of her points although very good and helpful seemed to be common sense to me.

Interestingly she was quite firm in her views on the distinction between bloggers and journalists. If you just sit in front of a keyboard, you're not a journalist. You have to go out there, collar and interview people, get exclusives.

See more on her blog post after the event, which also repeated her argument that the quality of media and news generally is going downhill as journalism is being devalued, both by "churnalists" who just copy and paste official or corporate press releases, and by people willing to work for free - interns as well as bloggers.

She thinks that journalists should demand to be paid, and paid fairly, for their work. (Apparently tech journalists generally get paid about 40 or 50p a word in the UK; more in the US.)

Surely editors and readers are partly to blame as well, for putting up with things like churnalism?

Connie St Louis - journalism qualification

Connie St Louis (blog), while still producing radio programmes for the BBC etc, is in charge of the Science Journalism MA at City University's highly regarded Department of Journalism. She too has a science background, in biology.

These days it's getting harder and harder to get a job in journalism, and having a formal qualification like a postgrad degree in journalism is one way to get your foot in the door.

The National Union of Journalists also offers training (it seems a bit chicken and egg to me though, if you have to have a journalism job before you can be an NUJ member, rather like trying to get an Equity card - not that I have one of those either).

Connie's Department also does research on journalism and media. One fascinating current project of hers is looking at the prevalence of churnalism by running plagiarism detection software on "news articles", as the source news releases are usually published online. The results will be published probably next year.

I'm looking forward to seeing them. I must say I had noticed the phenomenon myself, as I now subscribe to science / tech related news releases where I can, and had spotted the striking resemblances between many so-called news articles and the official news releases.

I don't read press releases so that I can copy them into blog posts - I don't hold with that, and never have. Too many people do it, bloggers as well as some professional journalists. In my view, either be the first to break the news, or else produce thoughtful reasoned analysis about it (which takes time and research). Don't just play "follow the leader" and repeat the press release or the first person who wrote about it.

I subscribe to news releases because I believe in getting the info straight from the horse's mouth as it's more likely to be accurate and reliable (assuming the body issuing the release isn't lying of course!), and more importantly it's less likely to be garbled or taken out of context - unlike in many secondhand reports, I have to say.

When blog posts or news stories don't provide links to the full original source, I really don't like it - there's no excuse for it, especially on the web (so what if "a government paper said…" - what's the full title of the paper, what department issued it, where can I get a copy?).

I often try to track the sources down for myself. In my own blog posts I certainly always try to link to the source where possible, so people can check the original if they wish, and hopefully see that they can trust my rendition.

Of course, it now seems obvious why many media articles don't link to the original - maybe they're worried readers will spot that they've just been copying press releases wholesale!

Ramaa Sharma - gadgets for multi-media journalism

Ramaa Sharma, who now teaches journalism internally at the BBC, is living proof that you don't always need a science background to get into tech journalism.

These days journalists have to be able to do stories for the web as well as TV, radio and print; and they not only are expected to write the stories but also to shoot the videos, record the audio and do the editing and uploading.

Ramaa gave us some very useful tips on multimedia journalism, including tools which don't cost the earth and won't break your back lugging them around.

In my view the latter is a big factor, not just for people who've done their back in like me, but also because making the gear that you need for the job too huge or heavy can be a deterrent to women, as we're simply not built like men.

Her recommended equipment included:
  1. Benk tripod - brolly sized and lightweight, yet opens out (to oohs and aahs, virtually) to quite a decent length. She said she got it from Maplins but I can't tell if it was this or this or indeed neither, as neither says "Benk" in the photo or description and they both cost the same, just £19.99).
  2. Gorillapod - a range of tripods for cameras as well as video cameras; basically a small tripod whose legs can be wrapped round almost anything. (If I were T3 I'd probably be making a "joke" about that.)
  3. Kodak Zi8 HD Pocket Video Camera - relatively cheap at under £100, very portable, now used by the BBC following her comparative review of this camcorder, the Flip and the iPhone. It even has a socket for a separate mic which the others don't. BBC WorldWide's poignant video about the Afghanistan dancing boys was shot using one. The only con with this kit is, you can't monitor the volume or quality of the audio live as you're recording it, for audio limiting; but she wouldn't be surprised if the next model had this feature too.
  4. Mic - most microphones will work with the Kodak, the one she had with her was a BeyerDynamic MCE 58. And from my own experience, don't forget that all important microphone shield or cover to minimise wind noise etc.

Her tips on shooting video that looks professional include:

  1. Keep the camera steady - don't be tempted to follow the subject around if they move, frame it carefully and then hold still. And shaky video is a no no! Hence it's important to use tripods, as to which see below.
  2. Take a mix of shots - at least one long distance shot, a medium distance shot and a close up shot, each one for about 10 seconds minimum; they can be used in your edits.
  3. Should be an obvious one, this - but don't have the light behind the subject (eg shooting in front of a window), have the light behind you.
  4. Video editing tools - when people asked for recommendations she suggested Final Cut for Mac, Adobe Premiere Pro (eek at the price, I say!) or Adobe Premiere Elements for Windows. (And here's me wiv Windows Movie Maker…)

You can hear these tips and more on Ramaa Sharma's video on pocket-sized video journalism.

Future Girl Geek events

The best way to find out about future LGGD events, which are generally free thanks to the generous sponsors, is to sign up for the London Girl Geek Dinners mailing list.

If you're male you can still go, as long as you're accompanied by a responsible female ;D (who signed you up for the event). I'm open to suitable bribes…

There are Girl Geek Dinners all over the world, just search to see if you have one locally.

Thursday, 2 July 2009

Science & the media: Guardian editor & top epidemiologist discuss + Q&A





How do science and the media interact, what is the relationship between scientists and journalists, what’s the role of the media, the future of the news business and science news reporting?

The video of this very interesting discussion / Q&A on 3 June 2009 with Alan Rusbridger, editor of The Guardian, and Sir Roy Anderson, top epidemiologist and Rector of Imperial College London, is now available on a general page of online videos of Imperial public lectures; this particular video is available by streaming (best, probably), or as a downloadable M4V file (198 MB).

Below are some selected random highlights. Not verbatim, not 100% in chronological order, from notes only so not necessarily 100% accurate! - for the complete details please watch the video.

Sir Roy Anderson

There should be compulsory communications skills training for undergrad science students. A relationship with the media is not optional.

You should be able to explain your field in words of 1 syllable.

Scientists need to understand the factors dictating pressures on journalists, who are competing to get their article into journals, TV programmes etc, and what journalists need from scientists.

Attitudes to media are changing now with the rise of the Web, it’s not just TV, radio, print; something could get onto the BBC site or Twitter etc if not broadsheets, Today Programme etc.

Scientists should get to know journalists well, it can be very beneficial e.g. off the record discussions, ultimately the relationship is good for both sides.

The BBC site is the best source of quantitative information about swine flu!

It’s a delicate balance - being accurate and clear, and not playing to controversy.

Alan Rusbridger

Henry Porter nagged for years before civil liberties got on the radar.

The role of the media is as an interpretive layer between people who do things and people who may be interested in understanding them – to analyse, comment, explain the complexities and allow the widest possible debate. But it’s difficult to do that with complex areas.

The economics of the news business – apart from the BBC, extremely challenged because the internet is destroying the ability to charge for information, and the recession has delivered a triple whammy.

The Guardian’s trust status allows it to lose money but other serious news organisations like the New York Times, Washington Post etc, who see it as their duty to reflect complex subjects, will find it harder.

Technology has changed things; it’s no longer a 1 way process where they [journalists] tell us and there’s no comeback. Just text is not enough, it’s multimedia. The Guardian’s podcast has 100,000 listeners a week.

The Guardian have a series of deep sites, and a staff of 15 just covering science & the environment.

Smarter journalists are inventing new models, realising that the experts are out there – with skills of aggregating and reporting, tapping into people out there. [Example mentioned later in the session – on the Oracle / Sun takeover a technology journalist in the Guardian asked people to help on a chart; they did it in 2 hours and it was as good as the New York Times’ professionally produced one!]

Comment Is Free site – start with 1000 people interested in science, etc, and open it up to them. About 260 comment pieces are published a week with 85,000 contributors ? each month.

The Guardian’s site is just behind the New York Times’ in terms of English language newspaper sites.

The media no longer have the sole right to report / interpret debate.

There needs to be a partnership between old model and new media.

Other highlights

Sir Roy: swine flu will explode here and be a serious economic issue in the autumn, but the media haven’t picked that up. The vaccines won’t be ready.

Watch the money! eg for a Radio 4 discussion on climate change they brought over a US scientist who was paid for by oil companies.

The media have a responsibility. Scientists should help the media but the first person to call the media does not necessarily have the most accurate opinion. Other scientists have a role too.

Journalists can collaborate with scientists to hype things e.g. MMR.

Some editors are more interested in controversy than accuracy.

Alan Rusbridger: Libel is being used to close down science reporting. [The Simon Singh / chiropractic case.]

Audience member: The idea that everything has to be covered somehow is not healthy. Should help readers understand that science is a process – but there’s no sense of that in the way that science is reported.

Sir Roy: we still hugely rely on the media to distil information we don’t know about.

Alan Rusbridger: Charging won’t work as people are used to “free”. Advertising won’t work in a recession. Maybe there are too many newspapers. Local newspapers will start dying.

We may get to the point where for the first time since the Enlightenment we have to live without verifiable sources of news, and people won’t realise what they’ve lost until it’s gone.

Maybe a membership subscription model? Like national public radio [?] where people value information from one organisation enough to subscribe. The Times are considering a subscription based popular science product competing with New Scientist etc and also with New York Times science pages subscription.

Reporting conflicting versions? e.g. food / health news. Good science journalists will try to find opposing views too. Quality journalists will look into the background. But tabloids…

Friday, 4 January 2008

More scientific chat-up lines





Following on from their winning "Flirt with Science" scientific chatup lines, the latest New Scientist's Feedback column includes the worthy runners up:
  1. I need a seed for my pseudo-random number generator - could I have your phone number? Ian Marshall, Palo Alto, California, US

  2. Two by Attracta Uí Bhroin, Dublin, Ireland:
    1. Your universe or mine?
    2. Hello, did you know that I've invented calorie-free chocolate, and I've got some back at my place?

  3. You're so sweet I am developing insulin resistance. Alex Carlton, Bradford on Avon, Wiltshire, UK

  4. What's a nice girl like you doing in a superposition like this? Nigel Eaton, Hitchin, Hertfordshire, UK

  5. Did you know that if oysters had no natural enemies, in 10 years the world would be 28 miles deep in oysters? (We married in 1968 and are still going strong.) Michael Boddy, Binalong, New South Wales, Australia

  6. Hello, I am Bob. You must be Alice. You haven't changed a bit! J. H. Van Veen, Voorschoten, The Netherlands

  7. Two by Yonatan Silver, Jerusalem, Israel (who was also a main winner):
    1. As a quantum physicist, the moment I observed you I determined that we were heading to your place or mine.
    2. Of all the bars, on all the planets where conditions support intelligent, bipedal, carbon-based life forms...

  8. Hello, I'm Doctor Frankenstein - and I've got a monster! Allan Whatling, St Mawgan, Cornwall, UK

  9. Two from Ilona Schofield and Caroline Riggs, Brighton, East Sussex, UK
    1. I've got some francium back at my place.
    2. You have a hyperfine structure.

  10. Forget what they say about butterflies, I think that you could whip up a storm just by fluttering your eyelashes. Justin Byrne, Dublin, Ireland

  11. How can I know a hundred digits of pi, but not the 11 digits of your phone number? Yuan Yang, Leeds, Yorkshire, UK

  12. Looking at you, creationists may have a point after all. Amy Fairbrother, Northcliff, South Africa

My faves of this lot are 1, 5, 8 and 9.1 (though why francium, why not astatine??). I imagine 6 will go down pretty well with geeks!

And I bet lots of men will be using no. 8...

Friday, 21 December 2007

Scientific chat up lines





New Scientist's Feedback column recently ran a compo "Flirt with science", where they invited readers to submit science-related chatup lines.

They've just published the winning chat-up lines, which are great especially if you're lover of puns and the absurd, as I am:
  1. Would there be any resistance if I asked to take you ohm? Emma Byrne, London, UK

  2. I love the way you smell so different from my dad. Toshi Knell, Nowra, New South Wales, Australia

  3. Would kissing you increase global warming and damage the Arctic irreversibly, or is it just enough to break the ice? Andy McCready, Sheffield, Yorkshire, UK

  4. I've had my ion you. Gary Duffala, Rio Rancho, New Mexico, US

  5. Baby, you must be a start codon because you are turnin' me on. Jessica Swanson, Stratford, Prince Edward Island, Canada

  6. I don't wish to brag, but in several parallel universes I invented the internet, warned the world about global warming, ran for president and won the Nobel peace prize. Yonatan Silver, Jerusalem, Israel

  7. Hello, I've just taken part in the clinical trial of a new drug to help memory loss; could you tell me, do I come here often?
    John French, Wellington, Somerset, UK

  8. You are definitely the woman of my REM phase. Giuliano Aluffi, Milan, Italy

  9. Er... hello... um... er. Oh look! Our shoes have similar spectral characteristics. Jon White, Rampton, Cambridgeshire, UK

  10. Meiosis? Kirstie Brogan Grace, Grays, Essex, UK (from a convent school!!)

Try 'em out, you never know if they'll work. Some of them might work on me, I have to admit!

My own faves are 7, 1 and 9. And I rather like 5 and 6 too. Yours? Or could you better the winners perchance? If so, please post it in a comment. Should you view that as a challenge, even better...

Friday, 3 August 2007

Men like kissing, women prefer chocolate?






Heart-rate variation over 8 minutes of the experiment. The red line is the female participant, the blue line the male one. (Image reproduced to illustrate this post, if anyone has a copyright problem please post a comment and I'll remove it)

I just couldn't resist reporting on this scientific experiment "A Comparison of Effects on Heart Rate & Brain Activity of Allowing Plain Chocolate to Melt in the Mouth and Kissing a Familiar Partner" (apparently carried out by researchers at Mindlab.org).

Essentially, "Changes in heart rate and brain activity (EEG) were monitored in six heterosexual couples, in an established relationship, to compare the effects on brain and body of two forms of oral and olfactory stimulation – kissing and allowing chocolate to melt in the mouth." The brain waves measured were alpha waves, which are normally associated with pleasure and enjoyment.

Guess what? "It was found that, so far as both heart rate increase and brain wave amplitude are concerned, the effects of chocolate exceed those of a kiss." And the heart rate increased not only more, but stayed up for longer, with chocolate.

Furthermore, in the case of at least one couple, the man's heartrate was much more affected by kissing, the woman's by chocolate. (Hmmm, does this prove men think with their sexual organs, women with their stomachs? Tastebuds?)

The article concerned engages in some (very) brief speculation at the end as to the reasons behind the effect of chocolate, or rather phenylethylamine, the main stimulant within chocolate.

In this case, I won't say "don't try this at home". Maybe I'd say instead, "If you try this at home make sure you have your brainwave and heartrate monitors all hooked up ladeez and gentz, and report your results!"

I haven't figured out exactly when this article was posted. Probably 1 April, I wouldn't be surprised. But it's fun anyway. (See the full article (with more graphs and photos!).