Selling Science: How the Press Covers Science and Technology

by Dorothy Nelkin

Analyzes the complex relations between scientists and journalists, revealing not only the constraints, biases, and myth-making of journalists, but also the public-relations strategies of scientists, universities, corporations, and the government. The 1987 version has been updated to include current examples such as recent reporting of DNA fingerprinting, biotechnology disputes, and cases of scientific frauds. Annotation copyright Book News, Inc. Portland, Or.

Genres: Science, History Of Science

217 pages, Paperback

First published August 15, 1988

Reviews

[Dan Zarfati]

How science is represented in the media. Very good topic, classic book.

[Katie Snell]

Very dated at this point, but interesting to compare media at the time to now.

[Beth]

As this book is about the press, and the the press has changed a great deal since this book was published in 1995, there is of course a great deal of dated information in it. However, what I found most amazing is that there was still so much valuable information in this text despite that. Nelkin delves into some of the issues with both trained AND non-trained scientists covering news in reporting and in the media, and I found it fascinating. It also greatly enlightened me to why I read what I read in stories about science; there are deadlines, there are issues of making topics palatable for readers, and so on. I had wondered before reading this: who is responsible for the sometimes skewed interpretations of studies that come out? This made me think that it can be both journalists AND scientists. There is also the issue that journalists don't always like to acknowledge that scientists don't have all the answers -- but to be fair, that has a lot to do with the fact that the general public doesn't accept that fact, either!

The book was also a great reminder of how history repeats itself. I thought of this recent study: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/t... when Nelkin mentioned that in April 1994, a study had been found that "there was no evidence vitamins protected against heart disease or cancer." Here we are, 17 years later, coming to the same conclusions. Of course, scientific studies are deemed valid when they can be repeated and similar results occur, but it's still interesting to me that this "new" study is still "news."

[Sarah]

Dated but helpful. If you know of a recent follow-up study, I'd love to know about it.

[Marc]

so far not terribly interesting, but I am a scientist. I've seen much of what she describes first hand.