Communicating Uncertainty: Media Coverage of New and Controversial Science

by Sharon M. Friedman (editor), Sharon Dunwoody (Editor), Carol L. Rogers (Editor)

Exploring the interactions that swirl around scientific uncertainty and its coverage by the mass media, this volume breaks new ground by looking at these issues from three different perspectives: that of communication scholars who have studied uncertainty in a number of ways; that of science journalists who have covered these issues; and that of scientists who have been actively involved in researching uncertain science and talking to reporters about it. In particular, Communicating Uncertainty examines how well the mass media convey to the public the complexities, ambiguities, and controversies that are part of scientific uncertainty.

In addition to its new approach to scientific uncertainty and mass media interactions, this book distinguishes itself in the quality of work it assembles by some of the best known science communication scholars in the world. This volume continues the exploration of interactions between scientists and journalists that the three coeditors first documented in their highly successful volume, Scientists and Journalists: Reporting Science as News, which was used for many years as a text in science journalism courses around the world.

Genres: Science

292 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1999

Reviews

[Elia · Rating 2 out of 5]

The main issue is that much of the evidence is outdated. Just like in science, the story keeps evolving and the conclusions will change. This is why I had much trouble with many of the chapters, where I knew the studies are now irrelevant, which made some predictions seem bizarre. Nonetheless it does contain some useful general guidelines, such as a priceless chapter by Sharon Dunwoody on Scientists, Journalists and the Meaning of Uncertainty.

[Cay · Rating 3 out of 5]

Actual Rating: 2.5/5.

I'm giving this a very generous 2.5/5 stars because, while extremely dated and fairly obvious, I didn't hate it and I have the utmost respect for the writers and editors of this book. I guess I was hoping for more interesting ideas about how to handle this tricky subject, but alas. It was filled with information that any introductory journalist would already know, and that research has shown doesn't always help get to the underlying heart of the problem.

[Ben · Rating 1 out of 5]

mostly boring descriptions of pretty obvious stuff. Didn't have a very interesting discussion of anything. Aimed at journalists. Examples include extremely inaccurate science.