Slog - Comments on Anyone Left on the Science Beat in Seattle?

Comment by Tim Appelo

Tim Appelo — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 19:57:04 -0800

So you do it, Jonathan. Quit slacking (in the WW II sense).

Comment by Hasn't this always been a problem?

Hasn't this always been a problem? — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 19:57:45 -0800

Has there ever been a science reporter with the qualifications you describe at any daily paper? I've never heard of one, but then I don't look to the paper -- or any "mainstream media" -- for science reporting (for a hundred reasons that I'm sure you're all too familiar with). That's what my subscription to Science News is for. For much the same reason, it's a tragedy World Press Review died.

Comment by jameyb

jameyb — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 20:00:22 -0800

I'll do it. It sounds interesting. I mean, I was a fine arts major, and I don't know dick about science really. But I think I believe in the big bang theory, and genetics is really interesting, and most importantly, I'm an atheist. Oh, and my brother was a wildlife sciences major and he's about to get his PhD, so I think that's important too.

Comment by Jonathan Golob

Jonathan Golob — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 20:14:37 -0800

Tim,

I really cannot. It would be like the Seattle Times Aerospace reporter being a fully paid employee at Boeing and an unpaid volunteer at the Times.

Comment by ps

ps — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 20:15:35 -0800

The article about the LHC makes my stomach do flips. The anticipation is too much!

Comment by josh

josh — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 20:25:33 -0800

Do many other US papers outside of the NYT and LAT have dedicated science reporters? The only newspaper science writing I read with any regularity is the stuff in the Times, particularly their once-weekly science section.

To those who suggested that someone simply volunteer to do it -- this is really a full-time job. You're right that it's surprising that none of the papers are really covering science.

Comment by R.Thoryke

R.Thoryke — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 20:28:14 -0800

Perhaps you should drop a line to the National Association of Science Writers [www.nasw.org]; I'm sure there are members in the Seattle area who could help....

Comment by umvue

umvue — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 20:29:44 -0800

I don't know his background but the PI has:

Tom Paulson - Reporter (Science)
tompaulson@seattlepi.com
206-448-8318

His byline appears on a number of science-y articles that I've not read. (Except... I was pleased to see a light piece on UW alum PZ Myers who was in town last month.)

Comment by Jubilation T. Cornball

Jubilation T. Cornball — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 20:40:17 -0800

Golob, damn you! I can't see! I can't fucking see!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoJKWR3DIuA&feature=related

Comment by Jonathan Golob

Jonathan Golob — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 20:40:41 -0800

I've liked Tom Paulson's writing over the years. I hope he survived the cutbacks.

Comment by joe

joe — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 20:58:28 -0800

Northwest Science & Technology
nwst.org

Comment by kinaidos

kinaidos — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 21:56:55 -0800

Why bother with a science reporter when you cn just wait until a press release comes in about the latest drug, technological marvel, science related book, etc. and just regurgitate it into a piece. Hardly anybody would know the difference.

Comment by I can't feel my face

I can't feel my face — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 22:56:43 -0800

Huh? You sure are neurotic tonight. Crawl back behind the couch again and try to relax.

No, there are no science reporters, and there haven't been any for years. Where have you been?

But if any local scientists do something newsworthy, the Seattle Times and the PI will run the story, and you guys can complain about it the next day.

Comment by wisepunk

wisepunk — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 23:06:37 -0800

Silly. If jesus wanted a science writer in Seattle he would have provided one.

Those mars hills churches are multipling like like rats. I need to get in on that cash...I mean I have to get right with the savior.

/snark

Comment by andrew

andrew — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:32:08 -0800

Seattle is a world class scientific city, right up there with Paris, Boston, San Francisco, Tokyo and Baltimore.
That's a bloody joke, John. Either that or you're too blinded to see it. I don't know about Tokyo or Paris, but Boston has literally 10x the science jobs as Seattle and even the bay area, software and all, has more than 4x times.

Biotech never actually came here, despite Paul Schell's best designs...

Comment by Simac

Simac — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 07:21:03 -0800

Science journalism has been in a decline nation-wide for many years. For one thing, most journalists haven't taken a science course since, like, 10th grade. And so when you do see science covered, it's by journalists who barely understand what they're reporting on, and by people who don't understand that science and technology news CAN be as glamorous as when Anderson Cooper goes to Subsaharan Africa or Christiane Amanpour goes to North Korea to report. (I'd mention a Fox journalist, but they don't really get out of taxi range, as a rule.)

One notable exception to the dearth of science journalism is Miles Brian on CNN, who usually does credible work. But he is instructed to dumb things down a bit too much, and CNN even canceled the tech report on weekends with a cute Canadian reporter (Daniel Sieberg) who has now ended up at CBS.

And when you DO get science reporting, it's fluffed with some weird drive for "balance," so you can't report on global warming without including some scientiophobic Christian.

Journalists overlook moments for science reporting, too. That woman who threw her children off a pier in San Francisco? She's morally depraved, simply. No reporting on the science of bipolar disorder. The Martian landers? It's cool to see Martian rocks on camera, but no reporting on what kind of science the landers (amazingly) can do looking for water. I mean, a lander that can run automated scientific experiments? No coverage of what those are, how they work, what the results say and mean? Sheesh.

I suppose most people who are looking for science and technology information have stopped looking in mainstream journalism for it. They go online to The Register, CNet, PCWorld, Ars Technica, New Scientist, etc., etc. Places where Star Wars and Star Trek are not made fun of but taken sources of inspiration for the next thing.

In the end, we are left with PBS: Nova has some great science shows, and so do some others. Why Seattle can't put together a coherent science journalism presence is beyond me, but it's not just Seattle's problem, I think. It's a national symptom.

Comment by Vince

Vince — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 09:02:07 -0800

Please keep looking and asking around. Science is of primary importance in understanding our world and each other. As we discover more of the Universe and how it works, we become a richer people in mind and body. The forces of myth and superstition are relentless in stifling thought.
"Look deep into nature, and then you will understand everything better"-Albert Einstein

Comment by dw

dw — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 09:20:26 -0800

Tom Paulson's still there. He's been very good over the years about covering things happening in the UW health sciences school, especially stuff not happening in that 500-ton gorilla we call the School of Medicine.

The Times has been meh over the years, especially with science coming out of UW.

Comment by poriferarock

poriferarock — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 09:26:18 -0800

Ah the sadness... but yes the US of A is squelching all science and math as fast as possible, the only US written media i am trusting are Science News and Scientific American....

Comment by Spongy

Spongy — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 10:29:06 -0800

Aren't you guys "Seattle's Only Newspaper"? C'mon, you must have deep pockets - hire your own!

Comment by Will in Seattle

Will in Seattle — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 11:11:17 -0800

It's just a matter of finding a reporter who's an Alumni of the UW and can access all the scientific papers in their raw glory online for free.

And one who understands that sometimes a paper is more important for what it says that's negative than what it says that's positive.

Comment by RonK, Seattle

RonK, Seattle — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 11:17:35 -0800

Seattle Times supported a world-class science writer for many years. He still does occasional pieces in the Sunday mag.

http://www.williamdietrich.com

Comment by Alan Boyle

Alan Boyle — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 12:52:13 -0800

For many years we've had the Puget Sound Science Writers Association active here in Seattle, and several years ago we changed the name to the Northwest Science Writers Association. We have about 100 dues-paying members, and our board members include Tom Paulson of the Seattle P-I (in the midst of his first term as president) and Sandi Doughton of The Seattle Times. And that's just the tip of the iceberg: As far as I know, NSWA doesn't have any representatives from the television stations, or from The Stranger or The Weekly ... although I'm sure such outlets must have science writers, right?

Just in the past week, NSWA has sponsored a well-received field trip to Olympic National Park and the Elwha Dam, as well as a tour and briefing at the Allen Brain Institute. We also do a monthly calendar of science-related events, in which your humble correspondent plays some small part.

You can check out the calendar, find a science writer and even sign up for membership at:

http://www.nwscience.org

I agree Seattle is a world-class city for science, and deserves a world-class group of science communicators to match. But this thread makes me wonder ... is anyone paying attention to what we're trying to do?

- Alan Boyle
Science editor, MSNBC
Past president, NSWA

Comment by Elizabeth

Elizabeth — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:09:05 -0800

As a non-UW but still locally based international science and policy organization that's doing amazing work in marine conservation, and trying to get our message out -- we'd be more than happy to talk to science writers! Or maybe even supply our own....

Comment by Elizabeth

Elizabeth — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:11:10 -0800

....which would be >>www.mcbi.org

Comment by hph

hph — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:19:42 -0800

Hey, what about Sandi Doughton at the Seattle Times? Yesterday she had an article about proposed underground CO2 storage off the coast of Washington. In the past few months she's covered ocean acidification, malaria research, frog die-offs and hospital infections:
http://tinyurl.com/5r7rzu. Maybe nobody's noticed because, while the Times still has a full-time science reporter, the paper doesn't list a "science," "medicine" or "environment" category on its homepage. And although crime stories often allow readers' comments, the article on proposed burial of CO2 doesn't. Are Seattle readers actually interested in anything other than crime, entertainment and business news? Would they care more about science if those articles were featured more prominently? Do the newspapers care enough to find out?

Comment by Sally

Sally — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 15:04:06 -0800

Dear all -
I applaud Tom Paulson and Sandi Doughton for the science reporting they do, and the volunteering they do at the Northwest Science Writers Association.
You can all help us out by commenting whenever the papers do cover local science. Write to them, phone them, write letters to the editor.
The audience can drive reporting.

As a local science writer, I agree with you that there isn't enough coverage... but I know of good articles in Seattle Metropolitan, Seattle Magazine, Washington CEO, and ParentMap magazine.

Comment by Sandi Doughton

Sandi Doughton — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 15:43:48 -0800

Hi all. I�m Sandi Doughton, science reporter at The Seattle Times.
The Times has had a full-time science writer for at least 20 years, including Bill Dietrich (mentioned in a post above) who shared in a Pulitzer Prize for coverage of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Bill still writes for our Sunday magazine, occasionally on science.
We also have two reporters who cover the environment (Lynda Mapes and Warren Cornwall) and one who covers the business side of biotechnology (Angel Gonzalez).
I�ve been writing about the environment, health and science for more than 20 years. I�ve been the Seattle Times science reporter about 3 years - and feel like I�m still learning. There�s so much going on in Seattle, and I know I miss a lot of good stories.
It�s true staff cuts and attrition have made all of our jobs tougher in the newspaper business, but I believe The Seattle Times remains committed to science.
I�m always looking for story ideas, and I�m happy to chat with anyone about coverage of science. I�d like to see it improved, too, which is why I serve on the board of the Northwest Science Writers Association.
sdoughton@seattletimes.com

Comment by Maggie

Maggie — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:33:33 -0800

Lisa Stiffler and Robert McClure of the P-I cover the environment and quote UW researchers doing cutting-edge research. A quick Google search turns up examples, including these:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/291501_stormwater08.html

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/250941_satellite06.html

Go read the P-I once in awhile and you'll see other examples. Geez, do we Stranger readers really have to do the work for you?!

Comment by tom paulson

tom paulson — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 22:51:56 -0800

Hi all, Tom Paulson here. Sorry I missed out on this discussion earlier. Due to staff shortages at the PI, I was taken off science for a few days and assigned to chase an alleged former Nazi around his nursing home. I agree with Jonathan that we should see much more science coverage in Seattle. Some of us are trying to make this happen. As Alan, Sally and Sandi have noted there is an organization in town that aims to improve local science writing (www.nwscience.org). Come join in the nerd fun!