This week, my question aims to investigate how journalists can most effectively balance accuracy and appeal to audience when using recent science research to cover current environmental issues.
I started thinking about this during our science/journalists class as well as our field trip to Detroit, when one of the women on the reader’s panel mentioned that she will not read environmental news stories unless they involve serious, obvious, dramatic impacts.
As an example to work off of, please read this article which covers the current issue of colony collapse disorder in honeybee populations: http://www.salem-news.com/articles/february022012/bee-research.php
Do you think that the author of this article was successful both in including enough accurate details and putting the issue in a relevant context? How often do you think that journalists focus on striking this balance well?
Do you think that this would be an effective strategy for the majority of readers or that more would rather see a report of the details of the study?
What other tactics could a journalist use to get the general public interested in research on the topic?
Excited to hear your thoughts!