In our first class, we look at the challenges journalists face as they try to pry information from often recalcitrant sources. While journalists are often on a tight deadline and need to tell a complicated story in a few paragraphs, scientists may speak in jargon, insist that every nuance of an issue be covered and may take too long to return phone calls. The readings for this week focus on how to bridge the divide, so journalists can get information from the best scientists without betraying their trust. This article and this one both are based upon this scientific abstract of a study our guest speaker authored. Which article do you feel did a better job of conveying the most relevant information? What were the strengths and weaknesses of each piece? This ScholarCast blog provides some suggestions of questions to ask scientists. Do the science articles you’ve read reflect this kind of information? What criteria do you think make for the best type of science article? An article in The Yale Forum on Climate Change and the Media describes an initiative intended to make scientists more easily accessible. Is this a worthwhile idea or does this plan have any limitations or drawbacks? This article paints a negative picture of the scientist/journalist relationship. Do you feel the situation is that desperate or is there hope that the relationship will improve? I look forward to hearing your thoughts!