Annotated Bibliography

Journal Article

Fahy, D & Nisbet, M. (2011). The science journalist online: Shifting roles and emerging practices. Journalism, 12(7), 778–793. doi: 10.1177/1464884911412697

Nisbet and Fahy, Associate and Assistant Professors in the School of Communication at American University, examined the roles of science journalists in the changing world of mediums, drawing on the perspectives of journalists from prominent science organisations in the US and UK. Among those interviewed were Eli Kintisch, reporter for Science magazine, Curtis Brainard, reporter for the Columbia Journalism Review, and Andrew Revkin from the New York Times. Multiple quotations are given as a result of interviews with the subjects. The ‘new science media ecosystem’ is used to describe the way in which blogs, social media and the web have created multiple new platforms for the distribution of scientific information. While the ‘ecosystem’ is explored in depth from varying angles, only the perspectives of members of large scale scientific organisations, or ‘elite media’ are investigated. Small, local or community media is not considered. The ‘ecosystem’ is approached from a somewhat negative angle, highlighting the possible diminished role of science journalists within it – both through authority and pluralised role identity. The difficulty faced by journalists in analysing and covering scientific data is also shown, as the findings are sometimes released directly online by the organizations conducting the experiments.

Internet Article

Palmer, J. (2012, March 16). Neutrinos clocked at light-speed in new Icarus test. BBC News. Retrieved from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17364682

In this article, the BBC’s science and technology reporter, Jason Palmer details the corrective results found in the re-designed experiment for the speed of neutrinos. Palmer describes the initial results as having ‘shocked the world’, and ‘threatened to upend a century of physics’, however he uses the improbability of the results to emphasize that the scientists who conducted the experiment were doubtful of the results’ legitimacy from the beginning. A spokesperson from the Icarus collaboration, (the organisation who conducted the experiment), Dr Sandro Centro, is cited claiming they were sceptical the whole time. Palmer’s report differs from other reports of the same event in different mediums, which shed a negative light on the scientists on the basis that they should not have released the results. Palmer’s report also differs from others, in that very little attention is given to the actual cause of the error, which is explored in great depth in other articles. Instead the focus of Palmer’s article is pre-existent scepticism on the results.

Newspaper Article

Naik, G. (2012, February 24). U.S. news: unreal finding may be just that - research that threatened Einstein's key theory of relativity could be flawed; a faulty cable is a prime suspect. The Wall Street Journal, p.3. Retrieved from: http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.library.uq.edu.au/docview/923176741/fulltext?accountid=14723

Gautam Naik, a journalist at the Wall Street Journal, sheds a negative light on the possibility that Einstein’s theory could have been incorrect, describing the possible existence of an experimental error as meaning that “all would be right with the world”. Naik points out the disadvantages of the result proving to be true, as billions of measurements on the behaviour of elementary particles, reliant on the fact that E = mc², would have to be redone. The article does not use the same exciting language for the supposed possibilities in an error, such as ‘time travel’ which is seen in other articles. It instead highlights the ambiguity of the theoretical possibilities presented by a result where particles can travel faster than light, saying “no one is quite sure what that means”. Naik adds to the ambiguity by describing neutrinos as ‘ghostly’. Possible reasons for error in the experiment are discussed in detail, presenting opposing perspectives on their legitimacy from Arnaud Marsollier, a spokesman from the collaboration, and Jim Al-Kjalili, a physics professor at the University of Surrey. This article, gives the impression that the scientists who collaborated the experiment were confident in their results, giving no mention of scepticism, apart from the doubts of scientists uninvolved in the experiment.

Radio Report

Harris, R. (2012, February 23). Neutrinos may not travel faster than light after all, [National Public Radio Broadcast Transcript]. Retrieved May 19, 2012 from: http://www.npr.org/2012/02/23/147301483/neutrinos-may-not-travel-faster-than-light-after-all

This radio broadcast on National Public Radio, hosted by Richard Harris, focuses on the absolute triviality of the error, emphasizing wonder that something as small as a loose wire could have been the cause for error in an experiment of such grand scale. The report was broadcast before the second test was made to correct the error, so it is still unknown for sure whether or not the suspected error actually exists. Thus the report explains the amendments being made to the experiment for future accuracy and focuses on the suspected error. The report highlights the minuteness of the error, as Harris calls it a “finicky connection” and reiterates that time is being measured in ‘billionths of a second’. Spokesperson from the experiment, Lucia Votano is cited explaining the suspected error and the amendments that are being made to the experiment. In conclusion, Harris admits that the most likely scenario is that the neutrinos will do what they were predicted to by Einstein, however finishes with “that’s not as exciting as tossing out some of the laws of physics, but, oh well”. This broadcast does not focus on the fact that the results were released before the error was discovered, nor does it make assumptions about the experiment’s designers for this fact.