One of my favorite things to do is watch for the tweets that provoke/inspire me, and then respond, with the goal of repaying the favor. Last night, I had this exchange with Andy Revkin of the New York Times:
@Revkin tweeted:@mtobis nearly right saying "science journalism in future will mostly be conducted by scientists." Sub "communication" for "journalism."
I responded: @Revkin so what happens to journalism then?
He then answered: @mike_orcutt Journalism is shrinking slice of growing communication pie. Media that survive will expand beyond the thing called journalism.
Ok. But what exactly is this "thing called journalism" that you refer to, Mr. Revkin? And are you saying the term will eventually go away?
Look, I'm all for moving forward with the discussion about scientists, journalists, and their respective "roles" in communicating science to the public. But first, let's make sure we who are invested in this discussion are making the same assumptions about the word "journalism." That way the conversation will be more productive.
The Ice Age that never happened
1 day ago