Miranda Giovanna F, Vercellesi Luisa, Bruno Flavia
Research Centre Sanofi Midy, Sanofi-Synthelabo Spa, Via Piranesi 38, 20137 Milan, Italy.
Pharmacol Res. 2004 Sep;50(3):267-72. doi: 10.1016/j.phrs.2003.12.021.
Throughout the world the public is showing increasing interest in medical and scientific subjects and journalists largely spread this information, with an important impact on knowledge and health. Clearly, therefore, the relationship between the journalist and his sources is delicate: freedom and independence of information depend on the independence and truthfulness of the sources. The new "precision journalism" holds that scientific methods should be applied to journalism, so authoritative sources are a common need for journalists and scientists. We therefore compared the individual classifications and methods of assessing of sources in biomedical science and medical journalism to try to extrapolate scientific methods of evaluation to journalism. In journalism and science terms used to classify sources of information show some similarities, but their meanings are different. In science primary and secondary classes of information, for instance, refer to the levels of processing, but in journalism to the official nature of the source itself. Scientists and journalists must both always consult as many sources as possible and check their authoritativeness, reliability, completeness, up-to-dateness and balance. In journalism, however, there are some important differences and limits: too many sources can sometimes diminish the quality of the information. The sources serve a first filter between the event and the journalist, who is not providing the reader with the fact, but with its projection. Journalists have time constraints and lack the objective criteria for searching, the specific background knowledge, and the expertise to fully assess sources. To assist in understanding the wealth of sources of information in journalism, we have prepared a checklist of items and questions. There are at least four fundamental points that a good journalist, like any scientist, should know: how to find the latest information (the sources), how to assess it (the quality and authoritativeness), how to analyse and filter it (selection), how to deal with too many sources of information, sometimes case biased by conflicting interests (balance). The journalist must, in addition, know how to translate it to render it accessible and useful to the general public (dissemination), and how to use it best.
在世界各地，公众对医学和科学主题的兴趣日益浓厚，记者们广泛传播这些信息，对知识和健康产生了重要影响。因此，很明显，记者与其消息来源之间的关系很微妙：信息的自由和独立取决于消息来源的独立性和真实性。新的“精确新闻学”认为，科学方法应应用于新闻业，因此权威消息来源是记者和科学家共同的需求。因此，我们比较了生物医学科学和医学新闻中对消息来源的个体分类和评估方法，试图将科学评估方法推广到新闻业。在新闻业和科学领域，用于对信息来源进行分类的术语有一些相似之处，但含义不同。例如，在科学领域，信息的一级和二级分类指的是处理级别，但在新闻业中，指的是消息来源本身的官方性质。科学家和记者都必须始终尽可能多地查阅消息来源，并检查其权威性、可靠性、完整性、时效性和平衡性。然而，在新闻业中，存在一些重要的差异和限制：消息来源过多有时会降低信息质量。消息来源在事件和记者之间起到第一道筛选作用，记者提供给读者的不是事实本身，而是其呈现形式。记者有时间限制，缺乏搜索的客观标准、特定的背景知识以及全面评估消息来源的专业知识。为了帮助理解新闻业中丰富的信息来源，我们编制了一份项目和问题清单。一个优秀的记者，像任何科学家一样，至少应该知道四个基本要点：如何找到最新信息（消息来源）、如何评估它（质量和权威性）、如何分析和筛选它（选择）、如何处理过多的信息来源，有时这些信息来源会因利益冲突而有偏差（平衡）。此外，记者必须知道如何进行翻译，以使信息对普通公众来说易懂且有用（传播），以及如何最好地利用它。
