Suppr超能文献

[新冠疫情下科学新闻面临的挑战——关于一个媒体介导的世界事件的一些观察]

[Challenges for science journalism in the Corona pandemic-some observations about a mediated world event].

作者信息

Stollorz Volker

机构信息

Science Media Center Germany gGmbH, Rosenstr. 42-44, 50678, Köln, Deutschland.

出版信息

Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2021 Jan;64(1):70-76. doi: 10.1007/s00103-020-03257-x. Epub 2020 Dec 2.

Abstract

The mass media has made the SARS-CoV‑2 virus a so-called global event. The volume and congruence of the journalistic selection of topics in Germany exceeds that of the already high level of the H1N1 pandemic 2009 many times over. In this discussion article, challenges for journalism that have arisen in reporting on the scientific aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic are described.At the beginning of the pandemic, there was a real epistemic uncertainty due to the lack of established facts. Many editorial offices lacked professional routines for the competent handling of preliminary research results and for the evaluation of scientific reputation of experts. Dealing with scientific articles that had not yet undergone peer review (preprints) became a major challenge. If peer review isn't available, science journalists have to develop new indicators to assess the quality and relevance of a preprint research publication and they need to be better equipped to distinguish valuable scientific contributions from mere "hype."The phenomena observed during pandemic reporting show how essential independent professional science journalism is for the democratic discourse, because only in this way can nonscientific audiences correctly classify truthful and relevant scientific content conveyed and develop informed trust in science.

摘要

大众媒体已将严重急性呼吸综合征冠状病毒2(SARS-CoV-2)病毒变成了一场所谓的全球事件。德国新闻选题的数量和一致性比2009年甲型H1N1流感大流行时本就很高的水平还要高出许多倍。在这篇讨论文章中,描述了在报道2019冠状病毒病大流行科学方面时新闻业所面临的挑战。在大流行初期,由于缺乏既定事实,确实存在认知上的不确定性。许多编辑部缺乏妥善处理初步研究结果以及评估专家科学声誉的专业常规流程。处理尚未经过同行评审的科学文章(预印本)成为了一项重大挑战。如果没有同行评审,科学记者就必须制定新的指标来评估预印本研究出版物的质量和相关性,而且他们需要具备更强的能力,以区分有价值的科学贡献和纯粹的“炒作”。在大流行报道期间观察到的现象表明,独立的专业科学新闻报道对于民主话语是多么重要,因为只有这样,非科学受众才能正确归类所传达的真实且相关的科学内容,并对科学产生明智的信任。

相似文献

1
[Challenges for science journalism in the Corona pandemic-some observations about a mediated world event].
Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2021 Jan;64(1):70-76. doi: 10.1007/s00103-020-03257-x. Epub 2020 Dec 2.
2
Reporting preprints in the media during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Public Underst Sci. 2022 Jul;31(5):608-616. doi: 10.1177/09636625221077392. Epub 2022 Feb 23.
3
Science in motion: A qualitative analysis of journalists' use and perception of preprints.
PLoS One. 2022 Nov 21;17(11):e0277769. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277769. eCollection 2022.
4
[Introduction to the quality of medical journalism and initial assessments of COVID-19 media coverage].
Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2021 Jan;64(1):3-11. doi: 10.1007/s00103-020-03249-x. Epub 2020 Nov 30.
5
Making science public: a review of journalists' use of Open Access research.
F1000Res. 2024 Jan 2;12:512. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.133710.1. eCollection 2023.
7
Changes in health communication in the age of COVID-19: A study on the dissemination of preprints to the public.
Front Public Health. 2023 Feb 8;11:1078115. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1078115. eCollection 2023.
8
The evolving role of preprints in the dissemination of COVID-19 research and their impact on the science communication landscape.
PLoS Biol. 2021 Apr 2;19(4):e3000959. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000959. eCollection 2021 Apr.
10
Selected by expertise? Scientific experts in German news coverage of COVID-19 compared to other pandemics.
Public Underst Sci. 2022 Oct;31(7):847-866. doi: 10.1177/09636625221095740. Epub 2022 Jun 20.

引用本文的文献

1
Making science public: a review of journalists' use of Open Access research.
F1000Res. 2024 Jan 2;12:512. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.133710.1. eCollection 2023.

本文引用的文献

1
Will the pandemic permanently alter scientific publishing?
Nature. 2020 Jun;582(7811):167-168. doi: 10.1038/d41586-020-01520-4.
2
The prehistory of biology preprints: A forgotten experiment from the 1960s.
PLoS Biol. 2017 Nov 16;15(11):e2003995. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2003995. eCollection 2017 Nov.
3
When science becomes too easy: Science popularization inclines laypeople to underrate their dependence on experts.
Public Underst Sci. 2017 Nov;26(8):1003-1018. doi: 10.1177/0963662516680311. Epub 2016 Nov 30.
4
[The pandemic of the experts in the mass media. How to create trust in public communication by acknowledging ignorance and uncertainty].
Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2013 Jan;56(1):110-7. doi: 10.1007/s00103-012-1581-5.
5
Defeating the merchants of doubt.
Nature. 2010 Jun 10;465(7299):686-7. doi: 10.1038/465686a.
6
7
The case for motivated reasoning.
Psychol Bull. 1990 Nov;108(3):480-98. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验