A Martian Methane Bomb on Earth

January 16, 2009

We writer types sometimes use a very unwelcome term, and I'd like to use it now:

Pack journalism.

Other variations: Herd journalism, "me-too" journalism.

Today, I'm using it to refer to the recent news about methane plumes discovered on Mars.

Thing is, we knew about this in October 2008. Nearly 3 months ago. Not to toot the horn of our very own blogger Ray Villard, but read it for yourself.

But back to pack journalism: What's the harm?

I'm not certain its damage physically measurable, but consider this: Seeing the same story written 1,000 different ways, yet saying the same boring thing (we don't know if there's life on Mars), in every media outlet from here to Timbuktu. That's a perfect recipe to whack a few confidence points off of the media scorecard. Ouch.

Thankfully here at Discovery Space, we're somewhat insulated from "the pack." We are not a news site -- but we do get behind it, blow it up and expand on the most interesting pieces. Take, for instance, our Wide Angle about life on Mars -- which we threw together after tabloids started publishing stories such as this, this and this.

Speaking of which... Er, really? NASA did not say there was past or present life on Mars.

Too late to stop the misinformation train, though -- people across the planet began freaking out about and wondering why this story is not in the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, etc. etc. etc.

...enter pack journalism.

Because a few media outlets incorrectly report that we've found life on Mars, the unfortunate party begins. Every journalist and their mother is ordered to have a story about Martians filed a.s.a.p., setting off a feverish race to address claims of alien microbes when, really, the news is really just one incremental step in the search for life beyond Earth.

That said, I'm not knocking on the scientific findings here. They are very interesting and exciting. And I'm not knocking my colleagues, either -- there are some great pieces about this out there.

Yet NASA knows better than anybody that "alien" and "life" in the same sentence is a touchstone of interest for any human being -- so they'll drum up as much publicity as they can, when they can. Talk about stealing the spotlight: the space agency held their own TV press conference for what was a report in Science magazine.

Ok, so NASA isn't innocent when it comes to such publicity stunts, but I understand why they do it. To them, any widely-publicized advancement in the search for life could be that straw that breaks the camel's back, so to speak, to get support -- public, political, financial and otherwise -- to explore the solar system *coughAllanHillsmeteoritecough*.

Is there a solution to these problems? I'm not sure there is, but I'm sure the planet would appreciate any ideas -- feel free to leave 'em in the comments section below.

P.S. Seeking a superior breakdown of how science news shapes up? Don't miss Charlie Petitt's blog, the Knight Science Journalism Tracker -- one of my personal favorites that deserves its spot in the "VIB" (Very Important Blogs) folder of my Google Reader account. Petitt has a great inventory of the "Martian methane bomb" in this post.

Photo: NASA/Wikimedia Commons/Dave Mosher

Comments

[Dave Mosher]

That I don't know, Sarah - hence my asking for help!

There are several important elements to consider here -- scientific journals, PIOs, government agencies, journalists, and who the journalists write for (not to mention the readers). Complicating matters is that the brunt of the problem seems to shift based on topic; e.g. space/astronomy, technology, medicine, etc.

I can't say there is one way that science reporting should be done, because it's pretty convoluted.

But one clear problem that needs to be addressed, however, is the collection of widely read tabloids grabbing hold of news such as the methane plumes and shouting "proof of life on Mars!" when we don't know that. That's misinformation and damaging to science. Whether or not we like it, public perception always affects science in one way or another. In some cases, more drastically than others (stem cells, evolution, etc.). How to address it, again, is beyond me.

That said, I'd rather live in a world with strict embargoes to allow journalists enough time to put together 1,000 of the same yet accurate story than have no embargoes. In that case, I'd expect a few media companies to be in bed with journals and hold an iron grip on most of the science news while the rest of the world puts out sloppy or downright incorrect stories because they're in a rush to stay competitive.

[sarah]

Ok - you're probably right. But tell us then, how *should* science reporting be done in the mainstream media, that doesn't involve pack journalism? Are the science PRs to blame?