BOOK: Olson, R. (2015). Houston, we have a narrative: Why science needs story. Chicago, U.S.A.: University of Chicago Press

Scientist-turned-filmmaker Randy Olson makes a bold claim: scientists cannot adequately explain their own work. He attributes all of the issues facing science communication today ― false positives, an uninterested public, and unapproved grant proposals ― to scientists' lack of narrative intuition. Rather than turn to the humanities for help, Olson suggests scientists learn from the true masters of storytelling ― Hollywood filmmakers. His latest book examines the age-old divide between science and the humanities, as well as the new adversarial relationship between science and film, which he says can save science.

Science and wildlife films are very common and widely viewed. Yet, most of the makers of these films have entered the profession because of their knowledge or interest in science and wildlife. Given the potential for a rather circuitous route to the profession many filmmakers benefit tremendously from engagement in professional development. We have detailed the professional development needs of novice and expert science and wildlife filmmakers ranging from keeping current with technology to consideration of engaging audiences beyond the viewing. We have also addressed gaps in the current knowledge of the professional development of these filmmakers and how film festivals may be structured to meet the ongoing educational needs of these professionals.

This commentary seeks to spark further discussion on the continuing professional development in science communication, presenting comments from practitioners who were asked to reflect on the competences and skills their profession requires, and to envisage what kind of training might provide them. This introduction presents some common issues that emerge within the comments: the necessity to face rapidly evolving professional landscapes, to answer to new missions and roles, to consider the growing impact and potential of new technologies. Alternative training methods are also discussed.

Science Journalism has been through a huge transition period in the past two decades as digital outlets compete with print media ― and that transition is continuing. It's left many science journalists unsure of their place in this new ecosystem and unsure of how best to use the new tools they have been presented with, such as social media. Now is an important time for training in this sector to ensure that journalists ― and the publications they work for ― can find their place again. There is also a real need for training for new writers ― to bridge the gap between their degree and their first job as a journalist.

BOOK: Content is king; News media management in the digital age.
Graham, G., Greenhill, A., Shaw, D.Andvargo, C., Eds (2015), London, U.K.: Bloomsbury

The ‘traditional’ media industry ― newspapers and magazines and the like ― have had a difficult time lately thanks to increasing competition online. This book's chapters consider ways the traditional media can reinvent themselves to secure their future. Two key themes that emerge from the chapters are the importance of building communities and the increasing role of credibility in today's highly-competitive media landscape. While this book does not focus on the science media, many of the conclusions are relevant to it, in fact some are cause for comfort for those involved with science journalism.

The authors present a quantitative content analysis to assess the use of mathematical information in the news of five generalist Portuguese newspapers during a three-month period. Misuses of mathematics were also studied in this context. Results show that only a small percentage of the news articles have mathematical information when compared to previous studies in the field. Furthermore, over 30% of the news articles containing mathematical information have some type of mathematical error. Different categories of errors are defined and reasons why these might occur are discussed.

This article provides a first statistical analysis of the typologies and characteristics of popular science web videos on YouTube. An analysis of 190 videos from 95 online video channels was conducted. Several factors such as narrative strategies, video editing techniques, and design tendencies with regard to cinematography, the number of shots, the kind of montage used, and even the use of sound design and special FX point to a notable professionalism among science communicators independent of institutional or personal commitments. This analysis represents an important step in understanding the essence of current popular science web videos and provides an evidence-based description of their distinctive features.

As a result of the large number of media used and a variety of objectives pursued by the various Public Communication of Science (PCS) activities, their evaluation turns into a daunting task. Therefore, a general taxonomy for all the approaches used by PCS could be helpful in order to differentiate their effects and to measure their results. A general format is proposed for a fast and easy evaluation of PCS efforts and to share a common language with all science communicators, who need to easily compare the results of this growing activity.

Interest in the possible role for comedy as a medium for communicating and engaging the public in science is growing. However, current research has so far been restricted to exploring whether the content of scientific knowledge is accurate and precise within comedy, and whether the public might be said to understand science better for having watched it. In this commentary, I suggest that this approach neglects the diversity with which scientific ideas and images are used in comedy, particularly when comedy is written without the explicit goal of communicating science. I present my current research on the American animated comedy South Park, which suggests a different story: science serves to expose the hypocrisy and self-interest that governs the town. I suggest that examples such as South Park might benefit the analysis of comedy and science, by seeking to explain the very presence of science in comedy and in doing so, explore the values attributed to science within popular culture.

This commentary considers the topics of humour and online settings. Both have received increasing attention amongst researchers and practitioners of science communication, and both raise numerous questions around the role of informality and enjoyment in the spread of information. However, online settings also provide a great range of data with which to address these questions. Here I suggest that close consideration of technical infrastructure plays an important role in this data collection. I shall do so using case studies drawn from two popular participatory websites, reddit and Facebook, which display contrasting attitudes towards using humour. I argue that these attitudes are partly products of the different tools provided by the pages for users to show appreciation, which affect the appearance of content on the websites. I also suggest that these tools allow users to appreciate jokes in multiple ways, and by extension might provide researchers with methods for assessing different forms of engagement.