2. 职称英语
  3. Below are some common criticisms and requests that science journalists recei

Below are some common criticisms and requests that science journalists recei

游客2024-10-13  11
问题     Below are some common criticisms and requests that science journalists receive from researchers. I’m not arguing that science journalism cannot be improved, but responding to these criticisms by changing what we do would do nothing to improve the coverage of science. Here’s why.
    The standard structure of news stories doesn’t work for science. There’s been some shrewd criticism of the "inverted pyramid" model of writing news but there’s a reason we stick to it doggedly. It works. Some readers come to news sites wanting a quick hit. Others want to know more about each story. The ’inverted pyramid’—essentially presenting the new results at the top then filling in the background—can satisfy both camps if it is done well. Those who suggest otherwise should look at their blog posts and work out how far down the page most of their readers get. They may be surprised.
    Your headline is hyperbolic. The purpose of a headline is not to tell the story. That’s the purpose of the story. The purpose of the headline is to pique the interest of readers without lying. So the next time a multi-squillion pound experiment reports evidence of neutrinos going faster than the speed of light, don’t expect the headlines to say "Astonishing but esoteric particle physics finding likely to be flawed though no one can see how yet".
    Change my colourful quote at once! No. Quotes serve many functions in a news story but one important reason they’re there is to inject some humanity into the piece. Most scientists are human and, thankfully, don’t speak in the arid tone that characterises an academic paper. They get excited and say things like "If we do not have causality, we are buggered" and "I don’t like to sound hyperbolic, but I think the word ’seismic’ is likely to apply to this paper". That’s nothing to be ashamed of. It is no secret that reporters go fishing for a good quote. That’s nothing to be ashamed of either.
    Why did you emphasise the ’tabloid’ implications of my work? There’s a fundamental misapprehension among many in the scientific community that the principal job of science journalists is to communicate the results of their work to the general public. It’s not. A journalist might emphasise one part of the research and ignore other parts altogether in an effort to contextualise the story for their readers. That does not, of course, justify spinning the story out of all recognition so that it fundamentally misrepresents the work.
    The story didn’t contain this or that "essential" caveat. Was the caveat really essential to someone’s understanding of the story? Are you sure? In my experience, it’s rare that it is. Research papers contain all the caveats that are essential for a complete understanding of the science. They are also seldom read. Even by scientists.
                                                From The Guardian, January 17, 2012 [br] Why does the author think the "inverted pyramid" model of writing news is appropriate?
选项 A、Because it is the standard writing model accepted by all the science journalists.
B、Because it can best meet the requirements of the vast majority of the readers.
C、Because it needs to contain all the results of the scientific experiments.
D、Because it helps make known the scientists.
答案 B
解析 本题为细节题。文章第二段中提到“It works．Some readers come to news sites wanting a quick hit．Others want to know more about each story．The‘inverted pyramid’--essentially presenting the new results at the top then filling in the background-can satisfy both camps if it is done well．”意为：这种“倒金字塔”型的写作方法很有用，因为有些读者只想知道大意，而其他人想要知道事情的前因后果。这种写作方法——开头介绍结果然后再补充背景——都能满足这两种读者阵营的要求。所以选项B正确。
转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/zcyy/3798728.html
相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)