This article originally appeared on the Guardian website here. If anyone wonders why the Science Media Centre gave evidence to the Leveson … read more
Following Fiona Fox’s written and oral evidence to the Leveson Inquiry, the Science Media Centre was challenged to act on the assertion that “if you put the best scientists, science communicators and science journalists in a room it would not take long for them to agree a tick list of the basic ingredients of good science reporting.”
The guidelines were therefore drawn up in consultation with scientists, science reporters, editors and sub editors and are designed to be used by newsrooms and as advice for non-specialist reporters.
In his report, Lord Justice Leveson described remarked on the guidelines as being “in my view commendable for their utility as well as their succinctness. Any new regulator should bear them closely in mind.”
From our unique position between science and the media, the SMC was well placed to submit evidence from the science community’s perspective to the Leveson Inquiry on the culture, practice and ethics of the press.
The evidence paints the coverage of science, health and engineering by the media as being in rude health but listed a number of problems, and suggested recommendations to improve the general standard of reporting.
Following submission of this evidence, Fiona Fox was also called to give oral evidence and the SMC submitted ’10 best practice guidelines for reporting science & health stories’.
On Monday 25th June 2012 I gave a talk at the UK Conference of Science Journalists. Along with David Derbyshire (freelance environment and … read more
Two weeks ago I was called to give evidence to the Leveson Inquiry. It was a nerve-wracking ordeal but also … read more