Who is doing the investigative science stories?
Admittedly, it’s a little late to weigh in with top 2009 lists. But a few days ago, Mark Katches, a blogger for California Watch–an online project of the Center for Investigative Reporting–wrote about the responses he got when he asked some top investigative journalists what they thought were the best investigative pieces of 2009.
What astonished me about their picks was how many of them were what we’d call science stories. Here are the stories that Katches says got multiple mentions in his informal survey:
- The Washington Post’s “Wasting Away” series on AIDS funding abuses and lack of oversight, by Debbie Cenziper.
- The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel’s “Cashing in on Kids” series on rampant fraud and other abuses within Wisconsin’s taxpayer subsidized child-care system, by Raquel Rutledge.
- USA Today’s series on school lunch safety that found lower standards for food served in school cafeteries, written by Blake Morrison, Peter Eisler and Anthony DeBarros.
- ProPublica and The Los Angeles Times “When Caregivers Harm” fro ProPublica and the Los Angeles Times, about deficiencies in California’s system for disciplining nurses, written by Tracy Weber and Charles Ornstein.
- The Chicago Tribune’s “Clout Goes to College” exposed how hundreds of students with subpar academic performance were getting accepted into the University of Illinois because they were well connected, written by Tara Malone, Stacy St. Clair and Jodi S. Cohen.
- The Washington Post’s coverage of a fatal Metro crash, which found that it was not as accidental as officials had claimed, and that it might have been prevented. It was written by Joe Stephens and Lena H. Sun.
With the exception of the piece on kids getting into college because the fix was in, these could all arguably be called science stories. AIDS funding, child care, food standards, nurses’ behavior, and accident prevention are all subjects that could fall within our beat.
Katches mentions other good investigative stories from 2009, and many of them were science stories, too.
Yet none of these stories was written by any of the names familiar to us in science writing, with the exception of Charles Ornstein. I’ve always thought of investigative reporting–however we might disagree about what that means–to be among the highest callings in journalism. Most of us, by now, can write a clear spot news piece or blog post about a journal article or a presentation at a science meeting. And that’s a fine occupation–I’ve spent most of my career doing that.
But why aren’t we writing the investigative pieces? With the background that science writers bring to their stories, they are more qualified than many other reporters to look into abuses and failings of government and other health care agencies.
I don’t know the answer to that, but I’m sorry to see it. We’re missing an opportunity here.
- Paul Raeburn
January 25th, 2010 at 10:08 am
Hey Paul, sharp-eyed post. And a good question. Journalism rightly honors most those who turn over rocks to see what slimy slugs are hidden beneath. Science writers usually get shoved aside, or stand aside on their own, when there is a stench in the air.
However, while investigative expose-the-bad-people reporting is uncommon on the “hard sciences” beat with some exceptions such as old pal Deb Blum, medical and especially environmental beat reporters regularly take on established powers including big pharma and big polluters. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel’s investigation of BPA and phthalate ingredients in plastics is one example.
Years ago, an awful lot of the hard sciences beat reporters in this country were caught flat footed by NASA’s Challenger shuttle crash. We (talking about me specifically, but I was not alone) had little idea how to penetrate NASA once the p.r. shop clammed up.
Plus I have to admit that the reason I became a science writer was to write the kinds of stories I loved as a teenager – about smart people doing clever things and discovering or inventing important things new to human experience. We need the flinty-eyed skeptics who follow the money and spot hubris a mile away. But most of the time suspicion that some professor or other researcher is a fraud or cheat hits me, I’m almost ashamed to admit, as a boring diversion from other things amazing and very likely true and new.
January 25th, 2010 at 11:43 am
Tony Debarros at USAT is a database editor, he has worked on medical/science stories before, for what it’s worth.
Part of the problem that Paul describes is the ‘science ghetto’ that Tom Hayden has written about — science news is seen as entertainment by editors and readers; science reporters are seen as entertainers, not reporters. Certainly not investigative reporters. Thus, state department reporters cover nuclear proliferation. Defense reporters cover missile defense. Crime reporters cover trials hinging on forensic evidence etc. Other specialties face similar hurdles, but science plays such a primary role in modern society that the absence of technically-competent reporters from investigations seems a particular shame. Maybe this will change in the future.
Just my two cents.
January 25th, 2010 at 1:44 pm
Charlie–Fair point; environmental writers and medical writers do often take on big pharma and polluters. And I’m not arguing that we abandon our bread-and-butter reporting on science development, but that we mix it up with other kinds of stories–including investigative pieces.
Dan–Thanks for the word on Tony. I write as if I know every science writer everywhere, but of course that’s not true. And you correctly point out that other beat reporters cover nuclear proliferation, defense, etc., where science issues come up regularly. My problem–subject of another post at some point–is that Washington reporters do a lousy job of covering science. They report the truth as proclaimed by Democrats, and the truth as proclaimed by Republicans. And they frequently make little effort to explain why these views conflict or–and here’s a radical proposition–to look at the actual truth! That’s where we can play an important role.
January 26th, 2010 at 11:37 am
I think Dan and Charlie are right about some of the causes. But let’s not overlook the obvious answer, too: There are a lot fewer of “us” science reporters than there used to be. I can’t speak for the ones who remain, but I imagine that most of them are really strapped and don’t have the luxury of working for weeks on a single story.
I can’t say that I was ever a terrific (or even particularly good) investigative reporter, but I did try to do some of that “following the money.” That is, until I got laid off. In a much more notable example, Rick Weiss did terrific digging — and took the Post buyout a couple of years ago.
So why aren’t we writing the investigative pieces? Alas, because many of us aren’t employed by newspapers anymore.
January 26th, 2010 at 11:42 am
P.S. This argument is, of course, based on my assumption that science writers’ jobs have been considered less important than have other reporters’ at newspapers. Of course I know that the news industry is limping along and that tons of journalists have lost their jobs. I just have the impression that science writers may have been among the first to go.
January 26th, 2010 at 4:29 pm
Lila,
I think you’re half right–it’s tough to do expensive stories without somebody picking up the tab. But not all digging costs money or takes a lot of time. Sometimes it’s just a question of reading deeper into the documents, or following links, or doing the right interviews.
Last year, at a meeting of one of my writers’ groups, Peter Osnos, a former Washington Post reporter and the founder of the publishing company Public Affairs, was listening to all of us complain about how hard it is to make a living writing books. His answer? “It’s important work, and if you want to do it–find a way.”
We could say the same thing about investigative science pieces. If you want to do them and think they’re important–find a way.