And it is very hard for most within the science blogosphere to get a sense of perspective on the importance and reach of their writing.

While all blogs and reporters follow Sturgeon’s Law (of which Nielsens’s observations appear to be a corollary), I think the good science blogs will be useful adjuncts for the 10% of the science journalists who can actually write well.

The major use I have found for many science blogs is that they provide great fact-checking of what others have written. There is nothing like reading a scientist who can write discuss the latest misbegotten copy of a press release found in the science section of the local paper.

Plenty of people have gotten full time jobs blogging since the last time we had this “blogging is replacing journalism” nonsense going around so Chris Mooney’s “blogging isn’t a real job for anyone” comment just makes him look clueless.

The question is whether blogging is an appropriate substitute for the kind of professional science journalism that is disappearing if not totally missing from the scene these days. The problem isn’t that the writers have abdicated their responsibility at all. The problem is that the large corporations that own the newspapers and television networks are not interested in producing quality journalism. It doesn’t fit with their economic imperative. They’d rather appeal to the lowest common denominator, to the most people possible, to sensationalism, because that’s what brings in readers/viewers. One of the biggest problems is the ever-creeping dominance of opinion over fact, of columnists over news reporters. It’s less important to be accurate these days than it is to take a position (preferably one that appeals to the demographic of your readers). The other issue is the lack of original reporting, which costs money, and instead the regurgitation of press releases (see here for more on the subject).

And to me, those same phenomena are present in most, if not all blogs. I want to replace the failing journalism system with something better, not more of the same. What’s the difference between a news article that quotes a press release and a link blog that does the same? Not much. What’s the difference between a newspaper columnist declaring their opinions and a blogger doing the same? What’s needed are new models for journalism, new ways to fund professional quality reporting without the heavy-handed influence of corporate ownership (a point where I’m in agreement with Clay Shirky, I want to see more experimentation).

Blogging is generally a very personal affair. A blog with no personality, with no individual style, is a boring blog. That’s why they’re more akin to the editorial pages of a newspaper than they are the front page. Editorial pages are very valuable things. But they’re complementary to news reporting, not a substitute for it.

As for Nature’s motivations, they may truly believe what they’re saying, but they still have a financial horse in the race. If a scientist from Roche wants to publish a study on their latest wonder drug, they have to declare such interests. It doesn’t mean the study is inaccurate, but it alerts the reader to potential bias. All I’m asking is that Nature hold themselves to the same standards as their authors.

To my mind blogs are fundamentally a platform for distribution. I don’t understand that there needs to be an opposition between science blogging and science journalism. It seems to me there were more scientists to have more channels into their work, an opinionated, expressive, or data driven blog for instance, then the role of the journalist may be made easier. I should stress the ‘may’ there. There are a host of issues each in themselves deserving of a good decade before they will shake themselves out (activity mining, semantic sorting of information, funding for journalism, time to blog vs quality of contributions, the list goes on), but I digress.

- Ian
(disclaimer, I work for Nature)