Estão agora disponíveis no site da conferência Science Writers 2010 algumas das comunicações, ao longo de uma semana de debates.
Deixa-mos aqui algumas sugestões (com os respectivos resumos em inglês) que podem ser visualizadas no site da conferência:
Profitable freelancing: Starting a business and keeping it productive
Freelance writers wear many hats: Writer and editor; CEO and employee; treasurer and accountant. Your job: Fill each role as efficiently as possible to maximize time in Writer (read: money-making) mode. You’ll need to be productive. There’s no shortage of advice out there, so you’ve got to be selective: Narrow focus on productivity can be, well, counterproductive. This panel will address workable productivity ‘hacks’ freelancers can implement, both online and off, to establish and sustain their freelance business with maximal efficiency and minimal fuss.
This workshop will include both a panel discussion and audience Q&A. An online survey, conducted in advance of the meeting, will inform the conversation, and tips and tricks from both the presenters and the audience will be made available to the community-at-large via a blog specifically set up for this session.
Civics of science: Literacy and the collapse of science journalism
One of the enduring themes in the discussion of consequences from the current slump in science journalism is the presumed importance of science journalism to creating an informed, science-literate public. Is there in fact a case to be made that the disappearance of science from the nation’s newspapers, magazines, and television will drag down already lagging science literacy? Many nonprofits and advocacy groups are funding science journalism under this assumption. Or are the legacy media a spectacularly poor remedial education tool that follows, but doesn’t improve, science literacy? How will (or simply will) science literacy be affected by the proliferation of science in the new media? Join this Agronsky & Co. style discussion with science journalists and social scientists to explore these issues.
Get the numbers right: A workshop on reporting statistics
Stumped by statistical significance? Rusty on relative risk? ‘Orrified by odds ratios? The ability to understand, interpret and report on statistics is a valuable tool in every science writer’s toolbox. This hands-on workshop will give attendees a crash course in reading the numbers in scientific papers—and figuring out what they mean. From a leading statistician, we’ll hear stories of statistics use and abuse from the research trenches; from a veteran writer and editor we’ll learn about reporting issues that arise in the interpretation of statistical significance. And from a fact-checker we’ll get some take-home tips.
Two leaders in their field (and a fact-checker) discuss the same issue: First, Columbia statistician Andrew Gelman talks about statistical significance and gives examples of their use and abuse. Next, Tom Siegfried from Science News talks about reporting issues related to statistical significance. Finally, Stephen Ornes gives practical advice on how to report odds ratios and relative risk, and moderates the exercises.
Rebooting science journalism: Adapting to the new media landscape
With many of journalism’s institutions, traditions, and practices under fire, science journalists face a tough evolutionary challenge: How should we adapt if we’re to take engaging, rigorous science writing into this changing environment? What traits and behaviors should we cultivate or keep, and which leave behind? What pressures and opportunities do new media forms create, and how should we respond to them? How do we ensure accuracy and transparency? Finally, how can people who want to write well about science do all this — and make a living? Can we be the same old animals, or must we take new forms?
Panel 2.0 style: After some brief framing remarks by the moderator, each panelist will speak for 5 to 8 minutes. Halfway through the session, we’ll open it to what we expect to be a very lively give-and-take discussion.
New funding models for journalism
When computer sellers went online, science sections died. And when the auto dealerships closed, whole newspapers went under. What’s journalism’s next source of support? Three editors of online publications being run on a mixture of foundations, individual donors, and yes, even advertising, discuss their experiences so far in the new media world. Will science journalism be only as good as its foundation backing? Is there room for science stories in a ‘hyper-local’ product? Hear about these emerging life forms and join a freewheeling discussion of what might be better, or worse, about these novel sources of support.
Each of the three editors will conduct a brief show-and-tell of their sites and discuss the history of how they got started, their funding model, and where they’d like to be. We will leave ample time for discussion, so come prepared!