It's official - the Boston Globe
has followed the lead of countless other national newspapers and has
decided to deep six its 'Health and Science' section. I'm not
surprised, really, as the section has been shrinking steadily for
years. It first went from a full, robust stand-alone pull-out section
to a progressively shorter couple of pages in the end of the front
section just before the op-eds. This morning, as I flipped to the start
of the section, I noticed a short note on the top left-hand corner of
the page:
Is this just another sign of the times for the print media or could we look at it in a more positive manner - science is so prevalent that it doesn't need its own section and there is a place for it in all the sections of the paper? I wish I could argue for the latter, but I fear it's more likely the reality we are facing is that science print media is a dying breed.
I suppose that's good for someone like myself who is in science television, but I still feel a sense of loss that yet another consistently measured and reliable form of science journalism is facing such tough times. Besides, didn't our new president just tell us he wants to help restore science to its rightful place? Doesn't that mean we should be working harder to cover MORE, not less science in ALL forms of media?
TO OUR READERS
Starting next Monday, the stories and features that now appear in the Health/Science section will move to other sections of the Globe. Personal health stories, including Health Answers and briefs about medical research, will move to "g", which will have a personal health focus on Mondays. Science articles, including Ask Dr. Knowledge and The Green Blog, will move to the Business section, which will have a science and innovation focus on Mondays. White Coat Notes will be published online only, at www.boston.com/news/health/blog.
Is this just another sign of the times for the print media or could we look at it in a more positive manner - science is so prevalent that it doesn't need its own section and there is a place for it in all the sections of the paper? I wish I could argue for the latter, but I fear it's more likely the reality we are facing is that science print media is a dying breed.
I suppose that's good for someone like myself who is in science television, but I still feel a sense of loss that yet another consistently measured and reliable form of science journalism is facing such tough times. Besides, didn't our new president just tell us he wants to help restore science to its rightful place? Doesn't that mean we should be working harder to cover MORE, not less science in ALL forms of media?
