Day two of the Knight science journalism symposium in Boston and Henry Jenkins of MIT blasts the audience with a sprint through new media, popular culture and new possibilities for science journalism.

The thrust of his talk was how participatory culture is changing how we acquire knowledge, changing what we mean by the term “expert” and how we can work together as a collective intelligence.

Henry’s critique of journalists is that they provide knowledge but do not provide tools for the public to learn for themselves.

In his view, new media is innovative, convergent, everyday, appropriate, networked, global, generational and unequal. This presents both challenges and opportunities for journalists to rethink their jobs in new ways

Henry urged journalists to rethink how they work, to look at ways of informing the public about science in a more active and participatory way rather than reading it in a printed page.

So it is not just about presenting data, but providing techniques for the audience to do something with that data.

Henry cited the example of Lost, where fans work together online to solve clues, where everyone pools their knowledge and expertise by working collaboratively in a networked world.

This is all pretty provocative stuff for a room largely of established print reporters, who feel uneasy about the idea of educating the public about science or about opening up their work to the lay person.

But Henry’s argument is that roles are blurring and there is a role for science journalists in educating the public and finding ways to engage the audience in exploring science for themselves. In any case, as he pointed out responding to questions, informing the public about things work, such as the US primary election system.

As an aside, Henry argues that the key skill needed of the journalist of the future is the ability to think across media.

Print PDF