We often write about bad news releases and weak science overpromoted by academic medical centers and the like.
And then there’s the work of Earle Holland.
Or rather, there was the work of Earle Holland for 33 years at Ohio State University.
He’s leaving April 6, after being told that “that leadership wanted to take the funds supporting my salary and apply it to other communications initiatives, although I have no idea what those might be.”
Earle wrote to science writer colleagues:
“Yes, this was a surprise, a shock, completely unexpected, although somewhat understandable from one perspective. Institutions across the country continue to shift more towards an emphasis on branding and marketing with a focus on the brevity of the social media. My often-obstinate stance in support of strong journalistic reporting and the quality and depth of content tends to conflict with those who wish to emphasize only message points and slogans. While there is certainly a place in the world for persuasive communications, I’ve always thought that it was a questionable approach for public institutions telling the research story. The fact that I could maintain that stance for this long is admittedly remarkable.
In the 33 years at OSU, I have reported on the great work of hundreds of geniuses, taught science reporting to students for 22 years, had weekly science columns in both the Columbus Dispatch and the New York Times Syndicate for a combined two decades, won 49 CASE awards for both newswriting and periodical writing, written book chapters, managed dozens of research-related crises, served on several important national boards and committees, and been called friend by outstanding scientists and science writers alike from across the country. Most importantly, I’ve been privileged to mentor some wonderful young writers who have gone on to make a name for themselves.”
Thanks to Charlie Petit of the Knight Science Journalism Tracker for alerting us to this news.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Following a shift in journalism’s business model, a diverse ecosystem of publications, many covering science, has sprung up online. This has made it more difficult to sort out what qualifies as journalism, what doesn’t, and whether the public even cares.
https://t.co/qO2a27FiSe
Researchers and journalists do the public a grave disservice when they spin health study results to make them appear safer or more effective than warranted, says @HealthNewsRevu founder @garyschwitzer https://t.co/QIKsRbP6Ed
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Comments are closed.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like