Why is 'scientists are bad communicators' trope wrong?

Are scientists bad communicators? Emphatically not, blastsCoturnix at his science blog.

"Many scientists communicate well, but are only allowed by the mainstream media to use the "pull" model which attracts only those who are already interested in science. The examples of "pull" media for science are popular science magazines, news sections of scientific journals, science sections of newspapers, science blogs, science-related radio shows, science-related shows on cable TV, i.e., all those places where people have a choice to seek this information or bypass it.

It is the mainstream media that controls all the "push" venues - the most popular print, radio and TV venues that are seen by everyone and where science could, potentially, be mixed in with the news coverage of other areas of life, thus delivering science stories to people who otherwise would never seek them. And it is there that the scientists have no access, certainly no access on their own terms, and thus it is there where the science communication is blocked. Scientists communicate all the time, and do it well, but only to the already receptive audience which actively seeks them - in special sections, or self-made media, carefully quarantined away from the mainstream news."

However, he goes on to say that "push" media is the old media and that scientists should embrace the new media of the internet. Although true, the corporate media channels do still have a lot of influence and therefore it is worth some brave scientists trying to push those doors open. It has been done, but rarely.



Why is 'scientists are bad communicators' trope wrong