Evening Session: Considering the Meaning of "Easy to Understand"

Evening Session: Considering the Meaning of "Easy to Understand"

[Summary] [Panel Session 1] [Panel Session 2] [Panel Session 3] [Panel Session 4] [Public Seminar] [Evening Session] [Exhibition of World's S & T Media] [Special Lectures Abstracts] [Public Seminar Abstructs] [Outline of ICSTJ] [Scedule] [Persons concerned] [Links]

(1)Background and Summary
Coordinator Toshihiro Kimoto, Asahi Shimbun

1) Background
The following items were the main issues scheduled for discussion during the evening session. 1. General science magazines in Japan have been suspending publication one after the other over the past few years. How should we react to this situation?
2. In view of this situation, should we not reevaluate the meaning of "easy to understand," a principle we regard as our journalistic duty?
Here "we" refers to science writers and editors who work mainly for non-specialist publications for readers.
In other words, for these people (myself included), suspension of publication by science magazines - and, I might add, shrinking of the Japanese publishing industry's market overall - clearly signifies a narrowing, or disappearance, of their occupational field. Also, if we recognize that science writing and publishing is, as an industry, facing difficult times, have we no good strategies for revitalizing the industry?
In order to include participants in scheduling the agenda for this session, three individuals working on the industry's front lines were asked to contribute topics for the discussion. The three contributors were: Mr. Ryuichi Kaneko, a freelance science writer; Mr. Masaaki Inoue, founder and Chief Editor of a dinosaurs specialized magazine; and Mr. Ryutaro Minakami, who is involved in journalistic activities against pseudoscientific excesses. My thinking was that hearing the "live" opinions of these people would result in a more realistic message than any detailed quantitative analysis or philosophical critique of the current situation. Because this agenda relates to a situation particular to Japan, Japanese was made the official language for the session. I also anticipated that all participants in the session would consider the discussion topics as "interested parties."

2) Summary
The following is my summary of the points that surfaced during the discussion, including comments from the floor.
First of all, no one - including those who did not regard the science publishing industry as being in decline - denied there is a necessity for media (such as science magazines) that provide science and technology information for the general public. Of course, considering the nature of this conference, this went without saying. What remained to do, then, was to search for business opportunities for the media industry. Mr. Kaneko predicted that, even if general magazines ran into difficulty, magazines focusing on popular subjects areas with circulations in the 100,000s would do well. In reply, Mr. Inoue presented a status report including know-how such as personnel mobilization and cost reductions by using DTP. The report included highly specific examples of the realities of management and marketing, such as the extreme difficulty of persuading bookstores to increase the number of magazine copies they handle. A former science magazine editor in the audience also stressed the importance of marketing. When we are considering the future of science and technology journalism, it will be necessary for us, as industry members, to deepen discussion to include business practice issues from now on. Also, when we are considering countermeasures to society's "shift away from science," it will be necessary for us to examine steps we ourselves can take before expanding the debate to include educational practices. Using the example of a broadcasting program, Mr. Kaneko made the point that the information sender must be more aware of the danger of a story losing its accuracy when focus is placed on making the story easy to understand. In connection to this, Mr. Minakami said that making information "easy to understand" - by using such techniques as appealing to people's emotions, for example - can clash with "accuracy," and can on occasion result in the recipient interpreting the information in ways unimagined by the sender. This can even lead to the development of so-called pseudoscience. Mr. Minakami also touched on the trend of Nobel Prize coverage, for example, to shift from reports about the recipient's career achievements during the "news flash stage" to stories about the recipient's personality as time progresses. This issue speaks to our ability to convey information faithfully while responding to marketplace demands. Although resolution of this issue depends on the efforts of each and every one of us, one thing that can be said is this: if our industry's human resources decrease, "internal investigation" will become proportionally more difficult. For example, even if there are researchers with an interest in the science media, or if we are supported and encouraged by journalists and publishers in other fields, in the end, we in this industry are the only ones who can preserve our profession, and who have the means of devising ways to achieve this.
The agenda for this session may have been somewhat practical, but I believe the very fact that many people were able to share in a discussion on this theme holds positive significance.

(2)List of Topic Contributors

Masaaki Inoue (Chief Editor, Dino Press)
Ryuichi Kaneko (Science Writer)
Ryutaro Minakami (Science Journalist)

(3)Description of Proceedings

The following is a summary of the main points made by each participant during the discussion.
Kaneko: It is unfortunate that the current situation does not allow space for science writers to work on ways of conveying information in an easy-to-understand manner. Recently I have begun to ask myself whether science journalism has actually taken root in Japan, whether a readership actually exists, and, whether - if no readership exists - I should remain in this field? However, wouldn't it be possible to create a magazine limiting content to a specific field so that circulation is constant, neither rising significantly nor plummeting?
Inoue: There are said to be at least 30,000 "fanatics" in any field. Dino Press has not yet completely tapped into this potential market. I am personally involved with marketing, in addition to my editorial duties. In the current publishing industry slump, however, it is no easy task convincing the agencies that distribute our magazine to bookstores to increase the number of copies they handle. With regard to writers, people who work with academics often have greater knowledge about their research area than do academics. For this reason, we do not limit our writers to academics but include a wide range of people, and this factor is a motivating force in our efforts to attract a wide following.
Kaneko: At the same time as science magazines went into a nosedive, something also seems to have gone awry with television science programs. Anything goes, as long as there are beautiful visuals, excellent music, and an arresting narration, and there is no forum available for proper critiquing of programs.
Minakami: There are people who will broadcast the most absurd information. In contrast, restraint in media reporting of cults and UFOs is regarded as a sign of high quality, a situation that makes it difficult for sincere criticism to carry weight. Sales for pseudoscience books are much higher than for books on more serious topics.
Kaneko: Speaking of easy-to-understand, outlandish publications written in a categorical style are certainly easy to understand. However, when it comes to writing about scientific principles in an easy-to-understand way, somehow the writing always manages to become longwinded. Writers are prohibited by editors from using certain words and are subject to tremendous constraints. Writing within such as framework, it is inevitable that writers end up with article content very different from the facts the writer originally intended to convey.
Minakami: A little absurdity enters during the process of turning information into an article. Although it is necessary to convey information in a simple, easy-to-understand manner, simplifying information in this manner results in the article moving further and further away from the facts. As journalists, we have no choice but to roll along, carrying out our work as we struggle with the dilemma of deciding where to draw the line and how to convey certain information.
Inoue: One possible method is to use specialized terms and to provide explanations of these where necessary. Making everything easy to understand, however, would require the provision of hundreds of lines of footnotes, and this would be virtually the same as the magazine coming with a dictionary attached so that it could read. A method of avoiding this is to emphasize to authors - especially non-Japanese authors - that the readership includes children. I have found that authors will write in a more easy-to-understand way if they are reminded of this point.
Kaneko: There is also a danger in making information easy-to-understand. No matter how small the magazine space allocated, writers always try to write the very best article they can. Unfortunately, however, even that space is now disappearing. Although many independent books about science are being published in Japan, publication is only possible for a small, limited group of people. I would have liked there to have also been discussion about methods of preserving the "ecological position" of freelance and other science journalists as science journalism becomes established.
(Audience members also contributed a large number of comments. These included: "the current market for science magazines is an appropriate size," "Marketing efforts are also an issue," and "Interest in pseudoscience is the same as interest in science in that both seek knowledge, and this orientation is therefore an issue.")