Turning the tables on the Guardian’s Science Weekly

Tomorrow, if all goes to plan, I’m going to be accompanying Graham Steel to meet the guys behind the Guardian’s (excellent) Science Weekly podcast. Graham has organised a bit of a podcast recording to essentially ‘turn the tables’ on them. So we’re wondering in advance – does anyone have anything they’d like answered? Or any issues in science and journalism that you’d like to hear their take on?

I think Graham’s plan is to touch on issues as diverse as churnalism, the science blogging landscape, social media and linking to sources – can you think of anything we can add to this?

Let us know in the comments below!

4 thoughts on “Turning the tables on the Guardian’s Science Weekly

  1. One of my absolutely favorite science podcasts (and I listen to about 8h every week).
    I’d like to know how much recording time is used for the ~20min podcast. I’d also like to know how the Guardian can offer something of such high journalistic standards for free – is it paid from the marketing department or are the journalists forced to do the podcast in their spare time, or is their time just cut off from what they otherwise would be doing? Are the journalists on the pod freelancers or staff? A lot of talent, expertise and work goes into Science Weekly, that much is for certain.

    I mean, Elsevier could probably afford several podcasts with only Nobel laureates and Pulitzer Prize winners on them with their 800M€ profit per year. But I always thought newspapers in general were struggling?

  2. I’d like to ask whether there is any prevailing opinion on “prevailing opinion”. For example:
    “Binge drinking is recognised as consuming more that 4 units of alcohol in a sitting”. That’s 2 bottles of Lidl beer while watching a match on tv!
    “Cannabis is a gateway drug” – unlike alcohol, I guess.
    There are many others – I’m sure listeners would like to highlight their favourites, but I’m getting very annoyed with preachy & intrusive health and social advice from the Scientific community. Are their scientific “wings”? A laissez faire right and a preventative left?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *