I have been concerned with the science-society relationships for most of my professional life, first during approximately 26 years of journalistic practice, then during my 17 years of academic, nomadic life in the Danish university system. My current status as an independent writer and scholar (PhD) is unlikely to eradicate that life-long preoccupation. It is, on the other hand, likely to give me more time to study and write about the philosophy of journalism – another of my favourite topics and, as I see it, substantially linked to questions concerning the science-society relationships. See more on www.gittemeyer.eu where a number of my texts are made accessible in Open Access format
Ethical Space: The International Journal of Communication Ethics. Vol 3 Nos 2/3 2006, 2006
Motivated by the ideal of pluralism, this essay explores the background of an apparent paradox: a... more Motivated by the ideal of pluralism, this essay explores the background of an apparent paradox: although a multitude of different kinds of journalism may have evolved, because journalism is only vaguely defined by connections to 'the media' and 'news', there is a trend towards increasing journalistic standardization. It is proposed that the standardization represents attempts to rationalize journalism. But rationalism is a framework of thought which is alien to journalism and to political life in general, it is argued. As an alternative framework for the philosophy and practice of journalism, the classical notions of praxis and practical reason are introduced.
Journal of Applied Journalism & Media Studies, 2019
Europe has a rich heritage of diverse languages, political cultures, enlightenment traditions and... more Europe has a rich heritage of diverse languages, political cultures, enlightenment traditions and, consequently, frameworks of journalism idea(l)s, based on different understandings of its tasks, audiences and position in society. As yet, however, the addition of a cross-border dimension to journalism has not resulted in the development of cross-border collaborations along correspondingly diverse lines. The recent rise of journalistic cross-border collaboration seems much indebted to the muckraking tradition of reporting, rooted in the decades when populism was coined as a positive, anti-elitist term in the United States. Targeting corrupt practices, muckrakers have traditionally been committed to exposing liars, frauds, crooks-wrong ones-in politics and business. This is useful to society at large but insufficient if compared to aims of stimulating, across borders, critical public reflection and exchange about international public affairs. Because it may generate self-righteousness in its practitioners and audiences, it might even hamper such practices, dependent as they are on a capacity for self-critical appraisal among participants. What would cross-border collaboration look like if connected to, for instance, the logic of publizist journalism with its affinity for intellectually challenging political debate and its capacity for scrutinizing stereotypes? Why has it not evolved? What might be done to further a diversity of approaches to journalistic cross-border collaboration? And, might shared attention to the concept of cosmopolitanism be helpful to that purpose?
Page 1. The factualization of uncertainty: Risk, politics, and genetically modified crops a cas... more Page 1. The factualization of uncertainty: Risk, politics, and genetically modified crops a case of rape Gitte Meyer,1 Anna Paldam Folker,2 Rikke Bagger Jørgensen,3 Martin Krayer von Krauss,4 Peter Sandøe,1,2 and Geir Tveit2 ...
Different languages representing different frameworks of thought and perspectives on reality also... more Different languages representing different frameworks of thought and perspectives on reality also carry different frameworks of thought on journalism and on how the profession may contribute to democracy. A shortcut to understanding varieties of journalism may be ...
The paper addresses issues of scientific conduct regarding relations between science and the medi... more The paper addresses issues of scientific conduct regarding relations between science and the media, relations between scientists and journalists, and attitudes towards the public at large. In the large and increasing body of literature on scientific conduct and misconduct, these issues seem underexposed as ethical challenges. Consequently, individual scientists here tend to be left alone with problems and dilemmas, with no guidance for good conduct. Ideas are presented about how to make up for this omission. Using a practical, ethical approach, the paper attempts to identify ways scientists might deal with ethical public relations issues, guided by a norm or maxim of openness. Drawing on and rethinking the CUDOS codification of the scientific ethos, as it was worked out by Robert K. Merton in 1942, we propose that this, which is echoed in current codifications of norms for good scientific conduct, contains a tacit maxim of openness which may naturally be extended to cover the public relations of science. Discussing openness as access, accountability, transparency and receptiveness, the argumentation concentrates on the possible prevention of misconduct with respect to, on the one hand, sins of omission—withholding important information from the public—and, on the other hand, abuses of the authority of science in order to gain publicity. Statements from interviews with scientists are used to illustrate how scientists might view the relevance of the issues raised.
Ethical Space: The International Journal of Communication Ethics, 2008
Not only journalists, but also media researchers may be contributing to cynicism in political lif... more Not only journalists, but also media researchers may be contributing to cynicism in political life by depicting reality in ways that tend to be self-fulfilling. Assumptions about politics and journalism, likely to be conducive to cynicism in journalism and politics, seem to be common in current mainstream media and communication research. Thus, journalists and media researchers alike share an ethical responsibility for self-critical reflection concerning their functions as observers who cannot escape participation in human affairs and the ethical challenges that relate to it. The first task is that of avoiding the trap of unrecognized participation.
Mandatory risk assessment is intended to reassure concerned citizens and introduce reason into th... more Mandatory risk assessment is intended to reassure concerned citizens and introduce reason into the heated European controversies on genetically modified crops and food. The authors, examining a case of risk assessment of genetically modified oilseed rape, claim that the new European legislation on risk assessment does nothing of the sort and is not likely to present an escape from the international deadlock on the use of genetic modification in agriculture and food production. The new legislation is likely to stimulate the kind of emotive reactions it was intended to prevent. In risk assessment exercises, scientific uncertainty is turned into risk, expressed in facts and figures. Paradoxically, this conveys an impression of certainty, while value-disagreement and conflicts of interest remain hidden below the surface of factuality. Public dialogue and negotiation along these lines are rendered impossible. The only option left to critics is to resort to claims of fear and to call for new risk assessments to be performed, on and on again. Science is allowing itself to be abused by accepting the burden of proof in matters more suited to reflection and negotiation. The specific challenge to science would be to take care of itself – rethinking the role and the limitations of science in a social context, and, thereby gaining the strength to fulfill this role and to enter into dialogue with the rest of society. Scientific communities appear to be obvious candidates for prompting reflection and dialogue on this issue.
Journalists are often blamed for producing scare stories. It seems to have been forgotten that ma... more Journalists are often blamed for producing scare stories. It seems to have been forgotten that many, perhaps most, modern scare stories are based on scientific risk calculations, and that journalists are not trained in scaring the wits out of people in that particular way. A more precise accusation might be that journalists are eager, unthinking and unquestioning conveyors of results
University PR and Efforts tp Prevent Research Misconduct: Gold, Glory and Integrity, 2021
Current universities are equipped with communication, marketing and PR departments. They are also... more Current universities are equipped with communication, marketing and PR departments. They are also furnished with research integrity officers and formalities to fight academic misconduct. In Europe half a century ago, such university features were unheard-of. They evolved at roughly the same time, but are they interrelated and, if so, how? Why does the otherwise frank, but strangely isolated research integrity discourse hardly ever enquire critically into institutional PR efforts? In addition, is there a risk that universities—although liberal institutions—might develop illiberal traits and, to further their reputation as efficient business corporations, distance themselves from classic academic virtues? These are salient questions to anybody concerned with research integrity and the university as an institution, and form the focus of this book. Composed of three interconnected essays and considering historical developments, it will inspire reflection and debate on the future of European universities as liberal, cultural institutions. See https://www.cambridgescholars.com/product/978-1-5275-6746-7
Ethical Space: The International Journal of Communication Ethics. Vol 3 Nos 2/3 2006, 2006
Motivated by the ideal of pluralism, this essay explores the background of an apparent paradox: a... more Motivated by the ideal of pluralism, this essay explores the background of an apparent paradox: although a multitude of different kinds of journalism may have evolved, because journalism is only vaguely defined by connections to 'the media' and 'news', there is a trend towards increasing journalistic standardization. It is proposed that the standardization represents attempts to rationalize journalism. But rationalism is a framework of thought which is alien to journalism and to political life in general, it is argued. As an alternative framework for the philosophy and practice of journalism, the classical notions of praxis and practical reason are introduced.
Journal of Applied Journalism & Media Studies, 2019
Europe has a rich heritage of diverse languages, political cultures, enlightenment traditions and... more Europe has a rich heritage of diverse languages, political cultures, enlightenment traditions and, consequently, frameworks of journalism idea(l)s, based on different understandings of its tasks, audiences and position in society. As yet, however, the addition of a cross-border dimension to journalism has not resulted in the development of cross-border collaborations along correspondingly diverse lines. The recent rise of journalistic cross-border collaboration seems much indebted to the muckraking tradition of reporting, rooted in the decades when populism was coined as a positive, anti-elitist term in the United States. Targeting corrupt practices, muckrakers have traditionally been committed to exposing liars, frauds, crooks-wrong ones-in politics and business. This is useful to society at large but insufficient if compared to aims of stimulating, across borders, critical public reflection and exchange about international public affairs. Because it may generate self-righteousness in its practitioners and audiences, it might even hamper such practices, dependent as they are on a capacity for self-critical appraisal among participants. What would cross-border collaboration look like if connected to, for instance, the logic of publizist journalism with its affinity for intellectually challenging political debate and its capacity for scrutinizing stereotypes? Why has it not evolved? What might be done to further a diversity of approaches to journalistic cross-border collaboration? And, might shared attention to the concept of cosmopolitanism be helpful to that purpose?
Page 1. The factualization of uncertainty: Risk, politics, and genetically modified crops a cas... more Page 1. The factualization of uncertainty: Risk, politics, and genetically modified crops a case of rape Gitte Meyer,1 Anna Paldam Folker,2 Rikke Bagger Jørgensen,3 Martin Krayer von Krauss,4 Peter Sandøe,1,2 and Geir Tveit2 ...
Different languages representing different frameworks of thought and perspectives on reality also... more Different languages representing different frameworks of thought and perspectives on reality also carry different frameworks of thought on journalism and on how the profession may contribute to democracy. A shortcut to understanding varieties of journalism may be ...
The paper addresses issues of scientific conduct regarding relations between science and the medi... more The paper addresses issues of scientific conduct regarding relations between science and the media, relations between scientists and journalists, and attitudes towards the public at large. In the large and increasing body of literature on scientific conduct and misconduct, these issues seem underexposed as ethical challenges. Consequently, individual scientists here tend to be left alone with problems and dilemmas, with no guidance for good conduct. Ideas are presented about how to make up for this omission. Using a practical, ethical approach, the paper attempts to identify ways scientists might deal with ethical public relations issues, guided by a norm or maxim of openness. Drawing on and rethinking the CUDOS codification of the scientific ethos, as it was worked out by Robert K. Merton in 1942, we propose that this, which is echoed in current codifications of norms for good scientific conduct, contains a tacit maxim of openness which may naturally be extended to cover the public relations of science. Discussing openness as access, accountability, transparency and receptiveness, the argumentation concentrates on the possible prevention of misconduct with respect to, on the one hand, sins of omission—withholding important information from the public—and, on the other hand, abuses of the authority of science in order to gain publicity. Statements from interviews with scientists are used to illustrate how scientists might view the relevance of the issues raised.
Ethical Space: The International Journal of Communication Ethics, 2008
Not only journalists, but also media researchers may be contributing to cynicism in political lif... more Not only journalists, but also media researchers may be contributing to cynicism in political life by depicting reality in ways that tend to be self-fulfilling. Assumptions about politics and journalism, likely to be conducive to cynicism in journalism and politics, seem to be common in current mainstream media and communication research. Thus, journalists and media researchers alike share an ethical responsibility for self-critical reflection concerning their functions as observers who cannot escape participation in human affairs and the ethical challenges that relate to it. The first task is that of avoiding the trap of unrecognized participation.
Mandatory risk assessment is intended to reassure concerned citizens and introduce reason into th... more Mandatory risk assessment is intended to reassure concerned citizens and introduce reason into the heated European controversies on genetically modified crops and food. The authors, examining a case of risk assessment of genetically modified oilseed rape, claim that the new European legislation on risk assessment does nothing of the sort and is not likely to present an escape from the international deadlock on the use of genetic modification in agriculture and food production. The new legislation is likely to stimulate the kind of emotive reactions it was intended to prevent. In risk assessment exercises, scientific uncertainty is turned into risk, expressed in facts and figures. Paradoxically, this conveys an impression of certainty, while value-disagreement and conflicts of interest remain hidden below the surface of factuality. Public dialogue and negotiation along these lines are rendered impossible. The only option left to critics is to resort to claims of fear and to call for new risk assessments to be performed, on and on again. Science is allowing itself to be abused by accepting the burden of proof in matters more suited to reflection and negotiation. The specific challenge to science would be to take care of itself – rethinking the role and the limitations of science in a social context, and, thereby gaining the strength to fulfill this role and to enter into dialogue with the rest of society. Scientific communities appear to be obvious candidates for prompting reflection and dialogue on this issue.
Journalists are often blamed for producing scare stories. It seems to have been forgotten that ma... more Journalists are often blamed for producing scare stories. It seems to have been forgotten that many, perhaps most, modern scare stories are based on scientific risk calculations, and that journalists are not trained in scaring the wits out of people in that particular way. A more precise accusation might be that journalists are eager, unthinking and unquestioning conveyors of results
University PR and Efforts tp Prevent Research Misconduct: Gold, Glory and Integrity, 2021
Current universities are equipped with communication, marketing and PR departments. They are also... more Current universities are equipped with communication, marketing and PR departments. They are also furnished with research integrity officers and formalities to fight academic misconduct. In Europe half a century ago, such university features were unheard-of. They evolved at roughly the same time, but are they interrelated and, if so, how? Why does the otherwise frank, but strangely isolated research integrity discourse hardly ever enquire critically into institutional PR efforts? In addition, is there a risk that universities—although liberal institutions—might develop illiberal traits and, to further their reputation as efficient business corporations, distance themselves from classic academic virtues? These are salient questions to anybody concerned with research integrity and the university as an institution, and form the focus of this book. Composed of three interconnected essays and considering historical developments, it will inspire reflection and debate on the future of European universities as liberal, cultural institutions. See https://www.cambridgescholars.com/product/978-1-5275-6746-7
Uploads
Papers by Gitte Meyer
Books by Gitte Meyer