Jim Cornell

NEWS FROM AFAR

by Jim Cornell

The annual Forbes magazine survey of the world’s billionaires lists 36 in Russia, with 25 of them living in Moscow; more than any other city in the world. It’s a good bet none of them are science journalists.

Tatiana Pitchugina, science editor of the Russian television channel “Rambler-TeleNet,” writes that the long tradition of science journalism in her country has been battered by changing politics, fluctuating economics, and fickle public tastes.

Today, while Russian science journalism is not exactly thriving, it is at least surviving—and even showing some signs of perhaps prospering in the future.

“In the Soviet era, when the promotion of science was supported by the state, there were a host of popular science outlets in the mass media and a cadre of respected and well-known science writers,” says Pitchugina. “The ‘New Russia’ inherited the traditions, but reduced all levels of science coverage and support for science journalism.”

The print media, particularly large newspapers and magazines, has lost its previous market domination, with the circulation of some journals now hundreds of times lower than during the Soviet era. Moreover, according to Pitchugina, the Russian press has lost the trust of its readers, with some surveys indicating only 13 percent of people trust newspapers and 36 percent television, although about twice the latter number appear to trust radio, or at least more than they trust either television or newspapers.

Pitchugina notes that many popular science periodicals are still published in Russia, including all the “classic” magazines dating from the Soviet times, like Nauka I zhizn (Science and Life), Znanie-sila (Knowledge is Power), Priroda (Nature), Khimia I zhizn (Chemistry and Life), and Nauka v Rossii (Science in Russia). All are monthlies, and all are mere shadows of their former selves. For example, Nauka I zhizn, founded in 1891, which had a circulation of 3 million copies under the Soviets, is now down to 45,000. Khimia I zhizn, which had 300,000 subscribers, now has 3,000.

The falling circulation rates began with the financial crisis of the 1990s when rising costs forced publishers to reduce distribution while simultaneously raising cover prices. Lacking adequate financial resources, the older magazines could not afford to change with the times. “They have the same page layouts, styles, and authors as 30 years ago,” says Pitchugina.

With little attempt at marketing or advertising, circulation is growing slowly—if at all. But, somehow, these magazines go on, perhaps, says Pitchugina, “because both authors and readers still love them for their emphasis on pure science.”

One or two of the “classic” magazines have tried updating their images. For example, Vokrug Sveta (Around the World) was first issued in 1861 and focused on discoveries and adventures. Today, while continuing in the same editorial vein, it features many more pictures, less text, shorter articles, eye-grabbing headlines, and lots of advertisements. “Its new circulation is 200,000, or about ten times what it had been in the post-Perestroika era,” reports Pitchugina.

At the same time, there has been a mini-boom in new popular scientific magazines—all glossy, trendy, expensive, and essentially clones of Western publications. For example, Chto novogo v nauke I technike (What’s New in Science) is based on Popular Science, Populayrnaya mekhanika on Popular Mechanics, and Computerra, a weekly that started in 1992 as a computer and hi-tech magazine, follows the lead of its Western counterparts. These have been joined by some new journals for children and youth, as well as some familiar versions of Western magazines, such as Geo and Geofocus, the latter a Russian-specific publication from Germany’s PM Magazine group that boasts some 300,000 circulation.

“The average circulation of the new publications is 50,000 to 60,000 and growing steadily, particularly among young business people aged 20 to 35 with higher education and higher levels of income,” says Pitchugina. “This readership directly influences editorial content.”

Several large national newspapers have science sections, although they tend to follow the lead of the Russian Academy of Sciences in the selection of topics for stories, with the exception of the monthly section appearing in Nesavisimaya gazeta (Independent Newspaper), which, according to Pitchugina, follows an editorial policy opposite that of the Russian academy. Surprisingly perhaps, the Russian tabloids—which, with their circulations in the millions, are the “true mass media,” by Pitchugina’s account—also cover science quite extensively and quite well, albeit with shorter, more lively articles, usually drawn from news agencies.

One of the few television science shows to have survived from Soviet times is “Ochevidnoye-neveroyatnoye” hosted by Sergey Kapitsa, a physicist and well-known science popularizer. First broadcast in 1973, the program went off the air in the early 90s and just returned last year. Its idea is very simple: Kapitsa holds a high-level conversation with a guest on a specific scientific question or problem. As Pituchinga says, “The program focuses on intellectuals—and that is why it runs after midnight.”

Since 1997, the state-run channel “Kultura” has been a favorite of the Russian intelligentsia, perhaps because it has few commercials and offers a variety of different programs on culture and science. In 2002, the private cable channel “Rambler-TeleNet,” where Pitchugina works, began offering a mixture of education, science, and adventure to an audience now estimated to be over 35 million. Its most unusual feature is that people can watch it online though the Internet as well as over the airwaves.

There is also a cable “Kosmos TV” with a number of foreign programs about science and discoveries and four “central” channels—ORT, RTR, TVC, and NTV—offer the usual mix of nature, animal, and adventure shows. And, as in the USA, surveys show 30 to 40 percent of Russian viewers are interested in these themes, thus prompting a small increase in the coverage of research on the major channels in the last two years.

Science on the radio includes the weekly Nauchniy almanach (Science Almanac) and Klinika on Echo Moskvi hosted by biologist Marina Astvatsaturyan. On Echo Sent-Petersburg another biologist, Alexei Oskolskij, offers a weekly look at science news in a philosophical and social context. And Radio Svoboda offers five major programs, ranging from a weekly ecological report to reviews of current science, technology, and medical news.

Finally, Pitchugina notes that “Russia is a little behind in creating popular science Web sites. The only one at the national level is www.inauka.ru/english, the online version of the national daily newspaper Izvestia-Nauka. About 12,000 people visit the Web site daily.” There are also several Web sites devoted to specific fields of science and technology, such as Russkij pereplet (www.pereplet.ru/cgi/science.cgi) and Nauka I tehnika (www.nt.ru). “All are funded by small grants and run by the grace of researchers’ enthusiasm alone,” says Pitchugina.

On balance, science journalism in the Russia sounds remarkably lively and diverse. While it is unlikely that any science writer in Russia (or anywhere, for that matter) will be a billionaire anytime soon, it still seems possible to make a living at the trade. And, for Pitchugina and her colleagues, there is the suggestion that better days are ahead.

Today, while Russian science journalism is not exactly thriving, it is at least surviving…

A footnote testifying to the vitality of science writing in Russia: the British Council in Moscow, in cooperation with InformScience, the Russian Association of Science Journalists, the UK Department of Trade and Industry, and the journal Nature, has for the second time made annual awards recognizing excellence in popular science writing. The competition was open to anyone—scientists and journalists—from any of the former Soviet republics, writing in the Russian language. Six top prizes—including cash and subscriptions to Nature—were awarded to those writers judged best able to “bridge the gap between science and society.” Additional recognition was given to finalists in several categories, including reportage of emerging Russian technologies. Among those finalists receiving was Pitchugina herself for the article “Expedition to Mars.”

As perhaps another sign of the growing recognition of quality science writing in former Eastern Bloc countries, Istvan Paluygai, science editor for Nepszabadsag, a major Budapest daily, was elected president of the European Union of Scientific Journalists’ Associations (EUSJA) at its annual meeting in March. More on EUSJA is at www.esf.org/eusja.

Paluygai is also an officer of the fledgling World Federation of Science Journalists (www.esf.org/wfsj), like EUSJA, an umbrella organization intended to link science-writing associations in a worldwide network of mutual support. The presidents of all national groups, including NASW, have been invited to attend the Fourth World Conference of Science Journalists (www.wcsj2004.com), Oct. 4-8, in Montreal, for a special meeting to ratify the federation’s constitution and elect officers.

#

Jim Cornell is president of the International Science Writers Association. Send items of interest—international programs, conferences, events, etc.—to cornelljc@earthlink.net.