• Alan MacRobert said:

  > ...the fact that the Globe seems to be backing

  > away from two subjects of particular interest

  > to Bostonians is telling.... coverage the

  > paper clearly ought to be providing.

  The Globe prints a very lengthy "Astrology Forecast" seven days a week. It measures 11 by 3.5 inches. Each week, that's 262 square inches, or 1.2 full-size pages in the main newspaper.

  With ads, that would make a weekly 2-page spread for a Health/Science section right there.

  Yes, the astrology column is with the comics. But with all the swapping between the main paper and the g section these days, all editorial space is fungible.

  Cutting pseudoscience to keep science? Have they even though of this? A generation ago, the conventional newspaper wisdom was you can't cut the astrology column. But is that still true? Or, couldn't they at least run an astrology column that's 1/3 that size, like other papers do?

  February 4, 2009 11:39 AM

• Lissa Harris said:

  Oh my God Alan that's depressing.

  If newspaper-readers generally would rather read astrology than science news, that's partly newspapers' fault for publishing too many uncritical "Studies say..." type stories. But the Globe's health/science coverage is quite good. Judy Foreman's great. Beth Daley is a force of nature. I love the essays from doctors about their clinical practice.

  Goddamn it. Please tell me this doesn't mean that the little health/sci space left standing is going to be populated mostly by AP briefs about controversy over the nutritional value of eggs.

  February 4, 2009 12:13 PM

• Goodbye to Globe’s Health/Science section « Staff Writer said:

  Pingback from  Goodbye to Globe’s Health/Science section « Staff Writer

  February 4, 2009 1:54 PM

• Dr.Jeff said:

  Why doesn't the Globe just place all 3 sections of the paper into the "g" section and call it The Herald?

  February 4, 2009 11:18 PM

• Alan MacRobert said:

  P.S. Since I left my comment above, I've been told by the Globe that they are not cutting any health/science content; they'll be putting it in other places.

  Alan MacRobert

  February 5, 2009 12:11 PM

• Lissa Harris said:

  Well, that isn't terribly dire, I guess. I wonder if the new placement will affect coverage, though--will it slant science coverage toward business-related stories? Will it "g"-ify health? (Brr.)

  I'm all for moving science news out of its little newspaper science-ghettoes and making it more relevant to readers--I just hope it doesn't end up getting boxed in in some other way.

  February 5, 2009 12:27 PM

• Wingo Way Exile said:

  Another regional paper of the Globe's size used to have separate weekly science and health pages, 10 sci/med reporters, 2 editors. Then the paper did away with the pages and decided to "make the stories compete with the rest of the news." And currently: No pages, no editors, down to one reporter, and no non-AP stories on that topic except for local hospital biz. Yeah, BoGlobe, that'll work.

  February 5, 2009 7:45 PM

Leave a Comment