Journalists choose an angle for every story they write. Should
scientists do the same when explaining the import of their
research to reporters and the public? In a column at The
Observatory last week, Earle Holland argued it would be better
if they left that to the pros.  Holland cites two recent
research articles on science communication that we published as
respective co-authors. Unfortunately, Holland renders the false
impression that the two pieces are highly contradictory. In
fact, they are strongly complementary, and both support the case
for scientists learning to better explain their work. By
favoring a conflict narrative over context, he sacrifices
accuracy for a good storyline, distorting the nature of a major
area of research in the social sciences.  Holland, who directs
the research communications office at The Ohio State University,
considers his trade journalism. As a senior figure among public
information officers (PIOs), he argues in a chapter in the Field
Guide for Science Writers that the f