In May 2022, popular science celebrated 150 years Number of magazines: 1,747 We publish a variety of issues alongside a stream of stories and videos published online.Compiled by the magazine’s staff special anniversary packageas well as revisiting groundbreaking stories from the archives about superconductors and the germ theory of disease. woman and people of color His contributions to science have not been recognized by the magazine in the past. In a letter to readers, then-editor Corinne Iozio recalled: popular scienceThe publication aims to “meet people where they are and introduce scientific concepts through the lens of their own everyday experiences.”
This month, the 151-year-old popular science As readers know, it ends. The magazine has undergone significant changes in recent years, ending its print edition in 2020 and switching to a quarterly digital magazine in 2021. But now the magazine has ceased publication altogether and will be shut down by its owner, private equity firm Recurrent Ventures. PopSci.com will continue to publish posts including news, reviews, and podcasts There are 5 staff members. In the aftermath of a horrible 2015, the company wants to pivot to video.
The first hint of this recent watering down came to staff in an Oct. 27 email from Recurrent Ventures CEO Andrew Perlman, who expressed plans to “remove unnecessary complexity” and expand its video efforts. . According to Employee A, a former PopSci employee who participated in the layoff and signed an NDA, when employees expressed legitimate concerns about what exactly these words meant, they had to cancel their jobs. He said he was assured that he was not at risk. On November 13th, the majority popular scienceof staff, a total of 13 people, were suddenly fired over a single 5-minute Zoom call. Employee B, a former PopSci employee who participated in the layoff, said the employees received an invitation to a 10 a.m. Monday meeting where they were told their jobs were no longer available and were almost immediately fired from Slack. It is said that Employees were not unionized, and all full-time employees of color were subject to layoffs.
The jobs and livelihoods of many media workers remain in the hands of capricious, incompetent, and greedy venture capitalists, and the best-case scenario for a closed media outlet is that, if they’re lucky, they’re later bought out and revived. This is not new to anyone. , as a shell of its former self.But the end popular science As Emma Ross, it marks the end of a wave of layoffs and closures in science journalism. report At The Verge. national geographicowned by Disney, was fired The remaining staff writers will be announced in June.This fall, Gizmodo was fired One remaining climate staff member and CNBC demolished That climate desk. As well as many other scientific publications, popular science Employee A noted that readership skyrocketed when the pandemic hit and science news became lifesaving. “Who is disparaging and devaluing science journalism? That’s the frustrating part,” they said. “It’s not about the people. PopSci has a loyal readership and podcast fan base, which has been very rewarding.”
From that idea, popular science It was intended to be a magazine for the people, disseminating science to the general public. This style of storytelling “made the publication trustworthy and accessible,” said Purvita Saha, one of those fired and a former senior associate editor. Defector. “It also made people feel empowered who don’t read academic journals regularly, who don’t follow erratic policy changes, who don’t watch exaggerated technical press conferences. ” (Disclosure: Saha and I worked together at) Audubon. ) The magazine also had a section dedicated to DIY to help readers learn and experiment with new skills.
loss of popular science This also means one less major publication where emerging science journalists can learn the craft and build a career, and where freelancers can earn a relatively decent pay of $1 to $1.50 per word. It also means that, Saha said.
“we had [a writing] “This leaves three science journalists with no hands-on experience as they intern every spring, summer and fall,” said Chelsea B. Coombs, a former social media editor. popular science, he was among those fired. “There are very few places left for science journalism.”
The loss of scientific journals is also the loss of science itself. “Where do scientists get public funding for their research?” asked Coombs, adding that early-career researchers in particular benefit from having their work featured in publications such as He added that he would benefit from it. popular science. There’s no doubt that science journalism is more important than ever as the planet faces the harsh effects of climate change. faster than many scientists expected And that biodiversity crisis It threatens life everywhere on Earth.
These issues will continue to be covered in some form on PopSci.com. The remaining news staff will be responsible for a variety of independent reporting and aggregation.but popular scienceThe magazine was a place where staff could publish long-form stories and investigative articles. “Closing it means losing insightful storytelling that delves deep into climate solutions, medical discoveries, deep space exploration, animal wisdom, and just plain cool experiments and inventions.” I will,” Saha said. Engaged and Reported features best capture the vast and complex scale of the crises occurring on our planet and the innovations that advance science, and are the kind of stories science journalism once celebrated.
