I'm writing this post as a "news consumer", and thus from the position of a person who is interested in getting the news rather than from the point of view of "news as a business" (which, I admit, it is). From my point of view, I'd rather see the news published (in whatever medium), as fully and as correctly as possible, and am very much less interested in who publishes the story first. Why science would be interested in a "level playing field" in reporting on scientific (or medical) discoveries goes past me. If Timburg's story on HIV/AIDS is full and correct, why should it matter to the U.N., or any academic, NGO, or governmental authority who reported it first (since, it seems, such authorities allow the press a "sneak peak"; and then "embargo" it)? What I do find depressing, and exasperating, is so much news speculation and "punditry" (which is too often just rumors just to get the "story" published "first"). I don't mind news analysis, but I would like it to be analysis of the actual story, and less about speculation of what the story really is, because the reporters (and publishers) couldn't wait to get the complete story.

And when I hear "cover science as an institution" I think of the lazy, Tim Russert "gotcha" bullshit that infests most political coverage in this country.

The type of personality - based, horse-race journalism that journalists love because it is easier to write and requires no special knowledge of the subject matter.