What the news media need from scientists

Abstract

As a newsletter reporter for the past 4 y, I've covered a number of scientific conferences, including the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry North America. It has not been uncommon for me to overhear snide, pithy comments about media coverage of science, usually something along the lines of us getting everything wrong and accompanied by an eye roll. I strive for accuracy in my reports on scientific developments and don't relish hearing such remarks. However, the common complaints from scientists that press coverage of scientific developments is sensationalized, oversimplified, and inaccurate aren't wholly unjustified. Coincidentally, these are also common complaints among science reporters (Treise and Weigold 2002). Unfortunately, the very nature of the news media at times seems to facilitate these faults. Looming deadlines can make a failure to make timely contact with a source a failure to include sometimes pivotal information in an article. Limited space or time to devote to a subject and editorial demands for a simplified story hook, such as a controversy or breakthrough, to draw in readers also contribute to these criticisms (Reed 2001). However, although it is easy to blame solely journalists for these inadequacies, scientists themselves play a role. A lack of accessibility is a major impediment to effective science reporting and writing. Such inaccessibility comes in various forms, the most basic of which is a scientist not returning a reporter's phone call or e-mail until well past a given deadline, if at all. Another type of inaccessibility is the scientist who is subject to a strict set of rules governing interaction with the press. In many cases, this is the government scientist or researcher employed by a specific company (Valenti 1999). There are no easy answers to this particular type of inaccessibility, which is often beyond the control of both the scientist and the reporter. Agreeing to speak without attribution or being referred to in a generic way, such as a “source familiar with the research,” is one possible way to overcome the hurdle, but neither scientists nor reporters may be comfortable with that approach, the scientist because it violates the spirit of the rules of engagement set out by the employer and the journalist because an on-the-record source always provides more legitimacy to a report than an anonymous one. Most government agencies and private companies employ the policy that all requests for information and interviews go through the press office. By all means, a scientist governed by that policy should notify a reporter of it but should also be aware of the frustration such policies cause journalists. Trying to ask technical, scientific questions through a press officer who is often acting solely as a gatekeeper and has even less familiarity with the subject than the reporter can be maddening, particularly when the questions could easily and quickly be answered by the scientist the journalist is trying to reach. If a scientist is subject to such a policy, it would be helpful for him or her to let the press office know when a reporter has sought contact. If both the reporter and the scientist are pushing for the interview, in my experience, the press officer is more likely to make it happen. A request for comment not returned in time and organizational media policies can obstruct good scientific reporting, but the most detrimental type of inaccessibility occurs when a scientist is unable to communicate his or her work to a journalist effectively. Although there are exceptions, in general, many journalists who write about science don't have a background in science, not even a single college-level course (Treise and Weigold 2002). Although this is understandably frustrating to someone who has made a scientific discipline his or her life's work, in order to educate the public—which gets its information about science largely from the mainstream media (Treise and Weigold 2002)—and perhaps to interest future generations in scientific careers, a scientist must be able to communicate with the press effectively. It is easy to say all journalism schools should require at the very least some basic courses in biology, chemistry, physics, and statistics. Unfortunately, at present, that doesn't happen, so it is up to the journalist to gain knowledge on the job and for the scientist to help ensure that his or her work is reported accurately. One way in which a scientist can do this is to help alleviate the common misconception among journalists and editors that science is a linear process of experiments that lead neatly to a specific outcome, not the iterative process of stops and starts that it truly is. Even if a journalist has a scientific background, he or she often is constrained by the amount of space in print or time on air given to a report. Furthermore, even if the journalist does have scientific training, it is likely that an editor, in addition to much of the media outlet's audience, may not. This leads to sensationalism, oversimplification, and inaccuracy. Scientific developments are sensationalized to draw readers in and make a research development seem more relevant to their personal or professional lives. These sensationalized research developments are also often oversimplified, and this oversimplification in turn leads to inaccuracy due to omission of relevant, albeit more complicated, information and caveats. Return requests for interviews in a timely manner. If a scientist cannot meet a reporter's deadline, let the reporter know this in advance. Sometimes a report can be deferred, especially if the scientist's input is essential. Ask for at least some questions in advance. All reporters should provide an interviewee with at least a sense of the questions that will be asked. Depending on a media outlet's policy, some reporters will also provide all questions in advance with the understanding that other questions raised during the course of an interview may be asked; however, this is generally frowned upon in journalism because it can lead to canned answers and a lack of editorial control. Be prepared to translate science into simple terms everyone can understand, or risk the danger of the journalist making such a translation. Have a summary of key points available and avoid scientific jargon. According to Cornelia Dean, former science editor of The New York Times, “When I speak with scientists, I tell them they should prepare for a press interview the way they would prepare for a professional presentation: They should know what their most important points are, and they should know how to convey them clearly and simply. They should encourage reporters to ask questions, even if the questions are ill-informed or silly” (Dean 2002). Offer to explain technical information in an e-mail, which helps a journalist avoid missing pertinent information that may be overlooked in a phone or in-person interview. Educate journalists about the scientific process. Tell them about null results. Tell them about any shortcomings in research results. Although this information may not make it into a report due to space and time constraints, it will help guard against sensationalism and inaccuracy. An understanding of the scientific process can also help journalists identify when groups and organizations are perhaps misrepresenting scientific results to further their agendas. Be aware that journalists want to speak with scientists directly, not a gatekeeper who wholly controls the conversation. Provide the implications of research. Journalists rarely report science for science's sake. Journalists have to know what impact scientific findings might have on human health, the environment, and public policy, for example. If unsatisfied with a journalistic report, inform the reporter. Clarifications and corrections can be provided in a future report, and both a scientist and journalist can learn from experience, leading to better science journalism overall. To address a scientist's fears of inaccuracy ahead of publication, depending on a media outlet's policy, a print reporter may provide technical passages and attributed quotes before publication, but this is not the rule, and do not expect to review the entire article. That goes against a basic tenet of journalism; if reporters let sources preview every article, the public would be privy to very little critical information. Although these tips aren't likely to alleviate concerns with science reporting overnight, they should help scientists form better working relationships with journalists and lead to better science journalism overall.