Bridging the Divide between Science and Journalism

With http://WebMD.com, http://healthline.com, http://DiagKNOWsis.org and numerous medical consumer websites now available, more individuals are relying on them, and the evening network news for the latest media headlines to educate and guide them in their medical decisions. Now more than ever, it is important for scientists and journalists to bridge the communication divide that exists between them [1]. In doing so, scientists will not only be able to assist the public in making better informed decisions about their healthcare, but also personally reap the benefits of increased funding for their research, enhanced career opportunities and improving the chances for further scientific breakthroughs across disciplines.

Many reading this article may have already had an experience working with a journalist covering their research. In the professional communications realm, it is frequent that individuals have had favorable and not so favorable experiences with the media. With scientists, it tends to be the latter for several reasons.

First, because research often has many detailed nuances and the media don't have the time or the space to cover all of those points. The length of the average evening news story is 70 seconds. Print stories can range anywhere from 100 word briefs to 1000 word articles, with the latter becoming more and more scarce. Therefore, the format of much of today's news coverage simply doesn't allow for detailed reporting.

Second, it can be difficult for scientists and journalists to communicate with each other because often they speak in terms the other doesn't understand. More than ever, journalists must know a little about a lot of things. They typically cover a wide variety of topics on very short deadlines. If a topic is too complex, it will simply be lost in the shuffle of the other hundreds of e-mails, phone calls and information they are inundated with on a daily basis.

These issues, coupled with the general public's (the media's readers/viewers/listeners) very limited understanding of basic science, can make it extremely difficult for scientists to get their points across in the media. In fact, a 1997 National Science Foundation study found that half the American public doesn't know that it takes a year for the Earth to rotate around the sun [2]. If Americans have difficulty recalling that simple fact, why would we expect them to understand the complexities of scientific research and its latest discoveries?

Most journalists fall into this group too. The overwhelming majority of scientists surveyed in a First Amendment Center, Freedom Forum study felt that few in the media understand the nature of science and technology, with 72 percent saying that journalists do "face a hopeless task in explaining the complexities of science" [2].

But why, beyond the benefit of the public good, should scientists take time out of their day to work with journalists? The answer is simple. Clear communication and greater awareness of your work can equal additional funding, enhanced career advancement and further scientific breakthroughs [3]. According to http://plainlanguage.gov, a recent study showed that medical articles reported in The New England Journal of Medicine and then reported in The New York Times receive about 73 percent more citations in medical reports than articles not reported in The New York Times. If a researcher is able to successfully communicate his or her points in The New York Times, chances are he or she also will be able to more clearly communicate the value and necessity if his or her work in a grant application. According to a National Science Foundation grant reviewer, the clearest and most succinct grant applications are usually the most compelling. If a scientist can pitch his or her grant proposal in three minutes or less, it has a better chance at being funded [4]. The same is true with the media. If you can communicate three or fewer compelling points about the results of your study, you are more likely to receive accurate and favorable coverage from journalists and the resulting greater awareness of your work.

Enhanced career opportunities also are a benefit to working with the media. Scientists who have good communications skills have a distinct advantage over their less communicative colleagues when they compete for prized positions. In addition, those scientists who are cited more and have greater "awareness" - not just about their research, but also about themselves in their fields - are more recognizable in their scientific community, and are likely to be sought after.

Finally, let's not overlook the fact that well-written articles that are picked up by the press help stimulate the "cross-fertilization" of research and ideas across broad disciplines, therefore improving the chances for even greater scientific breakthroughs.

So what should researchers keep in mind when working with the media? First, ask for help from the public affairs and/or media specialists within your organization. They are accustomed to working with the media on a regular basis and can help best prepare you for maximizing the media opportunity. Here are a few more tips:

Remember, most consumer reporters are often on very tight deadlines and must find expert resources for their stories quickly. Van Eperen & Company [6], is one of many strategic communications consulting firms that has relationships with consumer and health reporters and can help make this process go smoothly. Keep in mind that any and all responses are "on the record" and must be "quotable" - the key here again is to limit jargon and unnecessary words. Most important, the information you provide must be timely and accurate.

Beyond yourself, try to have one or two other colleagues in mind that are comfortable commenting on the subject and offer to put the reporter in touch with them. Journalists like to include quotes from at least two or three experts in stories to validate information and add varying perspectives. The more you know about the media, the more you will begin to realize that the best media spokespersons are subject matter experts, they're highly "quotable," and they readily make themselves available for interviews. If you meet these requirements, the more likely it is that you will be called back and included in future stories!

A 1997 study by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press showed a fifth of Americans polled said they enjoyed stories about science and technology. That topic beat out religion, politics, international affairs, entertainment, consumer news, business and finance, famous people and culture and the arts. About the same time, a survey by the nation's largest newspaper chain, the Gannett Company, showed that 75 percent of readers were somewhat-to-very interested in science and technology [2]. So if the public appetite is there, then it is up to scientists and journalists to properly feed it.

LVE and JS belong to a company discussed in this manuscript and their article was solicited by FMM as an editorial.