This document discusses the relationship between scientists and journalists. It notes that while scientists see communicating their work as important, they often view journalists negatively as sensationalist and inaccurate. Journalists, meanwhile, see scientists as boring and unable to clearly explain their findings. However, both groups are curious and want to share information. The document provides tips for scientists to effectively pitch their stories to journalists, such as identifying the news value and preparing clear, concise messages. It emphasizes preparing journalists and remembering their role is to inform the public, not advocate for science.
This document discusses the relationship between scientists and journalists. It notes that while scientists see communicating their work as important, they often view journalists negatively as sensationalist and inaccurate. Journalists, meanwhile, see scientists as boring and unable to clearly explain their findings. However, both groups are curious and want to share information. The document provides tips for scientists to effectively pitch their stories to journalists, such as identifying the news value and preparing clear, concise messages. It emphasizes preparing journalists and remembering their role is to inform the public, not advocate for science.
This document discusses the relationship between scientists and journalists. It notes that while scientists see communicating their work as important, they often view journalists negatively as sensationalist and inaccurate. Journalists, meanwhile, see scientists as boring and unable to clearly explain their findings. However, both groups are curious and want to share information. The document provides tips for scientists to effectively pitch their stories to journalists, such as identifying the news value and preparing clear, concise messages. It emphasizes preparing journalists and remembering their role is to inform the public, not advocate for science.
This document discusses the relationship between scientists and journalists. It notes that while scientists see communicating their work as important, they often view journalists negatively as sensationalist and inaccurate. Journalists, meanwhile, see scientists as boring and unable to clearly explain their findings. However, both groups are curious and want to share information. The document provides tips for scientists to effectively pitch their stories to journalists, such as identifying the news value and preparing clear, concise messages. It emphasizes preparing journalists and remembering their role is to inform the public, not advocate for science.
Harry Surjadi Society of Indonesian Science Journalists Email: hsurjadi@yahoo.com Cell Phone: +62811150232 Twitter: @hsurjadi Blog: harrysurjadi.wordpress.com Scientists - Science Communication • “Science isn’t finished until it’s communicated. The communication to wider audiences is part of the job of being a scientist, and so how you communicate is absolutely vital” - Sir Mark Walport (UK chief scientist) • Science communication is part of a scientist’s everyday life • Important: science knowledge permits the public to make effective decisions about science policy • Many personal decisions would be helped by some understanding of the underlying science Important for Scientists • Scientists are obliged to inform audiences about what they are doing – “it’s they duty to do so” (Royal Society, 1985) • Science comms should be able to facilitate a scientist’s engagement with industry, government, other scientists and the community • To attract funding for research: (unfortunately) the danger is funds will go to the most effective communicators than to the most excellent researchers Scientists see Journalists as: Scientists see journalists as: -Insufficiently concerned with accuracy -Superficial -Sensationalists -Focused on controversy and tention -Ignorant -Unethical and willing to do anything to get the story -Problem of “journalistic objectivity” – both sides of the story Journalists see scientists as: -Boring -Hair-splitting -Caveating things to death -Overly interested in process -Unable to articulate a bottom line of distinguish the forest for the trees -Users of unintelligible jargon Scientists and Journalists: lot alike -Curious -Want to find things out -Want to share the information with others -Want do it first -Analytical -Of every new finding or report we ask: what does this mean, what are its implication -Critical of our own work and work of others -Highly motivated, persistent, overachieving, independent thinkers who challenge authority Differences: Journalists - Scienctists -Science journalists are not advocates for research -Scientists look at things in depth and focus on details – journalists look for a quick overview -For journalists details aren’t just a nuisance, they can positively interfere with journalists’ telling a coherent story -Differ markedly in where they draw the line between crucial details and needless clutter -Scientists are rational, journalists are looking for the emotional human element – the frustations and joys of the research -Journalists take this approach to a story not just because it is relatively uncomplicated and easy to tell, but because it is appealing to readers, viewers, or listeners Differences: Journalists - Scienctists Telling stories differently: -Scientists go from evidence to conclution -Journalists report the conclution first then put in as much detail as they have room for -Often leaving out facts the scientists think are crucial
MANY SCIENTISTS HAVE SO MUCH TROUBLE WITH
SO MANY JOURNALISTS – lack of preparation on both side Understanding Journalists-Media • Science journalism: 80% good journalism + 20% to learn and communicate • News values: new, human interest, kontroversial, tren, konflik, drama, impact, proximity, seks • News hook or news peg • Code of Ethics: 1) seek truth and report it; 2) minimize harm; 3) act independently; 4) be accountable and transparent How to pitch to science journalists • Identify and show news value(s) and news peg • Show the story • Google the reporter/media • Figure out the main point you want to convey or two main points or (max) three main points • Figure out how to make these points in the clearest, simplest language – the most important finding • Prepare the message (a message is not a fact, a message is a point of view) • Message is bigger than a fact (facts – like statistics – prop up the message) • Use relevant analogies or apt metaphors to help reporter understand – to audience too • Bridging, flagging and repetition How to pitch to science journalists • Remember journalist is not your friend – don’t reply as you might to a friend or colleague • For journalist, talking to you is a business activity • Don’t take anything personally • Don’t get angry • Don’t be impatient with questions you think are stupid • Remember that the journalist cannot possibly have the knowledge you have • Sound bite: quotes that sum things up in away that an ordinary person will understand, accurate, pithy, understandable, and engaging References • Dean, Cornelia. 2009. Am I Making Myself Clear? : A Scientist’s Guide to Talking to the Public. Cambridge: Harvard University Press • Bennett, J.D. and Jennings, R.C. 2011. Successful Science Communication: Telling It Like It Is. New York: Cambridge University Press • Bauer, M.W. and Bucchi, Massimiano. 2008. Journalism, Science and Society: Science Communication Between News and Public Relations. New York: Routledge • Cheng, Donghong; Claessens, Michel; Gascoigne, Toss; Metcalfe, Jenni; Schiele, Bernard; Shi, Shunke. 2008. Communicating Science in Social Context: New Model, New Practices. Springer • Treise, Debbie and Wigold, F. Michael. 2002. Advancing Science Communication: A Survey of Science Communicators. Science Communication, Vol. 23 No.3, March 2002, p 310-322 Paul Knoepfler Q&A Terima Kasih Harry Surjadi Society of Indonesian Science Journalists Email: hsurjadi@yahoo.com Cell Phone: +62811150232 Twitter: @hsurjadi Blog: harrysurjadi.wordpress.com