How to Help Reporters Get it Right

Recently, the media jumped on what they thought was a man-bites-dog story about a vegetarian diet—a study appeared to have found a link between a vegetarian diet and cancer. A link between a presumably healthy diet and cancer? The reporters were all over it.

“Being a Vegetarian Could Kill You” warned the New York Post, and “Why a Vegetarian Diet May Be Bad for You” posted the American Council on Science and Health.

Unfortunately (fortunately?), that’s not what the researchers found. At all.

According to a good summary of the story by Motherboard, one of the study’s lead author was understandably not too happy about the misinterpretations: “In the beginning, we were pretty happy to see our research getting so much attention,” Kaixiong Ye, a biology post-doc at Cornell University and co-author of the study in question, told me. “But over the last few days I have found that most of the news coming out right now [on our study] is wrong. It’s kind of frustrating.”

The story made the rounds for a good 24 hours before the media caught up. A more accurate summary of the research can be found in The Washington Post: “Cornell study finds some people may be genetically programmed to be vegetarians”.

So what went wrong? And how can any scientist hope to prevent this from happening with their research?

It helps to know who is typically involved in the process and what their role is:

• Scientist – typically one or more lead researchers and authors of the published journal article;
• Media staff – author of the press release based on the published journal article; and
• Reporter – the media person at the news outlet who picked up the press release and wrote the article.

Each person has their roles and responsibilities here. But it’s a little bit like playing Chinese whispers sometimes, so we’ll never really know exactly where the message went off-course. Perhaps the scientist didn’t have time to review the press release before it went out. Or maybe the media staff at his or her organization didn’t ask the research to review the release before it went out and had misinterpreted the findings. Finally, the reporter could have taken that eye-catching headline on the press release and run with it, without bothering to read the study more in depth or with a critical eye.

Any and all of these scenarios may have occurred.

In all of these cases, however, the best effort the scientist could make would be to ensure that the media staff at his/her institution had a good, solid understanding of:

• The problem that the research was investigating;
• The findings of the study itself;
• The implications of those findings, i.e., what they really mean; and
• What the next steps are in this body of work.

First, and perhaps most important, one of the lead authors should be designated the main contact. Ideally, this can be the individual on the research team with the most experience dealing with the press or the best communication skills.

This author should then make themselves available to their organization’s media person. The media person who will be writing the press release and any other summaries that will posted on the website or distributed. The designated author should then offer to sit down with the media person for a briefing or quick call and be available to answer any questions.

Once drafted, the designated author should request at least one opportunity to review the final language that the media person intends to use in the press release, anticipating that there may be some hyperbole (which is okay as long as, overall, it is accurate). Headlines are often afforded a bit of leeway, the better to catch the reporter’s eye. Though again, it should be (roughly) accurate. The scientist should also make themselves  available for any questions from their media person and serve as a contact for journalists who may call.

Certainly these additional steps add a bit of complexity to the process and more work for the scientist. This collaborative, teamwork approach, however, is really critical to getting the messaging correct from the beginning. And the investment of time up front could save time and effort later. Unfortunately, even with the best efforts, sometimes the reporter may still get it wrong. Which bring me to:

Next week: How to Respond When Reporters Get it Wrong

Elizabeth Striano
www.agreenfootprint.com

 

7 Tips for Effective Science Communication and Outreach

As a scientist, it’s a very satisfying feeling to publish research that solves a complex problem. But your job no longer ends there. To really ensure your work has relevance, you need to be able to communicate about your science to a broader audience. When journalists pay attention, then the public can become aware of it and then, potentially, policymakers and other decision-makers will take notice, making it more likely that your work can have a real impact.

Scientists who embrace public communication, and who know what they want to communicate, to whom, how and when, can become leaders in their fields. And others will take notice of this leadership. As a result, being a good communicator can help you ensure your research gets noticed and has an impact, can support the next round of scientific development in your field, and can grant your career a boost through professional recognition.

Below are seven steps you can take to ensure outreach and communication for your work:

1. Commit to communicate. As you embark on any research, commit at the beginning to communicating about the results when your work is complete. You could already thinking about the potential impact of your work and why the public might care about the results, who might be most interested, and how it can make a difference. Embracing this critical role from the beginning will help prepare you when you have completed your work and are ready to begin communicating.
2.  Commit to your research. Always remember why you are doing your research, why it is so important to you, and why others should care as well. Presumably, you are taking on this complex project to solve a problem that you care about—keeping this goal in mind will help you have confidence in speaking about your work and generating the passion necessary to get others to believe as well.
3. Expect and embrace criticism. Criticism of your work will not end with the completion of the peer review process, unfortunately. Genuine, thoughtful criticism can actually be valuable to you, both in allowing you to help others’ understand your work and helping you to see what the next phase of your research should be. By embracing this input and engaging with your critics, you can potentially create a new network of collaborators and colleagues who can act as sounding boards moving forward, leading to new discoveries.
4. Be prepared. Good communication requires preparation, practice, and passion. Preparation is just that—knowing what you want to say and to whom you will be saying it. Knowing your audience is key in this step so that you can tailor your message appropriately. Practice allows your presentation to flow smoothly and effortlessly. Practice also helps keep your nerves under control. Passion is infectious and is critical in engaging your audience.
5. Present solutions, not problems. When a journalist contacts you about an issue and wants your expert opinion, they want to learn about the solution from an expert—you. You need to be able to state definitively what you have learned and the implications of that information. Focusing on solutions can make the science accessible and actionable.
6. Take advantage of opportunities. It almost goes without saying, that you should take advantage of opportunities to communicate your science when they present themselves. When a journalist calls you, be ready to chat; if you receive and invitation to speak, accept. One way to always be ready is to have a series of talking points, an op-ed, or even a short, accessible article about your work ready to go at any time.
7. Build a network. Scientists need to think beyond their immediate colleagues and build relationships outside of their world, including with journalists, policy advocates, local and state officials, and others who may care about the science. In this way, these individuals can also become champions of your work, helping to build a chorus of voices speaking for your research.

These are just a few quick tips to get you started. There are many, many more, and we can dive into some of the details on individual steps in future posts.

Elizabeth Striano
http://www.agreenfootprint.com