By David Shiffman and Brett Favaro.
Many environmental scientists understand that there is value in communicating about their work through the media, as publicity can help raise public awareness of a conservation threat and help build support for a policy solution. Most training material focuses on how to craft and deliver effective messages. However, this is only part of the skillset required to be effective as a media-savvy science communicator. Despite recognizing how positive media coverage can help the environmental causes they care about, many scientists are leery of speaking with journalists about their areas of expertise, owing to concerns about possible bad experiences. Here, we argue that scientists have many tools available that can affect the likelihood of whether a given interaction goes well, or goes poorly. We articulate some basic differences between professional norms in journalism versus those of science, and provide specific advice and strategies that can maximize the likelihood of a positive outcome, and reduce potential for harm. Specific examples of how we’ve used these strategies in interviews about climate change and endangered species conservation are provided throughout. By more thoroughly understanding all sides of a scientist-journalist relationship and the associated science-media cycle, scientists will be in a better position to increase the chance that their work will have the conservation impact they intend.
This is part 1 of a series of blog posts on advice for conservation scientists to communicate with journalists about their areas of expertise. Part 1 focuses on key background about the science-media ecosystem and the roles and responsibilities of journalists. Subsequent parts will focus on mastering interviews themselves, a scientist’s role in writing a press release about their work, and tips for navigating the current science crisis in the United States. While our examples reference our careers as conservation scientists, the principles and tips discussed throughout are broadly applicable to scientists in many related disciplines.
PART 1
INTRODUCTION
Biologists and environmental scientists want to perform research that has a real-world impact, research that can help save species or ecosystems from threats (Ferry and Shiffman 2014, Evans and Cvitanovic 2018). Scientists with successful track records have offered a variety of advice on how to design, perform, and communicate research to maximize its eventual impact (Phillis et al. 2014, Cooke 2019, Cooke et al. 2020, Friedman et al. 2020, Shiffman 2018, Crandall et al. 2020).
One important information channel by which members of the public and policymakers learn about environmental threats and their solutions is the popular press (Glithero and Zandlivet 2021). Media outreach is an important part of successful environmental campaigns, helping to raise public awareness of a conservation thread and build public support for a conservation solution. For example, a campaign to protect endangered species of sharks by changing fishing regulations relied heavily on media outreach (see Shiffman 2020).
Much has been written concerning the negative impacts of inaccurate media coverage on a variety of conservation-relevant topics including climate change (Boykoff and Boykoff 2007,) endangered species of sharks and policy solutions to help protect them (Shiffman et al. 2020,) and the housecat wild bird issue (Gow et al. 2022). Anecdotally, many of our colleagues have complained about how media coverage got their work wrong, occasionally leading to negative professional repercussions (McCall 1998, Hartz and Chappell 1997, Maille et al. 2010.)
While complaints about ‘bad’ media coverage from scientists are numerous, thus far, little specific actionable advice has been offered in the literature for scientists who want to improve their media outreach skills. There are many cases of positive relationships between scientists and journalists, cases where a scientist successfully communicated their expertise to a journalist and their audience (e.g., Shiffman 2020.) There are media outreach skills that, when mastered, can allow scientists to greatly improve the real-world impact of their research, influencing policy discussions concerning topics we care about like endangered species conservation and climate change. There are also strategies available to avoid common pitfalls that lead to common complaints. As scientists with extensive experience communicating about science – including on highly controversial topics including climate change and endangered species conservation- through interactions with journalists in popular media, we wrote this paper with the goal of sharing tips and advice for scientists who want to build or improve their media outreach skills. It includes tips for speaking with journalists and a framework for identifying what went wrong in a negative scientist-journalist interaction. By more thoroughly understanding all sides of a scientist-journalist relationship and the science-media cycle, scientists are better equipped to improve the impact of their work.
Who is this advice for (and not for?)
Many of our early career scientist colleagues have expressed to us that they would like to be more effective at speaking with journalists, because they have seen the value of a productive scientist-journalist relationship (occasionally citing us an example). However, these colleagues have concerns about possible negative interactions. Our goal in writing this paper is to help build professional skillsets by providing a big-picture view of key differences in norms between the profession of science and journalism, and to argue that understanding these differences can affect the likelihood of a positive outcome when working with the press.
Scientists with significant media experience or access to public relations professionals will likely not benefit from this advice, and are not the target audience for it. We are similarly not trying to persuade people who have no interest in even considering speaking to journalists. The goal is simply to provide advice and share experiences with people who wish to learn more about effective scientist-journalist communication, allowing those with a stated interest to build their skills in this complex area.
Additionally, we are deeply aware that as with many professional and social norms, there are elements of privilege at play in scientist-journalist interactions, including sexism, racism, ableism, and more. We recognize that despite this advice and discussion of norms for effective communications, not everyone is in a social or professional position where they can do this. Different people have different challenges or obstacles, some of which are based on their identity and some on individual circumstances, and not all of this advice is possible to implement from a practical perspective for everyone. However, we still believe there is value in transparently articulating how these interactions have worked for us and for our media-experienced colleagues who encompass a variety of demographic backgrounds and identities. If there are obstacles in the way of some scientists following this advice, by sharing what a clear path looks like, we are hopeful that this can be useful to advocate for change, by encouraging those in power to provide necessary supports for scientists who wish to engage with the press, and where possible to remove obstacles in the first place.
And there are, of course, some journalists for whom no amount of media training will prepare scientists to counter.
Things scientists should know when interacting with journalists: What to do, and what not to do.
In our experience, while every interview experience is different, most positive and negative situations arising from a scientist-journalist interaction arise from a handful of points of potential conflict. Here we have identified these common issues or points of conflict, and have suggested ways to handle each situation in a way likely to maximize the chance of a desirable outcome from the perspective of the interviewed scientist. We also note common behaviors we’ve observed that are likely to maximize the chance of an undesirable outcome. These will be discussed in parts 2 and 3 of this blog post series.
The science-media cycle.
There are many situations in which a scientific expert may be asked to speak to a journalist about their areas of expertise, in many media formats. Each has their own norms, challenges, and strategies for success. While there may be crossover value for other types of media outreach, the advice presented in this manuscript generally focuses on two situations (and may sometimes focus on a third situation), associated either with print news or pre-recorded radio or TV news. The first situation is when a scientist has just published a peer-reviewed scientific paper (or has a forthcoming paper currently under embargo), and a journalist is speaking to that scientist in the context of writing a news article about results or conclusions from that paper. This situation usually does not occur without deliberate action on the part of the scientist or on the part of communications professionals in the scientist’s network. It is unlikely that a journalist will unilaterally decide to write a story solely as a result of perusing the scientific literature, as many scientists we’ve spoken to incorrectly believe.
Often, but not always, deliberate action to bring a newly published paper to the attention of a journalist takes the form of the scientist’s institution writing a press release about the paper and distributing it to journalists, which we will discuss in part 3 of this series. Journalists may also become aware of a scientist’s new paper via the scientist contacting the journalist directly (either as a “cold call” which are usually welcome, see Shiffman 2020 for an example, or as part of an ongoing professional relationship). The journalist may also hear about the paper through their own networks, often through social media, which is commonly used by science journalists to find story tips or expert sources for stories (Shiffman 2018), or perhaps via seeing another journalist write a story about the paper. Additionally, a few especially high-profile papers each week are featured in especially high-profile press releases like those in EurekAlert associated with the upcoming issue of the prestigious journal Science.
For example, author DS wrote a paper highlighting some conservation policy recommendations for threatened sharks (Shiffman and Hammerschlag 2016). Working with his university’s press office, he wrote a press release. Both the press release and the accompanying paper were shared extensively to trusted journalist contacts, resulting in high profile media coverage in several outlets, greatly amplifying the key messages of the original paper.
The second situation is when there’s a news event related to a scientist’s area of expertise, but not tied to a specific paper published by that scientist (e.g. Bossem et al. 2019, and see https://www.sciencenews.org/about-science-news/journalism-standards-practices#sources ). . For example, in the authors’ personal experience, experts on climate change are sometimes interviewed following major climate-related disasters, and experts on shark biology and behavior are sometimes interviewed following highly publicized shark bite incidents or major new scientific discoveries involving sharks. As another example, local media may seek a local expert to comment on a scientific publication of international importance, even if that expert was not directly involved in the paper. This can also be done proactively by scientists reaching out to journalists who cover the relevant “beat” or subject area, and introducing themselves and offering background briefings on the issue not necessarily associated with a particular story being worked on (Shiffman 2020, Shiffman et al. 2020). This second scenario is more common after a scientist has established themselves as a capable interview subject in the eyes of a journalist or editor, and with more exposure and practice they may be regularly called to participate in stories like this.
For example, author BF, then living in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada, was contacted by CBC news to ask if an unexpectedly large storm was related to climate change. The journalists asked him if the storm was caused by climate change, and instead of answering directly (because attribution studied hadn’t yet been done) he discussed basic principles of climate science and extreme weather, noting that weather will get more extreme with more climate change, and that many cities weren’t adapting enough or correctly.
Finally, a third scenario, described in more detail below (in section “Who else will be quoted” in Part 2) is when a journalist is writing an article about a new paper, and is seeking a quote and commentary from someone who works in the same field as the authors of a new paper, but is not one of the others of a paper (Bossemma et al. 2019, and see https://www.sciencenews.org/about-science-news/journalism-standards-practices#sources). Quoting an independent expert as a “validator” provides credibility and context, and media-savvy scientists may be asked to serve in this role.
The reason for quoting an independent expert as a validator is simple: it’s more meaningful for someone else to say “Scientist X’s work is really interesting and important” than for Scientist X to say “My work is really interesting and important.” Early career scientists should be aware that there may be power dynamics at play here, especially if your commentary of a senior scientist’s work is highly critical, and author DSS often works under the Bambi principle of “if you don’t have anything nice to say don’t say anything at all.”
The press release from Shiffman et al. 2016 can be found here, https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/02/160216143455.htm , and it resulted in media coverage including in Nature News, https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2017.21463 , MongaBay environmental news https://news.mongabay.com/2017/07/will-banning-trade-in-fins-help-endangered-sharks-experts-are-divided/ , the Christian Science Monitor https://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2017/0206/Sharks-for-supper-Why-experts-don-t-want-a-ban-on-shark-fishing , and the ocean and coastal news magazine Hakai https://hakaimagazine.com/news/nine-out-ten-shark-scientists-agree-sustainable-shark-fishing-fine/ . The CBC news article resulting from Brett Favaro being asked to comment on a storm’s climate impacts can be found here: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/global-weirding-brett-favaro-west-coast-flooding-1.4494565
Understand the roles and responsibilities of journalists.
Many complaints of negative interactions with journalists that we have heard from scientists might have been avoided if those scientists understood professional norms associated with journalism.
Both scientists and journalists have important roles to play in science journalism. However, it is not the journalist’s job to make the scientist look like a genius, nor is it their duty to teach their readers a graduate school-level seminar on the key background principles of the scientist’s field (Bhattacharya 2012).
The journalist’s job is to accurately report a news story in a way that their readers find interesting and relevant. The journalist is very likely to be more aware of what their readers find interesting and relevant than the scientist they interview is, so some humility is important, even if it may be painful to hear that what you dedicated your life to is “not of broad public interest”.
STAY TUNED FOR PART 2!
REFERENCES FOR ALL PARTS:
Albæk, E. (2011). The interaction between experts and journalists in news journalism. Journalism, 12(3), 335-348.
Autzen, C. (2014). Press releases—the new trend in science communication. Journal of Science Communication, 13(3), C02.
Bhattacharya, A. (2012). Nine Ways Scientists Demonstrate They Don’t Understand Journalism. The Guardian, 01-17.
Bossema, F. G., Burger, P., Bratton, L., Challenger, A., Adams, R. C., Sumner, P., … & Smeets, I. (2019). Expert quotes and exaggeration in health news: a retrospective quantitative content analysis. Wellcome Open Research, 4.
Boykoff, M. T., & Boykoff, J. M. (2007). Climate change and journalistic norms: A case-study of US mass-media coverage. Geoforum, 38(6), 1190-1204.
Cooke, S. J. (2019). From frustration to fruition in applied conservation research and practice: ten revelations. Socio-Ecological Practice Research, 1(1), 15-23.
Cooke, S. J., Rytwinski, T., Taylor, J. J., Nyboer, E. A., Nguyen, V. M., Bennett, J. R., … & Smol, J. P. (2020). On “success” in applied environmental research—What is it, how can it be achieved, and how does one know when it has been achieved? Environmental Reviews, 28(4), 357-372.
Crandall, C. A., Monroe, M. C., & Lorenzen, K. (2020). Why Won’t They Listen to Us? Communicating Science in Contentious Situations. Fisheries, 45(1), 42-45.
Dayer, A. A., Williams, A., Cosbar, E., & Racey, M. (2019). Blaming threatened species: Media portrayal of human–wildlife conflict. Oryx, 53(2), 265-272.
De Semir, V., Ribas, C., & Revuelta, G. (1998). Press releases of science journal articles and subsequent newspaper stories on the same topic. Jama, 280(3), 294-295.
Dijkstra, A., Roefs, M. M., & Drossaert, C. H. (2015). The science-media interaction in biomedical research in the Netherlands. Opinions of scientists and journalists on the science-media relationship. Journal of Science Communication, 14(2), A03.
Evans, M. C., & Cvitanovic, C. (2018). An introduction to achieving policy impact for early career researchers. Palgrave Communications, 4(1), 1-12.
Fjæstad, B. (2008). Why journalists report science as they do. In Journalism, science and society (pp. 135-144). Routledge.
Ferry, L., & Shiffman, D. S. (2014). The value of taxon-focused science: 30 years of elasmobranchs in biological research and outreach. Copeia, 2014(4), 743-746.
Friedman, K., Braccini, M., Bjerregaard‐Walsh, M., Bonfil, R., Bradshaw, C. J., Brouwer, S., … & Yokawa, K. (2020). Informing CITES Parties: Strengthening science‐based decision‐making when listing marine species. Fish and Fisheries, 21(1), 13-31.
Glithero, L. D., & Zandvliet, D. B. (2021). Evaluating Ocean Perceptions and Ocean Values: The Canadian Ocean Literacy Survey. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education (CJEE), 24(1), 216-232.
Gow, E. A., Burant, J. B., Sutton, A. O., Freeman, N. E., Grahame, E. R., Fuirst, M., … & Shiffman, D. S. (2022). Popular press portrayal of issues surrounding free‐roaming domestic cats Felis catus. People and Nature, 4(1), 143-154.
Hartz, J., & Chappell, R. (1997). Worlds apart: How the distance between science and journalism threatens America’s future. First Amendment Center.
Jacobson, S. K., Langin, C., Carlton, J. S., & Kaid, L. L. (2012). Content analysis of newspaper coverage of the Florida panther. Conservation Biology, 26(1), 171-179.
Maillé, M. È., Saint-Charles, J., & Lucotte, M. (2010). The gap between scientists and journalists: The case of mercury science in Québec’s press. Public Understanding of Science, 19(1), 70-79.
McCall, R. B. (1988). Science and the press: Like oil and water?. American Psychologist, 43(2), 87.
Parsons, E. C. M., Shiffman, D. S., Darling, E. S., Spillman, N., & Wright, A. J. (2014). How twitter literacy can benefit conservation scientists. Conservation Biology, 28(2), 299-301.
Peters, H. P., Brossard, D., De Cheveigné, S., Dunwoody, S., Kallfass, M., Miller, S., & Tsuchida, S. (2008). Science-media interface: It’s time to reconsider. Science Communication, 30(2), 266-276.
Peters, H. P. (2013). Gap between science and media revisited: Scientists as public communicators. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(supplement_3), 14102-14109.
Phillis, C. C., O’Regan, S. M., Green, S. J., Bruce, J. E., Anderson, S. C., Linton, J. N., … & Favaro, B. (2013). Multiple pathways to conservation success. Conservation Letters, 6(2), 98-106.
Pottker, H. (2003). News and its communicative quality: the inverted pyramid—when and why did it appear?. Journalism Studies, 4(4), 501-511.
Reed, R. (2001). (Un-) Professional discourse? Journalists’ and scientists’ stories about science in the media. Journalism, 2(3), 279-298.
Shiffman, D. S., & Hammerschlag, N. (2014). An assessment of the scale, practices, and conservation implications of Florida’s charter boat–based recreational shark fishery. Fisheries, 39(9), 395-407.
Shiffman, D. S. (2018). Social media for fisheries science and management professionals: how to use it and why you should. Fisheries, 43(3), 123-129.
Shiffman, D. S., & Hammerschlag, N. (2016). Preferred conservation policies of shark researchers. Conservation Biology, 30(4), 805-815.
Shiffman, D. S. (2020). Recreational shark fishing in Florida: How research and strategic science communication helped to change policy. Conservation Science and Practice, 2(4), e174.
Shiffman, D. S., Bittick, S. J., Cashion, M. S., Colla, S. R., Coristine, L. E., Derrick, D. H., … & Dulvy, N. K. (2020). Inaccurate and biased global media coverage underlies public misunderstanding of shark conservation threats and solutions. Iscience, 23(6), 101205.
Woloshin, S., & Schwartz, L. M. (2002). Press releases: translating research into news. Jama, 287(21), 2856-2858.
