Monday 4 August 2014

Selling science in a soap selling style? 

Holger Wormer
It’s hard to be a science journalist these days. Still tired because of the “Long night of Science“
(probably the 6th during this summer) he or she is informed about the next “Children’s University days”
and another “girls day” coming soon – alongside the daily zapping through the 50 press releases of the
informationsdienst wissenschaft1
 (are there really 50 newsworthy things happening every day in the labs
of every European country?), not to speak of the dozens of press packages and glossy brochures of the
pharmaceutical industry as well as the test kits of new products like a tongue cleaner (of which the
phenomenal results are – of course – “scientifically proved”). In 2006 a journalist sometimes would wish
that science communicators would communicate a little bit less – giving himself a little bit more time to
find his own stories – just by himself.
It’s also easy to be a science journalist these days. Many questions can be answered via internet access
to peer reviewed journals and other online sources. The finding and checking of the seriousness of an
expert is – in principle – also much easier than before. Whereas 30 years ago press officers were a rare
species at European universities in 2006 they exist nearly everywhere and in most cases they will really
do their best to help journalists with their investigation if they are asked to (although they are still not
always high-class professionals). Or as Robert Logan said on a Bertelsmann Summer Academy in New
York in 2005: “Today you get hands on evidence much faster than 30 years ago.”
But what exactly is the relationship between science communicators and science journalists in 2006? Is
all this science communication helpful because there are scientists and science communicators coming
up with better explanations and helpful material? Or is there an increasing danger of business-oriented
science communicators selling science to the media in a cheap soap selling style?
One general answer for journalists may be: The time they will win, the time they will lose sometimes.
The good news “The quality of science communication is increasing” may be also bad news because the
same is true for the danger of manipulation and of agenda setting in the media.
A more complex answer would be: It depends. It depends on the issue and on the kind of story the
journalist is dealing with. And it depends on the kind of media section where the story should be
published.
If the journalist has to answer in his weekly “readers asking the editors” section why the sky is blue or
other popular questions like “Do brown chicken lay brown eggs?” the improved science communication
culture is a very helpful tool. But to be sure that the new “breakthrough” in stem cell research announced
by two prestigious institutions you may find it difficult to find out the truth in between all the details of
the story which are communicated (and promoted) in a quite convincing matter.
The journalist in a news section may have to rely – more or less – on what the press officer of a
scientific institution has announced because of the lack of time there (at least in comparison to a weekly
or even monthly magazine). The problem is even enhanced by the fact that most of the non-specialized
editors in the mass media are not yet aware of the fact that scientists and scientific institutions will (and
often have to) sell themselves in a more and more aggressive way to get their funding. As the media are
increasingly minute-oriented the danger of launching questionable breakthroughs in the media increases
as well. Leaving its former nature protection area in his own science section and moving forward to the
front (and the online) page science journalism underlies the same rules and pressures as any other daily
news section. Sometimes especially journalists working for online media or news agencies have to
admit: “We have no time to call another expert; we have no time to call anybody”.
This statement may be true in many cases but at least in some cases there also seems to be a lack of
knowledge how to investigate more efficiently. One helpful strategy to ensure a certain quality of
science reporting (the “evidence-based reporting” claimed by Logan) may be a two step model of
science journalistic evidence which I would like to propose: The first step could be achieved by using H. Wormer 2

formal check lists as they have already been proposed by several authors (e.g. Hartz&Chappell 1997/98;
Moynihan 2000; Schweitzer 2005). The basis for this step of science journalistic evidence is not
necessarily a detailed knowledge of a special scientific field but a general knowledge of the scientific
system – and not too much reverence for highly decorated scientific experts as well. Questions to the
professor and his press officer like “Why is your scientific breakthrough presented only in a press
conference and not in a peer reviewed journal first?” are suitable for all, even non-specialized journalists
– improving the probability to recognize charlatans or simple PR-campaigns.
The second step of science journalistic evidence may be a kind of second “science journalistic peer
review process” done by the journalists supported by their scientific experts of trust. This second
editorial process would give a better chance to identify bad or economically biased science or even
scientific fraud. Of course, this second step could be more or less only suitable for quality media with
specialized editors.
However, in the future some basic conditions in the media make it questionable whether science
reporting will increasingly fulfill such an ideal quality model. On the one hand there is the described
tendency in the scientific community towards a more aggressive way of communicating (or even selling)
science. On the other hand the tendency in the media is going to produce faster news with less money
and less employees. More and more work is done by freelance journalists who are often not paid
appropriate by the media. That’s why many of them do public relation for scientific institutions as well –
being paid often much better there. As a result the danger of conflicts of interest is increasing especially
among freelance journalists.
One helpful way to improve the situation at least in some cases may be a “coalition of trust” between
journalists interested in “good journalistic practice” and scientists (and their press officers) still
interested in “good (and not only economically oriented) scientific practice”. The scientific side also
should communicate more offensively when something is going wrong in the scientific community, for
example, when another institution or expert in the field is exaggerating by selling old or even bad
science as “sensational results”.
Of course, such a careful relationship can only be build up on a personal not only on an institutional
level. And it should never mean that science journalists will be regarded as a tool or subdivision of the
PR-Section of any scientific institution or research company. Both sides have to be separated as much as
possible – what is not contradictory to a good and trustful relationship, especially among those who are
interested in an effective system of quality assurance of science to which the media can contribute.

2 comments:

  1. Nice material. I have also written the same thing on this topic take a look at it here

    ReplyDelete
  2. NICE CONCEPT AND Click Here Too See More Details ..

    ReplyDelete