This issue of the Journal of Science Communication raises a numberof questions about the ways that new scientific research emerges from researchinstitutions and in particular the role played by scientists, press officers andjournalists in this process. This is not to suggest that the public don’t play anequally important role, and several articles in this issue raise questions aboutpublic engagement, but to explore the dynamics at play in one specific arena: thatof news production. In this editorial I explore the increasing reliance of sciencejournalists on public relations sources and consider what questions this raises forscience communication

Weitkamp, Emma

English

UWE Bristol Research Repository

SISSA – International School for Advanced Studies Journal of Science CommunicationISSN 1824 – 2049 http://jcom.sissa.it/EditorialOn the roles of scientists, press officers and journalistsEmma WeitkampABSTRACT: This issue of the Journal of Science Communication raises a numberof questions about the ways that new scientific research emerges from researchinstitutions and in particular the role played by scientists, press officers andjournalists in this process. This is not to suggest that the public don’t play anequally important role, and several articles in this issue raise questions aboutpublic engagement, but to explore the dynamics at play in one specific arena: thatof news production. In this editorial I explore the increasing reliance of sciencejournalists on public relations sources and consider what questions this raises forscience communication.This issue of the Journal of Science Communication raises a number of questions aboutthe ways that new scientific research emerges from research institutions and in particularthe role played by scientists, press officers and journalists in this process. This is not tosuggest that the public don’t play an equally important role, and several articles in thisissue raise questions about public engagement, but to explore the dynamics at play inone specific arena: that of news production. Even in our increasingly fragmented digi-tal world, most Europeans report learning about science from media, with 65% hearingabout science on TV, 35% using the internet to find information on science and tech-nology subjects and 33% mentioning newspapers as a source of science and technologyinformation [1]. Access to TV and newspapers is mediated by journalists and some-times also by the press office of the institution for which the researcher works. Otherplatforms, including many digital platforms such as blogs and social media, allow scien-tists to communicate directly with the public, though this may still be a largely one wayconversation. Yet concerns have been raised both about an increasing medialization ofscience [2] and the growing dominance of institutional sources (e.g. press officers) in thenews construction process [3].Tensions between public relations and science communication are tackled in the com-mentary ‘Public Communication from Research Institutes: Is it Science Communicationor Public Relations?’ organised by Rebecca Bru Carver and published in this issue. Thecommentaries take a critical look at the role of media relations within scientific organisa-tions, exploring the ways that the media contribute to the spread of knowledge within thescientific community (Shipman), an issue which is also addressed in the research paperJCOM 13(03)(2014)E Licensed under Creative CommonsAttribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.02 E. Weitkampby Mahrt and Pushmann in this issue, and considering how the roles of science journalistscould change to make better use of institutional PR materials (Autzen). Acknowledgingthe growing pressures on science journalists to produce increasing volumes of sciencenews, Autzen suggests that we should accept ‘cut and paste’ journalism in order to enablescience journalists to focus more on the traditional role of the media as watchdog, holdingthe institutions of science to account; in essence, Autzen suggests that we stop haranguingthe media for cut and paste journalism and accept that press officers are perfectly capableof writing straightforward, single source news stories for public consumption. While I doagree with Autzen that press officers have the technical skill to write such stories (theyare after all often former journalists), I’m not sure that I want universities and researchinstitutes producing the news. They are, after all, self-interested organisations that seekto promote their own agendas.Of course, Autzen is not suggesting that press office materials would be publishedwithout some sort of editorial control. Instead, she is suggesting that journalists shouldnot be criticised for using these materials, particularly if it frees up time for them to pursuemore contentious issues. The Washington Post took this tactic earlier this year. I don’tknow how it was received by the readers (or even if they noticed that a proportion ofthe science and health news was taken straight from press releases), but it did cause astir in the journalistic community [4]. The problem is not one of clarity of writing orstructure of the story, these the press officers do extremely well. They have to for theirpress releases to stand a chance of making it on a journalist’s shortlist. The problem, forthe Washington Post, was quality control. Several of the stories that made it through theeditorial selection process were downright silly (which is not uncommon but does leave acrack for critics when you try something that appears lazy, such as running press releasesas news). Raeburn used this crack in credibility to point out that the problem with pressreleases lies in their institutional purpose — to frame the story to suit the organisation.Nine times out of 10, this may be a benign framing, even one the journalist agrees with.But that is not always the case. Take the recent press release from Newcastle Universityon organic foods.1 This press release reports a new study suggesting the health benefitsof organic foods. But this is a controversial area; the journalists reporting the story madethe effort to speak with other experts who raised questions about the study. Journalistsreported the story, but not uncritically adding context and information from a variety ofother sources. In our current overstretched media environment, marketing stories do slipunder the radar of science journalists through carefully crafted science news releases,as my study shows [3]. If marketing efforts occasionally make it past the beady eyesof journalists now, then surely even more would slip through a news system geared toaccepting (albeit critically) press releases as news. How are we, readers unpractised inspotting ‘spun stories’, and who do not have day to day contact with researchers and pressofficers, to know which stories need to be treated with caution?1http://www.ncl.ac.uk/press.office/press.release/item/new-study-finds-significant-differences-between-organic-and-non-organic-food.On the roles of scientists, press officers and journalists 3I certainly agree with Autzen that well-crafted press releases and efficient, helpful pressofficers do offer a useful service to science journalists. After all, they cannot possibly scanall the original research published in any given week. And journalists should be holdingresearch organisations, individual scientists and others involved in the ‘industry’ that isscience to account. But I do not think that cut and paste journalism is the solution tomedia staffing issues. Instead, we need to re-educate the reader to the value of what theyconsume. In the end, you get what you pay for and good journalism costs money. Weshould ask ourselves whether we are prepared to pay for that craft. If we aren’t, thenuniversity press officers may well be writing our science news.References[1] TNS Opinion and Social (2013), Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI), Science andTechnology, Special Eurobarometer 401, available from:http://ec.europa.eu/public opinion/archives/ebs/ebs 401 en.pdf [accessed 21/1/14].[2] S. Ro¨dder (2011), “Science and the Mass Media — ‘Medialization’ as a New Perspective on anIntricate Relationship”, Sociology Compass 5(9): 834–845.[3] E. Weitkamp and T. Eidsvaag (2014), “Journalism Practice: Agenda Building in Media Coverage ofFood Research”, Journalism Practice, DOI: 10.1080/17512786.2013.865966.[4] P. Raeburn (2014), “Want your university press release reprinted in the Washington Post? HeresHow”, KSJ Tracker, https://ksj.mit.edu/tracker/2014/02/want-your-university-press-release-repri/[accessed 21/8/14].AuthorDr. Emma Weitkamp is an Associate Professor in Science Communication at the Univer-sity of the West of England, Bristol where she teaches on an MSc in Science Communica-tion and provides training in science communication for practitioners and Ph.D. students.Emma has recently been appointed as Editor in Chief of JCOM.E-mail: Emma.Weitkamp@uwe.ac.uk.HOW TO CITE: E. Weitkamp, “On the roles of scientists, press officers andjournalists”, JCOM 13(03)(2014)E.

On the roles of scientists, press officers and journalists

https://uwe-repository.worktribe.com/811837/1/JCOM_1303_2014_E.pdf

On the roles of scientists, press officers and journalists

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UWE Bristol Research Repository