MUNICH, GERMANY--As many U.S. and other newspapers continue to lay off science journalists, reporters still covering technical topics say they increasingly need good-quality images, as well as researchers who can help make science more understandable.
Judging the trustworthiness or integrity of scientific findings while avoiding "hype" also emerged as key concerns for reporters who took part in the survey, sponsored by EurekAlert!, the science-news Web site of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).
The survey, released today during the EuroScience Open Forum 2006, reflected the responses of 614 reporters and 445 public information officers.
Survey details were disclosed beginning at 8:30 a.m. in the Forum am Deutschen Museum, Helios Room, Munich, Germany, during a session titled "Myths of science: Glowing monkeys, wonder dogs, and more." The session, featuring top researchers, as well as reporters from the Washington Post, Financial Times, and the Sueddeutsche Zeitung, was co-sponsored by EurekAlert! and the Max Planck Society.
Predictably, when asked to rate a series of challenges, reporters said that their top concern is to learn about breaking science-news stories before the information reaches either competitors or the public.
Beyond these usual news-reporting concerns, however, finding researchers capable of explaining science in an understandable fashion was the task most frequently cited by reporters as either "very challenging" or "moderately challenging." Obtaining photographs or other multimedia materials to help convey complex scientific content was the next task most often listed by reporters as either very challenging or moderately challenging. Another of the most vexing concerns for reporters, overall, seemed to be in judging the trustworthiness of research or researchers, followed by the need to convince supervisors to run science-news stories as well as tight reporting budgets.
What science-news stories are most interesting to reporters, their supervisors, or news consumers?
Reporters in both the United States and other regions of the world listed the top story interest of their readers or viewers as medicine and health. But, U.S. reporters listed stem cells and cloning, followed by psychology and neuroscience, technology and the environment as their readers’ top picks. By comparison, non-U.S. reporters said their audiences were more interested in the environment, climate-change research, natural disasters and animals.
Top 5 topics rated as very interesting, U.S. versus non-U.S. reporters
|U.S. Reporters||Non-U.S. Reporters|
|1.)||Medicine and health||Medicine and health|
|2.)||Stem cells and cloning||Environment|
|3.)||Psychology and neuroscience||Climate change|
As part of the survey, reporters and public information officers also were asked to rate factors that may negatively affect public trust in the integrity of science. Reporters were most concerned about excessive public-relations hype; scientific uncertainty or ambiguous findings; conflicts between science and social values, morality, or politics; and financial conflicts of interest or potential conflicts. Deliberately fraudulent research was identified as the least common problem that negatively affects public trust in science.
Reporters' top pet peeve seems to be press officers or researchers who respond too slowly to media queries. For their part, not surprisingly, public information officers identified their top challenges as convincing reporters to cover stories and learning about forthcoming research.
Beyond these predictable science-communications concerns, however, finding researchers who can explain science in an understandable way, identifying appropriate reporter contacts, and obtaining multimedia materials to help convey scientific concepts were most often identified by press officers as either "very challenging" or "moderately challenging." Finding researchers capable of handling interviews in multiple languages also was a top challenge -- specifically, for 58 percent of non-U.S. press officers and 42 percent of their U.S. counterparts.
The biggest problem that negatively affects public trust in science, according to press officers, is that reporters may hype research findings or make mistakes in coverage. Yet, reporters said press officers or other reporters are more often to blame for excessive hyping of scientific findings. The intersection of science with values, morality, or politics also was a top concern for press officers, along with scientific ambiguity. Like reporters, press officers identified deliberate research fraud as a rare problem.
Interestingly, some 400 press officers out of 445 said they "strongly agreed" or "somewhat agreed" that researchers should "talk up their research." But, nearly the same number (about 360) also said researchers must avoid hyping results.
Further, while reporters said they need more photographs, video, and other multimedia materials to cover science, press officers said they are far more likely to e-mail text to reporters, post text-based news releases to EurekAlert!, or post releases to other services.
"While the EurekAlert! survey should not be construed as rigorously scientific, it does offer an interesting snapshot of modern science reporting, which is becoming less print-focused and more multimedia-oriented in many regions of the world," said Ginger Pinholster, director, AAAS Office of Public Programs. "In the United States, the United Kingdom, and some other areas, science is being covered by a growing number of broadcast, online, and general-assignment reporters, in addition to conventional print science journalists. To support this increasingly diverse community of science reporters, EurekAlert! has launched a keyword-searchable multimedia gallery, and we also continue to maintain an experts database and an array of multilanguage portals."
Slightly less than half of all participating reporters were based in the United States (46 percent), whereas most of the responding public information officers were U.S.-based (70 percent). Most (88 percent) said they visit EurekAlert! at least once per month.
A majority of all respondents (57 percent) were veteran science communicators, with more than 10 years' experience, but reporters were more experienced than public information officers. Nearly one-third (28 percent) of participating reporters work at large or small newspapers, with an equal number at magazines. Other reporters worked for Web sites, trade publications, TV stations, wire services, radio stations, and other outlets.
The EurekAlert! survey was conducted by the scientific marketing and consulting firm, Cell Associates, under the direction of Catherine O'Malley, former EurekAlert! director.
"We're going to continue to try and keep pace with the sea changes in science communications," said Patrick McGinness, current EurekAlert! director. "As the popularity of audio communications continues to grow, for example, we are now preparing to add short but high-quality sound files to our multimedia gallery. In the coming months, we will be inviting short video submissions from press officers, too. Our goal is to help support reporters and press officers alike."
The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) is the world's largest general scientific society, and publisher of the journal, Science (www.sciencemag.org). AAAS was founded in 1848, and includes some 262 affiliated societies and academies of science, serving 10 million individuals. Science has the largest paid circulation of any peer-reviewed general science journal in the world, with an estimated total readership of 1 million. The non-profit AAAS (www.aaas.org) is open to all and fulfills its mission to "advance science and serve society" through initiatives in science policy; international programs; science education; and more. For the latest research news, log onto EurekAlert!, www.eurekalert.org, the premier science-news Web site, a service of AAAS.
Last reviewed: By John M. Grohol, Psy.D. on 21 Feb 2009
Published on PsychCentral.com. All rights reserved.