| EW Home > All workshops > November 2004 Workshop > Report |
and the News Media University of Washington, Seattle, Washington November 8-10, 2004 (3rd Workshop in Series)
Workshop Overview
Two dozen invited scientists and journalists met for 1-1/2 days at the University of Washington in Seattle November 8-10, 2004, as part of an ongoing project to explore ways to better communicate climate science news to the public via the mass media. They focused in particular on climate change, which exemplifies the challenges associated with communicating a complex and evolving science subject on which the public debate focuses not solely on science but also on policy.
Two guest speakers, Frank Blethen, third-generation owner/publisher of the Seattle Times, and William D. Ruckelshaus, twice EPA Administrator, added unique perspectives on the relationship between science and the media in a democracy.
The University of Washington workshop was the third of a series of six workshops aimed at improving understanding of impediments to communication of science to the public through the mass media. As with the two previous workshops, participants discussed solutions for improving science communications and science news coverage.
Participants at the November 2004 Seattle workshop shared often passionate concerns over what they see as the declining quality of science news coverage in the mass media, root causes, and possible remedies. Some of the Seattle participants said they see parallels in the mass media in declining coverage of serious or "hard" news generally.
At the same time, some journalists have cautioned against an overly fatalistic view, citing opportunities to leverage some "hopeful signs" they have observed in the media and academia, such as the emergence of new media and a seemingly greater receptivity among young scientists to the needs to communicate science more effectively.
Nonetheless, the Seattle workshop participants expressed causes for concern over diminishing science news coverage, and they discussed some approaches to improving that coverage. Journalists and scientists, for instance, shared strategies for gaining coverage of stories, engaging their audiences, and avoiding errors in the telling. Some said that within the scientific community, the climate change story is entering a new phase, an impacts phase, that is no less complex to communicate than stories focusing primarily on scientific causes of climate change. As some describe it, the continuing story is less about whether climate change is happening and whether human activities are influencing those changes, and more about how societies and segments of society are being affected, how they are reacting, and how changes may play out.
Workshop participants by and large felt that lessons learned in communicating the growing scientific climate change consensus can be applied to communication and coverage of other future controversies involving climate and other science stories. A journalist explained, for instance, that in a recent cover story for a major news magazine, he largely avoided extensive debate over scientific subtleties by focusing instead on how segments of the business community and other sectors have already begun to change. The workshop concluded with consideration of best practices and a short list of recommended action items.
Overview of November 2004
Like the previous two workshops in this series, the Seattle workshop, with its informal setting and mix of presentations and panel-led discussions, was designed to stimulate open discussion among scientists and journalists about their day-to-day science communication and reporting challenges.
Participants included nationally recognized ecologists and climate and marine scientists and leading journalists. The workshop opened with a respected environmental journalism professor's assessment of the state of science and environmental coverage in print and broadcast news media. Opening speakers and other journalism and science participants voiced concerns over what many see as a decline in quality and quantity of coverage, notwithstanding some scattered hopeful signs.
Participants shared approaches for overcoming common obstacles to communication, including how some journalists have successfully framed the climate change story to engage mass audiences, and how some climate scientists have worked with journalists to ensure accurate reporting of their research. As a group, participants examined how their individual strategies might be applied more broadly, and they began to explore institutional and resource implications. Discussions focused on availability of useful and practical tools for journalists and scientists and on the need for appropriate training for both journalists and scientists.
William D. Ruckelshaus, guest speaker at the second day's opening session, applied his insights from administering federal environmental laws in the 1970s and 1980s to explain his view of the appropriate relationship between the media and regulators. On the importance of an informed public, he said: "If the public isn't adequately informed, it's difficult for them to make demands on government, even when it is in their own interest."
The discussions gave scientists and journalists an unusual off-deadline opportunity to share practical perspectives and reflections on their respective fields – a "rare opportunity" to look inwardly at one's own field, one reporter later commented. After the workshop concluded, six of the journalists participated in a lively graduate-level classroom discussion with university students. These student sessions, now a regular adjunct to the workshops, are one of several initiatives coming out of the workshops to engage a broader audience in discussions about science communications and reporting.
Upcoming workshops in the series will provide additional opportunities for journalists and scientists to share experiences and perspectives. They will also begin to work through specific recommendations to be addressed in the final project report. Upcoming workshops will also continue to broaden the mix of participants to include editors and other editorial managers and media executives and educators.
The six-part workshop series will conclude with publication of a final report on the status of science/journalism communication, with concrete examples of impediments to communication and with strategies to strengthen communication of and reporting on science news.
Some Disturbing Trends in Media Coverage of Science
As in earlier workshops, journalists and scientists registered concerns over what many agree is the declining quantity and quality of science reporting in the mass media. Opening remarks by an environmental journalism educator cited a number of statistics suggesting what has been called an "epochal transformation" in daily journalism. That professor pointed to a number of well-established trends, among them the emergence of new technologies to supplant traditional news outlets; the growth in concentration of media ownership; the decline of mainstream, traditional news outlets; the pressures of more media outlets competing for market share (readers/viewers); and the declining coverage of environmental news on TV and in print.
Guest speaker Frank Blethen, publisher of the fourth-generation family owned Seattle Times, spoke passionately of his concerns over media consolidation. "The world isn't ending," he said, "but I guarantee that if we don't make some quick decisions, we are seeing the beginning of the end of democracy." The Times, he said, is one of 250 independent locally owned daily newspapers out of about 1,400 nationwide. With fewer and fewer large companies owning America's media, he said, many outlets have gotten so far away from the practice of traditional journalism that it is "hardly on their radar screens." With this ownership consolidation, the bottom line has superceded journalistic ethos, according to Blethen.
"This is not a sinister plot", one journalist noted, "just a very business-driven world."
Blethen said he is especially concerned that some stories never get reported because of their potential impact on the corporate media owner's other interests. He said fewer and fewer daily newspapers now are willing to take on complex or controversial issues or issues involving expensive reporting outlays.
Among other worrisome trends participants cited were reduced information availability and diversity in the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the U.S., and the increasing use of raw, unverified information on cable TV, Internet websites and blogs, and local TV stations.
There was broad agreement among participating journalists that coverage of environmental issues is down, that reporters have less autonomy, that science and environmental news stories are shorter and less detailed, and that fewer newspapers are regularly publishing specialized science sections. They pointed to examples such as cutbacks or elimination of documentaries and specialized beats at many news organizations, CNN's disbanding of its environmental news unit, and discontinuance of the High Country News radio.
Some Hopeful Signs?
A few journalists warned against adopting an overly pessimistic view. Perennially seeing ominous signs and "navel gazing" are common among reporters, said one reporter. "For every bad sign there is a good sign," he said.
TV stations are eager to air pieces that are easily condensed, a one-time local TV environmental reporter said. "TV recognizes its niche: it's good at immediacy, but not at analysis. Anything with immediate tone to it will automatically rise to the top." While acknowledging that isolated weather events cannot be responsibly linked to climate change, he said some TV stations find it easier to report on climate change science when the issue is related to weather patterns – taking advantage of opportunities to explain climate change, for instance.
The emergence of some more journalistically oriented environmental websites and the growing quality of journalism contest entries are encouraging, the journalist educator said, adding that today's corps of journalists is better educated than ever before. He pointed to professional societies as playing an important role in this effort, but discussants also expressed concerns that real-world newsroom pressures and forces can undercut even the most rigorous journalism training and education.
Leveraging the Public's Reported Interest in the Environment
Several journalists said they are encouraged that public opinion surveys consistently find the public to be interested in environmental issues and news. But others were skeptical, questioning why this reputed public appetite for science and environmental news is not manifested by newsroom commitments for more and better science and environmental news coverage.
"Journalists make the mistake of looking down at readers," a news executive cautioned. "These are smart, busy people. What they are saying is that 'Yeah, I care about this stuff, but give it to me in a way that I can understand it.'"
There's "a lot of traction for the environment," added a former TV journalist, but the issues must clearly relate to the needs and values of the audience. The challenge comes in making global stories local. "When people try to understand global problems, there is a quick disconnect, they get overwhelmed and tune out."
Participants discussed at length a growing emphasis on entertainment in some newsrooms, and the decline of hard news, in particular on TV. "You need to be positive about entertainment," said one participant. He suggested "stealing a page from the zoos" to package information in a way that gets the public's attention. Zoos have evolved into incredible places of scientific entertainment, he said, and the media can learn from their experiences. Some others, however, questioned whether that analogy works.
One scientist-educator explained the teaching technique he uses to teach climate change implications for one's own life. "You can't reach everyone, but there is still this group that is reachable. They aren't stupid, but they have a hard time untangling complexity." To reach this audience, he applies skills honed through years of classroom teaching to break down a complex subject into smaller parts that are more easily understood. Told that someone "doesn't believe in global warming," he said, he asks: "What part of the global warming issue do you not believe in?" And he discusses those specific issues – for instance, whether warming is happening, what is causing it, or what impacts it may have.
A radio reporter emphasized the need to appeal to audiences at an emotional or values level. "We need to approach the story viscerally," he said. "The public will respond if we do our jobs well and give them a compelling story."
Finding Credible Sources and
Workshop participants said credibility relates closely to the issue of "balance," widely covered in the first two workshops – knowing where to obtain a spectrum of responsible and authoritative science information and perspectives on seemingly controversial subjects, where political and financial stakes are frequently high. Experienced science reporters with extensive networks of well cultivated contacts and hard-won experience clearly have a leg up here, participants emphasized, but they acknowledged that even reporters specializing in science coverage cannot maintain expertise in the full range of science issues. And what about general assignment reporters and those new to climate science coverage, particularly in the smaller media markets? Compounding the challenge is the shortage of time and space available in many media outlets to cover a particular science-based issue.
One scientist's advice to journalists: "Be sure to go to the original source, not an interpretation of an interpretation." And to his colleagues: "When you meet a journalist, your first objective should be to establish your credibility, your right to speak on the issue, and who is paying you."
"Don't write 'most scientists believe…,'" he urged. Instead, report that they are "convinced." His point: "Science is not about beliefs, but about conclusions based on sound analysis of data and facts."
One journalist shared a "truth barometer" he uses to determine a scientist's trustworthiness. He asks scientists to name others who disagree with their findings but whom they nonetheless believe to be reputable scientists. "If you cannot think of anybody, you drop down on my list. There's always somebody you don't agree with wholly, but who follows the rules."
No single scientist has a "monopoly on truth," another reporter said. "Our role as journalists is to talk not just to you, but to others who may have views that are just as important." Other journalists echoed this need for journalists to maintain extensive contacts among scientists with established credentials.
As at the earlier workshops in this series, there was an extensive discussion over how scientists can best avoid being misquoted or having their research misrepresented in the media. Journalists and scientists have devised various ways to address this need without compromising their professional ethics. Journalists shared various techniques they have used to fact-check their work, short of previewing with sources extensive finished copy. Scientists explained how they use their teaching experience to advantage, asking journalists to "play back" what they learned from the interview.
On Mixing Science with Policy
A number of the scientists expressed discomfort when they are expected to operate in a policy context. They said they are particularly sensitive about how their policy judgments might be regarded by their scientific colleagues. Yet they agreed that the public often is interested in the policy relevance of their science. One scientist said his experience too is that reporters are often more interested in the policy implications than in the science of climate change. He contrasted this with calls he gets reporters on the issue, for instance, of El Niño, saying that in those cases the calls more often deal with science than with policy.
On the role of scientists as citizens, an issue explored at some depth in the earlier workshops, one scientist advised his colleagues to make clear when they are taking off their scientist's hat to make a statement. He said he addresses policy questions by saying, "That's outside my area of expertise, but as a citizen…."
One reporter advocated "impact stories" as the best way to engage the public. "It's not about policy," but about "what's happening on the ground." He stressed the importance of going on site to get stories about real-life implications of how people and places are affected by climate change.
Acquiring, Using Good Journalism Skills Essential
Many journalists present emphasized that a good grounding in journalism fundamentals is needed to report responsibly on complex science issues. Journalists need good researching and interviewing skills, and they need to establish extensive contacts they can reach quickly when on deadline. There was general agreement on the need for journalists to understand science fundamentals like the scientific method, know how to interpret numbers and statistics, and appreciate the significance of peer review. But participants were not unanimous on the need for specialized science in service training, or on the need to formally expand journalism or science curriculum requirements.
The news media don't need more education in science to communicate with scientists, one scientist insisted. "Seeing things from the lay point of view is actually helpful," he said, while still acknowledging that he finds it easier to speak with experienced science reporters.
What journalists need most, said one radio journalist, is more training on how to be good journalists. Radio, for example, requires its own set of skills, because the reporter has only one chance to tell a story – the audience cannot go back and review earlier passages. Another radio journalist, however, was equally adamant that journalists need to have some basic science education.
A radio journalist offered insights from her experience with continuing education seminars for science journalists. Some journalists, she said, are simply intimidated by and afraid to talk to scientists. They fear that they will appear stupid and that scientists will "blow them off." For this reason, many students in the seminars she conducts said they would rather speak to university public information officers than with scientists directly. Journalist training should provide "basic bravery" skills to reporters to boost their confidence in these kinds of situations.
The importance of relationship building was discussed at length, as in the earlier workshops. Informal one-on-one working relationships, established off-deadline, become invaluable when information is required in a hurry. Journalists need to conscientiously maintain their own personal lists of credible science contacts, said one journalist –scientists who will return their calls in a timely manner, whether from the office or from home.
One journalist's advice on building trust with sources: "Ask them what is important for people to know, not just the facts. Try to get some insights into their world."
Another important challenge, said one reporter for a large circulation daily newspaper, is avoiding the "pressure on reporters and editors to dangerously jazz up science stories to make them rise to the top of the heap."
For major news organizations, stories must undergo multiple filters and levels of editorial review before they are aired or published. But the reporters acknowledged that few editors are comfortable with or trained in basic science, posing a challenge to efforts to upgrade coverage of science news.
The Changing Climate Change Story – Going with the Flow
Participants discussed how the climate change story is maturing, as consensus has grown in the scientific community that there is a problem and that humans activities are contributing substantially to the problem. "It's important to recognize how far we've come in the last 20 years in recognizing climate change as a problem caused at least in part by humans," one reporter reminded the group, emphasizing that despite an uphill battle at first, that important message nonetheless has gotten through to many in the general public.
When a business magazine reporter said his emphasis on the business community's response to climate change concerns avoided some of the political controversies surrounding climate change, a scientist commended journalistic efforts to avoid the usual, and overly simplistic, climate scientists/climate skeptics formula. This different story line, he suggested, is key to "breaking the gridlock" surrounding the climate change story.
In future major science controversies, another reporter said, there will again be a lengthy period of developing scientific consensus. It will take the media some time to recognize this, just as it will take scientists a while to reach it. The challenge for reporters and scientists will be to use lessons learned from coverage of climate change and other science issues in reporting on future issues having significant economic implications. With climate change, one scientist suggested, it may be time now to focus coverage less on questions related to anthropogenic causes and more on broad ecological impacts, on how segments of society are addressing concerns, and on other considerations.
Changes Within Academia
Some scientists pointed to signs that a new generation of science students and academics are seeking more involvement with society generally and more interaction with the media. The Aldo Leopold fellowship program, for instance, selects and funds 20 outstanding mid-career scientists each year to devote a specified amount of time communicating science to the general public. A science academician said he too sees an enormous change in young scientists, with more commitment to make sure their work is relevant to and understood by the public. "A new generation of scientists are increasingly feeling a responsibility to get their story out, and aren't being punished for this," he said. Still another scientist said he finds graduate science program applicants increasingly wanting to address policy and science communications and interactions with the news media, but some participants cautioned that institutional support for such activities is often lacking.
Can there ever be too much training in communication for scientists? One reporter thought so. Being able to "break the code," he said, is part of the adventure of science reporting and an important part of making science more meaningful to nonscientist audiences.
Where to Go from Here?
On the second day of the workshop, scientists and journalists discussed ways to extend lessons learned and best practices more broadly among their colleagues, potentially into a set of actionable strategies and practices. The following proposals will be developed more fully at upcoming workshops, with input both from past and future workshop participants.
Online information resource for reporters, to house public domain information in a way that is easily accessible – perhaps under the sponsorship of a professional science or journalism organization. Graphs and numbers should be explained in lay terms that both the journalists and the public can grasp. The website would also function as a basic primer for knowledge on a certain issue – essentially an online library of journalist guides and tutorials that have worked well in the past for certain issues. Rapid response team to counter false or misleading scientific claims, track media coverage, provide authoritative contacts, and commend exceptional coverage or provide analyses of unfair and misleading coverage. The group was concerned about how such an effort could most effectively be undertaken. One reporter said he was concerned that any one group set up for the purpose of dispelling what it believes to be false claims would be perceived as claiming "a monopoly on truth." A scientist urged instead that the scientific community would be better served by responding in a thoughtful manner through its own institutions, but precisely which institution or institutions could undertake that effort was unclear. Incentives for journalists to observe and report on scientists in the field. Field observations and the scientists who conduct them, often under harsh circumstances, are an important part of the story of science, participants agreed. Journalists should be encouraged to get out into the field, and their publications need to recognize the value and audience appeal of on-location stories of scientists doing their work. Scientists should seriously consider outreach requirements when they prepare their grant proposals, several scientists emphasized. The National Science Foundation grant process, for example, calls for "broader impacts" outreach, they said, and efforts can include meeting the legitimate needs of the news media to inform and educate their audiences on issues related to science. Credible, issue-specific contact lists for journalists. Journalists said reporters always need extensive lists of credible sources they can reach readily when on deadline. As at the earlier workshops, some pointed to the Scientists Institute for Public Information (SIPI) in the 80s as a model that might be applied now with the benefit of Internet and the World Wide Web. Feedback to media management on the quality of science coverage. Emphasizing to top editorial managers the importance of science journalism can occur at many levels, beginning with feedback from individual researchers when errors occur in media coverage of their work. Reporters stressed the need for scientists not to let broadcast or print errors simply stand. Journalists, on the other hand, must try to publish corrections promptly and prominently. While workshop participants generally found declining science coverage and quality to be a systemic problem, they were not of one mind on how best to reach media managers and owners. Several reporters urged concerned citizens to go directly to the editorial management of their local media outlets with their concerns, either individually or with the backing of an important local institution, business or other organization. Public minded corporations with a large presence in a region might see it as advantageous to their human resource goals to support good science journalism, some said. Some in the group argued for an approach backed by a coalition of science professional societies to emphasize the scope of the problem and help build a dialogue on the state of media and science communication. Interdisciplinary training for journalists and scientists. This and previous workshops identified a number of promising ways to provide a "safe" setting for journalists and scientists to explore ways to better communicate with each other. Among these:
Organizational backing is one issue common to most of these proposals, and the discussions inevitably raised as many questions as answers. Should backing be sought from a professional society or societies? If so, which ones? Alternatively, is a new organization needed to conduct some of the activities discussed above? If so, what form should they take, and what are the resource implications? Scientists through their professional societies put a great deal of effort into service activities – perhaps there could be a place for similarly minded volunteers who are talented in communication. These and other organizational implications will be considered in more detail at future workshops conducted as part of this project.
|