Science and the Media
Dr. John L. Kermond
NOAA/Office of Global Programs
Silver Springs, MD. USA
kermond@ogp.noaa.gov
(The following remarks are made from the perspective of someone who interfaces between the science involved and the media, in both print and television. They are in no order of importance, but they do reflect some operating principles that I have found to be appreciated by the media and are successful for the federal agency or program in getting the requisite message both "out" and comprehended.)
1. Make a policy of communicating what we know, what we do not know, and the significance of both. For instance, with respect to climate change, there is much we have learned and much we have yet to fully understand -- like the role of clouds; like the inadequacies of present-day computer models of complex integrated systems, etc. But we are using the best minds, with the most advanced tools available, and we are making giant strides in understanding, monitoring and predicting earth systems behavior. The ability to forecast reliably an ENSO event is an exellent example of this progress.
2. Provide the reporters or the camera crew with everything that will make their story formulation easier or make even their "sell" to the news editor easier! In September 1997, NOAA/OGP provided 30 minutes of "El Niño" B-roll on Betacam SP tape to attendees at the Radio Television News Directors Association (RTNDA) annual meeting in New Orleans. From direct feedback, we learned that this tape was instrumental in reporters doing stories on the then-predicted El Niño event, and gave them additional footage to use in subsequent stories as the impacts of this very strong event unfolded. (Incidentally, the media in general, in my opinion, did an excellent job in communicating and educating the global public on this ocean-atmosphere phenomena. In fact, WFAA, an ABC affiliate in Dallas, Texas, recorded its largest-ever market share for the third part of a special on El Niño which they aired during ratings week against the very popular NBC show "ER" -- shown nationwide during prime time.)
3. We need to be cognizant of modern news formats. For example, we are now very used to 7- to 12-second long changes of images on television. (You can test this yourself from outside looking in on the light changes from a TV set operating in a darkened room.) This is what makes for sound bites. The bottom line for spokespersons or interviewees is to have your sound bites ready and formulated and to express them with vigor, enthusiasm, and obvious sincerity. Cameramen and editors can hear a sound bite from about 400 yards away! This is what will get on the news on television -- of which most stories only run a total of 2-3 minutes!
4. Print media is pitched at an 8th grade level of reading comprehension. This demands that scientists, in particular, should steer away from jargon and from acronyms, and steer toward common, understandable words. Use "mountains" instead of orographic; use "space" and "time" and get rid of "spatial" and "temporal." An old rule of thumb is that if the word is difficult to spell, then avoid it verbally!
5. Another fact of life in the media business is "if it bleeds, it leads." Many editors want a man-bites-dog story. Most editors will ask the fundamental question of "what’s the news?" (This is most disconcerting for many scientists who want to enthusiastically report that ‘the glacier has moved a millimeter.’) Bottom line here is to relate your science to the person in the street: what does it mean; how does it affect or effect; what are the impacts, both beneficial and adverse; and spice your story with poignant, pointed analogues to enhance the understanding. (The chemistry of the atmosphere has been described by a leading authority as akin to a cajun soup -- nitrogen "base" with lots of different "spices," and rarely the same at any given moment in time or space.)
6. Another given in the industry is the need to show some "balance" in a story. It is reasonably easy to find someone in the scientific community with a different point of view or bias. The real tricky part is when you have a statement endorsed by 2000-plus scientists, and opposed by one or two individuals. To my mind, this is not a formula for balance, and it makes the task of the science communicator that little bit harder -- but certainly more worthwhile. Bottom line: think through what the known antagonists might counter with and develop very crisp sound bite responses which can be used in a question-and-answer session, or liberally referred to throughout the briefing. This ties in directly with my first point. By way of example, the promoters of the experiment that was to track the passage of sound throughout the world’s oceans should have anticipated that opposition would come from folks concerned for the safety and hearing of certain marine mammals. They obviously did not, and the experiment was initially delayed and ultimately abandoned after only one attempt.
7. Government agencies have a bad tendency to want to control briefings, to control access to scientists, and to control the message. Obviously, some sense of decorum must exist, but from my experience, many journalists are "put off" by some government representative announcing the rules of the briefing. Far better for that representative to suggest ways to make the briefing go more smoothly, or faster. This raises another bad tendency of both government agencies and scientists themselves. The tendency to be long-winded. I once experienced a Capitol Hill briefing to a mixed audience of media and staffers that was slated for 2 hours. The time was theoretically cut in half after some swift negotiation. The CNN cameraman told me afterwards that he had over an hour of tape and that he never once heard a sound bite. I set him up for a one-on-one interview and this was the piece that went to air in reporting the story. All of the other presenters missed their marks.