Science Journalism :: Who Do You Trust? Finding the Right Sources Amid the Media Clatter

CHALLENGES IN COMMUNICATING SCIENCE TO CANADIANS ::
How Print Reporters and Editors Construct their Science Stories

Who Do You Trust? Finding the Right Sources Amid the Media Clatter

By Eric Jandciu

Two plus two equals four. The sixth element in the period tables is carbon. The Earth travels around the sun in about 365.26 days. All science is this cut and dry, right?

Wrong.

Science is filled with controversy, disagreements and strong opinions. Unlike the hard facts we learned throughout our early schooling, it does not always elicit yes or no answers. Think about Pluto’s recent demotion from planet status or the debate surrounding genetically modified foods or conflicting opinions about how to effectively contain a disease outbreak. Often, there are no clear answers at all.

When reporting on science, it’s important to cover all sides of a story.

The journalists we talked to as part of a survey of Canadian print science reporters recognized the controversy and uncertainty in science and make efforts to accurately represent the current understanding of reported research.

“[Y]ou can’t just say that science is one unified viewpoint where everybody thinks the same way,” says one long-time science reporter based in Ottawa. “If you take a topic, there are probably at least two sides to it and probably three or four because we don’t know everything…so people have different opinions.”

Almost all of the 25 people we surveyed acknowledged the need for experts to comment on whatever new research they are reporting on.

“The best thing to do is to try and get an independent authority on the subject to comment on the work and to ask them if this is an incremental or a large leap,” says a journalist in Vancouver. “One must also be extremely suspicious of scientists or researchers who make claims that sound like hyperbole. I am especially suspicious of breakthroughs – that’s probably the most overused word in science.”

Skepticism and critical analysis is important for other reasons as well. Scientists are only human, so reporters must remember that they are as susceptible to bias and manipulation as anyone else.

“You have to know where your source is coming from,” says one reporter who covers health topics. “Some of the institutes that send me information are very right-leaning or left-leaning. It’s just a matter of keeping these things in mind. I have to make sure I get the other side.”

Of course, “the other side” does not always exist in science stories – it depends on the type of story you are writing. One journalist says that while his reporting is as balanced as possible, he’ll only include differing options when it’s appropriate. “Some of the science stuff is just explanatory, not controversial.”

This same reporter once talked to an astronaut about his experience going to the space station. There was no other side here. Or, in another case, he interviewed someone about a mastodon bone discovery. This was a brand new finding, so he didn’t need a counter theory at this stage – the scientist had probably not even fully established his or her theory yet.

“Other people can like it or not, but there isn’t always [another side],” he says. “It isn’t like politics where, when you talk to the government, you have to ask opposition, too.”

But when additional sources are necessary, how do journalists usually find them? The people we interviewed indicated that the Internet was by far the fastest and easiest way to identify and locate a source for a story.

“If I’m looking for them, the Internet is the quickest way,” says one reporter. “If the scientist is published you can find them very easily through institutions and looking in [online] journals.”

The second most common answer was to always ask sources "who else should I talk to?" (just as journalism schools teach). Other techniques included calling universities, lobby groups, NGOs and government offices or agencies, as well as attending conferences and by reading a lot.

Although there are many ways to find the right people to talk to, especially given the power and efficiency of searching online, finding sources for science stories can still present challenges.

“Scientists by nature are very cautious people and are reluctant to comment on other people’s work because of the fraternal nature of science and traditionally rigid ways of thinking,” notes one science reporter. “Scientists are often not comfortable talking about things outside their box.”

Another journalist said that sometimes talking to the right sources is difficult or time-consuming because it is first necessary to undo damage that has been previously done by other reporters. He says that a lot of scientists are wary of the media because they’ve been burned in the past by someone who misquoted them.

This journalist often gets around this problem by letting the sources know that he has a degree in human biology. He makes it clear that if they can use “big words,” he’ll still understand. More importantly, he can use the big words back in the right context. Eventually, “they almost forget they are talking to a journalist, not a scientist,” he explains. It takes time to build this trust, but it’s time well invested, he says, because he won’t have to go through the charade of convincing them to comment in subsequent calls.

It’s also important to remember that while finding the right scientist to talk to may be fairly easy, finding characters is harder. “Those take the effort,” says one national newspaper reporter.

Time is another key challenge, according to a journalist based in central Canada. Although she always strives to get an independent comment from another expert in the field to provide perspective on a researcher’s claim, “That’s not always possible with daily deadlines.”

Many journalists recommended developing an established list of trusted (and quotable) contacts that they can refer to on multiple occasions. This approach helps combat the time crunch inherent in daily reporting. And while these sources might not even comment on the story at hand, this base group of people can often recommend other good sources.

“There are a couple of fields where I have found people who are good communicators,” says a reporter who will often phone these sources even if they’re not directly involved in the story. “Those people are pretty valuable.”

Another says: “Having been in the business a long time and writing health stories for quite some time, I have quite a list of contacts in the health-care field who I can call on from time to time in this province.”

Reporters also mentioned sources they would not use in their articles. “Anyone who’s from a PR company is completely out of luck and they know that,” says one journalist. “Drug companies are getting very crafty.”

She says PR representatives will send a story idea saying, “Do you want to talk to so and so about, let’s say, being fat and losing weight?” But when you ask who is funding the research and they say, “Pfizer.” And you say, “Well, we don’t do that.” And they say, “I know. I’m just trying.”

Despite these challenges, most journalists said that finding sources for their stories is not the hardest part of the process.

“Finding the right person isn’t that difficult,” says one reporter. “In a lot of cases it’s getting that person on the phone in time.”