Bora Zivkovic, on his A Blog Around the Clock, recently wrote a post on the new science journalism ecosystem: new inter-species interactions, new niches. Bora’s thought-provoking post was written in response to an opinion piece that appeared in Nature last June, Science journalism: Toppling the priesthood (behind a paywall, unfortunately), in which Toby Murcott argued that science journalists need to delve deeper and be more critical in their reporting of scientific findings. Bora intended his post “to provoke discussion,” and it has. It certainly pushed some buttons for me.
Among other things, Bora suggests that the distinction many people (particularly journalists) draw between public information officers (PIOs) and professional journalists is an artificial one, and that “PIOs, many of whom have science degrees, are actually doing the brunt of science journalism these days.” In this context Bora defines science journalism as “reporting and explaining science.” He argues further that investigative science journalism is not “real” science journalism. In his book it is “just investigative journalism in which the people under scrutiny just happen accidentally to be scientists,” and as such, he says, that type of journalism does not require that the reporter understand science.
As someone who has been a scientist, a PIO, and a journalist, I must beg to differ. First, I think there is a distinction between a PIO and a science journalist. And second, I don’t think we can or should exclude or set apart investigative journalism from the broader category of science journalism.
I should note that I do agree with Bora that “we need to eliminate [the] antagonism between newsroom journalists and institutional journalists (formerly known as PIOs).” That historical antagonism, in which journalists sometimes disrespectfully refer to PIOs as flacks, is not only unkind but hypocritical, since plenty of journalists who look down their noses at PIOs get story ideas from those same (or other) PIOs in the form of news releases or story pitches.
Nevertheless, there is a difference between a science journalist and a PIO who covers science or medicine – though both may be science writers. True, the boundaries have become somewhat blurred, as some PIOs write news releases that are at least as good as a newspaper article (and certainly most television reports) in terms of explaining the science and telling a story. That’s in part because many science writers who once wrote for newspapers and other mainstream media outlets have crossed the aisle and taken jobs as PIOs, thanks to job cuts and buyouts in the MSM.
But a PIO’s main job is to represent her institution and get publicity/coverage for that institution’s research, get its message out, and get the institution’s name (or “brand” as it may be called these days) in front of the public in a positive way. A PIO may also have to help with crisis communications – for example, if something goes wrong with a clinical trial that a scientist at her institution is conducting. Whereas a science journalist covering that story would have a different goal, namely uncovering and reporting the full story, which may put the institution involved in a bad light. I’m sure that science journalists and PIOs out there could (and I hope you will) come up with other examples.
So on to my second point: Is the aforementioned journalist automatically an “investigative journalist” and not a “science journalist” because she is reporting something unpleasant that occurred in the world of research? I would say no, because that same journalist may also write more straightforward “wow, that’s neat” science stories. And an understanding of the underlying science is certainly helpful in reporting the “something smells fishy” stories as well as the “wow, that’s neat” stories. I maintain that one person can and may do both types of science reporting, so it doesn’t make sense to separate “investigative journalism” from “science journalism.”
That distinction may become even more artificial when considering science feature writing as opposed to shorter science stories on a single finding. After all, isn’t it common to discover differing opinions and even controversies when delving more deeply into a particular area of scientific research and talking to several scientists in the field? I’ve often found such controversies even though I wasn’t looking for them, simply by asking good questions. And couldn’t writing about those controversies or opinions be considered a form of investigative journalism?
Dan Ferber made some excellent points about the role of investigative journalism in reporting on science in a comment here, in a discussion thread spurred by David Dobbs’s post about the then-impending Rebooting Science Journalism session at the ScienceOnline2010 meeting that took place in January. John Timmer also made some good points about this in his thoughts on Rebooting Science Journalism.
That type of investigative science journalism is also perhaps where the line between a PIO and a science journalist becomes more distinct, as a PIO is in most cases not likely to point out that the finding described in a news release is controversial among scientists in the field. Nor will a PIO be likely to point out the weaknesses in a scientific study, whereas a journalist may interview and quote another researcher in the field who provides that perspective while still affirming the value or intriguing nature of the finding.
In the case of more in-depth, hard-hitting investigative journalism on topics involving science or medicine (e.g., the recent New York Times series on problems with radiation therapy), a science or medical journalist may very well work together with an investigative journalist on a story, since science journalists are often not trained to do hard-core investigative reporting, whereas an investigative journalist usually won’t understand the scientific nuances of the story. (I’m not sure a science reporter was involved in the NY Times series on radiation, but there are other examples out there.)
Finally, getting back to the distinction between PIOs and journalists, of course there are good PIOs and bad PIOs, including those who hype the findings, just as there are good and bad journalists. Different institutions, too, have different expectations of their PIOs. But the bottom line is that, whether we like it or not, the job descriptions for these two fields differ in some notable ways, although there is certainly overlap as well.
Tags: investigative journalism, PIOs, public information officers, science journalism, Science writing
March 15, 2010 at 1:31 pm |
Wow, I am so on the same page with you in terms of these distinctions. Thumbs-up, great articulation of the definitions behind the titles and how people in these positions work together. I have worked an institutional science writer for a university, and I have freelanced for research organizations, newspapers and a few magazines — and that sort of hybridization is totally looked down upon by old-school journalists, but is increasingly done to the needs of economic survival. Just had an interesting twitter exchange this morning with @bobfinn who thinks that even staff journalists who write articles for the Charlotte Observer’s Sci-Tech section are “not doing journalism” because the section is underwritten by a corporate sponsor (Duke Energy) — an example I bring forward because it shows that even within the field of news organizations there is huge differentiation between what people the industry term “journalism” much less who is a journalist or a science journalist. But back to your post, I agree that investigative journalism and science journalism should not be artificially separated — both are just work processes, and they may or may not be used in tangent on the same story. Thoughtful post, thanks for writing it.
March 15, 2010 at 2:38 pm |
Excellent. I actually agree. I just did not have enough space in my post to go into this much nuance as much. Also, as I was trying to remain provocative (as in “provoking discussion”) I needed to draw clearer lines in the sand than what is probably realistic. Great addition to the discussion.
This all hinges on the definition of “journalism” which is quickly expanding these days to include many forms that did not exist until recently. The natural response by professional journalists is to recoil and to excessively narrow down the definition of journalism to only ‘investigative journalism’ as that is one last area where they feel they can at least stand on equal ground with millions of amateurs. On the other hand, the over-expansive definition of journalism to equate it with ‘communication’ (any and all of communication, regardless of the medium, author, if money changes hands, copyright owner, etc.) blurs the question too much.
Where is the dividing line between journalism and non-journalistic communication? I don’t know. But wherever it is, it is arbitrary, i.e., something we can fight about, or agree on, but really just a social/cultural decision we need to make.
March 15, 2010 at 2:44 pm |
This was an excellent post. As a PIO *and* a journalist, I wholeheartedly agree that PIOs are capable of some of the best science writing around, but at the end of the day, they are representatives of an organisation and their job is to promote the science of that organisation. That creates a vested interest, no matter how small it may be.
March 15, 2010 at 2:59 pm |
Bora asks “Where is the dividing line between journalism and non-journalistic communication?… it is arbitrary.” No, it’s not arbitrary. Blurry maybe, but not arbitrary.
March 15, 2010 at 9:16 pm |
Indeed not. I don’t think you’d ever be able to qualify a list of criteria that are necessary and sufficient to define a journalist. But then, what in life is ever really that clear cut?
To draw an analogy, the concept of life itself has blurry boundaries that people argue over. But whatever you think about whether viruses or prions make the grade, that doesn’t change my ability to proclaim that I am clearly alive and the keys I’m typing on clearly are not.
March 15, 2010 at 3:26 pm |
From an outside perspective where the audience is often lay persons, I have found that two things kept coming up. 1) How intimidated the people who want to share the discoveries are that their opinions will be “wrong”, so they don’t go beyond just linking and requoting which leads to little understanding and embracing of the materials. 2) PIO’s expectations have been set to being pursued for comments and expert opinion which means more responsibility falls on the writer for due diligence which may be lacking in the rapid post, here today gone today web writing world.
Being that I am more of a generalist this may be difference between science journalism and just enthusiasm for promoting science.
March 15, 2010 at 3:29 pm |
Thanks all for your comments.
DeLene: I agree with your last comment–the dividing line is not arbitrary, though it may be hard to pinpoint.
Bora: In your blog post you also included this little exchange to illustrate how non-scientists, including some journalists, think about science:
- Can you play violin?
- Sure, of course
- Have you ever played?
- No. But it looks easy, I’m sure I can do it.
But that same type of comment has been made by science journalists about scientists who “like to write” and thus think it would be a snap to change careers and become a science journalist/science writer! It can and has been done successfully many times, but it takes some effort to educate oneself, formally or informally, about the ethics, methods, and craft of journalism. I for one am still learning.
March 15, 2010 at 3:44 pm |
Many people assume that somebody else’s job is easy to pick up, and so yes that argument is a two-way street (denigrating the craft and professionalism involved in any career). I will be the first to say that I am in the early stages of my writing career, but I’m committed to improving my craft day-in and day-out… not just the writing, but the research and reporting process too. It seems like science journalists are this rare breed — every one wants to be one, but few truly are or practice the craft well. I prefer to use the title “freelance science writer” because it is broader than “science journalist” and is a more apt description of my evolving professional activities.
March 15, 2010 at 3:54 pm |
Nice post, Elia (so YOU are the mysterious @smallpkg!). You articulated many of the thoughts that rose to the fore when I read Bora’s post. And I’m glad to see Bora seems to agree, mostly, with the distinctions you draw and the differences in mission (and therefore potential range of concern) between PIOs and journalists.
A huge part of the problem is that we’re often talking about ‘journalists’ and ‘journalism’ at a time when the meaning of both terms is necessarily changing — and into what, we’re not quite sure. Yet we need to recognize the clear differences in interest between a PIO and an outside writer who can (not necessarily WILL, but can, and should) look at a story/issue/finding critically to see where it properly lies on the neato-to-smelly spectrum. A PIO’s job is virtually be definition to work at the Neato end of that spectrum, and any PIO will face severe constraints in calling to public attention any funny smells. it’s a journalist’s job, I would say, to keep the nose clear — and wrinkle it appropriately when things do smell fishy.
That’s a big difference and one of enormous consequence.
March 15, 2010 at 6:29 pm |
Thanks, David for your comments. (I didn’t know I was a woman of mystery! Which one of us did you meet at ScienceOnline?
) I like your extension of the nasal metaphor! In that regard (and as others have pointed out before me) scientists and journalists have much in common, since both are trained to be skeptical. It will be interesting to see how things in the realm of science journalism shake out, if and when they settle down.
March 16, 2010 at 5:20 pm |
Just to reply to DD’s comment that “A PIO’s job is virtually be definition to work at the Neato end of that spectrum, and any PIO will face severe constraints in calling to public attention any funny smells.” — Earle Holland (PIO at OSU) was on a panel at NASW two years ago where he talked about this, and he advocates a different tact. Both he and another academic PIO talked about examples where things had gone wrong at their university’s and they had to issue statements about what was happening (one case involved a table-top nuclear reactor system that started leaking; I think the other involved a major case of academic dishonesty and having to deny a PhD candidate a degree, it touched on creationism issues). It was an interesting take that heavily emphasized public trust. I’m not saying this happens in all cases, but a good PIO would recognize the issues of public trust by getting a statement out right away so it doesn’t look like they are hiding anything. Of course, they are going to frame that statement a certain way, and the journalist still has work to do…
March 16, 2010 at 5:37 pm
DeLene, I agree. On a related note: In my days as a PIO at a federal agency (NIH), I was occasionally in the position of recommending *against* issuing a news release, or recommending that we write a news release that gave a more conservative interpretation of the results of a paper that the researcher’s own institution was hyping in their news release. In the case I’m remembering, the researcher was a clinician who had a financial stake in a supplement whose benefits his institution’s news release was touting, via an overly rosy interpretation of some interim results of a clinical trial. AND he/his university wanted NIH to call a press conference to announce his findings! Luckily I worked with some great scientific program directors/grant administrators who were able to provide expertise and perspective in such cases.