The invitation might come via an email, a voicemail, or a Twitter DM. “Hi,” the message says, as though from a friend, but you don’t recognize the name. “I’m with The Washington Post,” or Popular Science, or your local NPR station. “I’m working on a story about research in your field of expertise. Can we talk?”
Now be honest: What’s your initial reaction?
You’re not alone if your feelings are mixed. A recent survey of more than 500 U.S. academic scientists and engineers found that — while the vast majority believe they can advance professionally by interacting with the news media — most are wary of being interviewed by a reporter. Among their main concerns: Will I be misquoted? Will my words be taken out of context? Will the story oversimplify the science and/or report it inaccurately?
Calculating those benefits and risks is especially difficult in today’s media landscape — a communications ecosystem that has undergone dramatic and somewhat chaotic changes over the past decade. Economic pressures have driven many newsrooms to shrink their editing and fact-checking staffs and demand more stories on shorter deadlines, all while pushing to maximize web clicks and shares. That’s a mix not conducive to predictable outcomes, and a potentially uncomfortable environment for Ph.D.s who are used to running experiments, not being part of one.
At the same time, responses to the survey suggest that a significant fraction of academic researchers — especially men — may be overly confident about their ability to navigate a media interaction successfully. Journalists and scientists may have a lot in common — a shared focus on discovery and on being first to publish, for example — but clearly there is room on both sides for better understanding of their respective cultures, needs, and goals.
The survey, conducted as part of the Science Opinion Panel Survey, garnered responses from 508 academic researchers in departments of biology, geography, civil engineering, and public health at 121 U.S. research institutions (survey details can be found here). It was conducted in January and February of this year by researchers at Arizona State University’s Center for Science, Technology, and Environmental Policy Studies and was designed in collaboration with SciLine, a program I direct. SciLine offers free services to connect scientists and journalists, and is based at the nonprofit American Association for the Advancement of Science.
A number of the results resonated with observations that my team has made in our nearly four years of connecting individual researchers to reporters seeking scientific context for their stories. For example, nearly two-thirds (64 percent) of the respondents had given at least one media interview within the past 12 months, consistent with our experience that many academics have an interest in helping journalists get the science right.
But other responses surprised us:
- Perhaps most striking: Fewer than one in five agreed that “furthering public understanding of science” was one of their motivations for talking with journalists. That contradicts one of the more widely repeated presumptions about why scientists should engage with the news media. It’s unclear whether our survey respondents see the goal of fostering public understanding of science as unimportant, as important but not their responsibility, or as an important responsibility of theirs but not one they feel they can achieve via the media.
- The results undercut another oft-mentioned notion: that many academics are dissuaded from engaging with the media because tenure-and-promotion committees undervalue — and at times even seem to diminish — time spent on public engagement. In our survey, 88 percent of respondents said they agreed with the statement that media interactions help them advance professionally within their university. About half agreed that talking to the media could bring broader awareness of their work and help attract funding or top talent to their labs.
- Finally, the survey results contradict another commonly cited reason why scientists might be chary of talking to a reporter: a fear that they might get a reputation for “seeking the spotlight.” Only 17 percent of respondents were concerned about that.
One factor that does appear to be taking a toll on scientists’ willingness to engage with the media is the increasing politicization of science — a trend that has drawn researchers into treacherous policy debates and has even led to some being publicly attacked merely for having made statements of scientific fact. Asked whether politicization of scientific information has decreased their interest in engaging with the news media, 47 percent agreed. Only 27 percent said it had not.
Some of the more interesting results revolved around the extent to which these Ph.D.s feel prepared to communicate with reporters. Asked how confident they are in their ability to give a successful media interview, 63 percent scored themselves as highly or extremely confident. When pressed on particulars, however, significant numbers also expressed degrees of trepidation about engaging with reporters — suggesting that some of the confidence may be unjustified. For example:
- More than a third (37 percent) said they were concerned about making a mistake in an interview.
- Significant fractions also confessed to worries they’d be insufficiently certain about relevant scientific details to satisfy the needs of an interview (30 percent); they’d find themselves in a situation in which they were not qualified to speak on the topic (28 percent); or they’d appear uninformed or unprepared (25 percent).
- And 27 percent expressed concern about getting a “gotcha question” from which they wouldn’t know how to escape.
Despite the acknowledged risks and concerns, just 38 percent of the surveyed academics expressed even mild interest in media training, which typically covers how to handle exactly the situations these Ph.D.s said they find most challenging.
Gender differences in researchers’ confidence levels were notable. Women scientists were more likely than men to acknowledge insecurities about situations they might face while working with reporters, including the challenge of being put on the spot with a “gotcha” question (38 percent of women versus 18 percent of men); having insufficient scientific certainty on a topic (39 percent versus 24 percent); and appearing to be uninformed or unprepared (34 percent versus 19 percent).
As a former journalist and longtime communications specialist, I have spent the past dozen years connecting scientists to journalists and mediating their respective expectations and professional needs. Based on that experience and the survey results, I offer the following suggestions to academics on dealing with reporters:
You have power in this exchange, too. Scientists and engineers may not realize that the process of being interviewed for a news outlet is not a one-sided arrangement. True, you cannot know in advance what questions may come at you or whether the reporter has a bias or hidden agenda. But there are many ways for you, as a media interviewee, to retain a high degree of control before, during, and after responding to a reporter’s questions.
It is well within your rights, for example — as a prospective source deciding whether to accept an interview request — to make a few requests of your own. Ask the reporter for a fairly detailed description of what the story is about. Inquire whether you can be sent some of the expected questions in advance. Ask whether the story is already largely written — a sign that the reporter is simply seeking a confirmatory or decorative quote, as opposed to the ideal (but not always achievable) opportunity to help shape which way the story goes.
It’s OK to correct reporters. During interviews, when reporters include in their question a premise you disagree with, say so. It’s not rude to say, “Actually, that’s not quite right. Let me explain …” or, “That may be one factor. But the science suggests that a bigger issue is … .”
It’s also OK to ask clarifying questions along the way to make sure you understand what the reporter is really getting at or to get the journalist to consider a different perspective.
Plan your exit strategy. A skillful way to extricate yourself from gotcha questions is to have a few practiced responses in your back pocket. For example: “Well, I’m a scientist, so let’s stick to the evidence, and here’s what the evidence says .…” (which allows you to pivot to the facts), or, “There’s not a simple answer to that question, so I’d like to follow up with you on that” — and actually do so, even if it’s to say very little. (One response to avoid: “No comment,” which is very much a comment, and generally not one that reflects well on you).
Make sure you’re understood. There’s a lot you can do to convey your points clearly — for example, by avoiding jargon, acronyms, or other scientific shorthand. After years of layoffs in newsrooms across the country, a lot of science reporting today is done by “general assignment” reporters — a remarkably versatile breed, willing and able to jump on whatever news is breaking, but typically with little background in science. If you absolutely have to use a technical term, explain it. (Keep in mind, however: Some research has shown that even when jargon is “explained,” listeners are less persuaded by the facts than when it is not used at all.)
Terms with obvious meaning to you may have an entirely different meaning to these nonscientists. In climate science, for example, the phrase “positive feedback” is worrisome (it could be used to describe spiraling increases in temperature that can occur when heat-trapping methane is released from the tundra as the Arctic warms), but the average writer craves it!
At the end of the interview, you still have options. You can — and indeed should — ask reporters to reflect back to you the most important message they heard you say. It’s a great opportunity to make corrections before those errors go to press.
Likewise, offer to be available, after hours if need be, to fact-check anything the reporter may feel uncertain about.(Keep in mind: Some media outlets don’t allow their writers to read back your quotes or share passages.)
All in all, you can have a lot more control over an interview than may be obvious, but that doesn’t mean it is easy. As with most skills, successfully conveying scientific evidence, fostering trust in how it was derived, and describing its relevance requires real commitment and practice. If you want to engage with the media — whether to enhance your professional career or to fulfill the righteous goal of furthering public understanding of science — then I encourage you to seek out and sign up for some training. Many universities offer media training, as do some nonprofit organizations (including SciLine and other AAAS programs) and for-profit companies.
Modern media has an immense amplifying power, and stakeholders of many stripes have learned to take advantage of it today — including, alas, purveyors of misinformation, fear, and deception. Unlike many of these vocal interests, you as a scientist or engineer have the professional credibility and evidentiary base to pull the media lever with particular effect.
Stepping into the messy swirl of news can be daunting, and there is no reason why the world of newsroom deadlines, reporter-source etiquette, and editorial processes should be any less mystifying to you than experimental design, grant proposals, and peer review are for that reporter. But together with journalists, you can help ensure that methodically derived evidence has its rightful place in the daily mix. Both sides of this information exchange can find opportunities to understand, learn from, and collaborate with one another.