[MUSIC] All right, let's give a little bit of practical advice to a scientists or young researcher encountering a science journalist. What should they do and not do? >> This exotic animals [LAUGH] >> That you actually wanted to go and meet. >> I mean, I think it's really important to remind scientists, both beginner scientists and even established scientists. That this is not a situation in which you've suddenly lost all power and control, right? I think it's important, I've talked in other parts of our conversation about vetting sources. It's okay for you to try to know something about the journalists you're talking to. And I usually, >> You Google? >> If you yes, Google works, what have they written? Who are they? A lot of times some high end journalists, I was just Googling someone or on Wikipedia, right? Who are they? Is there what's their political background, what's their track record? I'll when I'm interviewing a scientist I'll run them through google scholar or pop matador that if I'm really suspicious and something like retraction watch. Which is an online database of retracted papers. But I think if I'm going into an interview with a journalist, I want to know who they are and I want my own sense in advance of the interview. And this is someone I'm going to feel comfortable talking to. And so, I highly recommend doing that. You're going to get a sense anyway of whether it's a trained science journalist or whether there were certainly greatly outnumbered by general assignment reporters. And a lot of times the journalists you're talking to, is going to be a general assignment reporter. So, I often encourage scientists to start out by saying, give me a sense of your familiarity with the field. Because for one thing that's going to tell you how much you're going to have to explain. And for another thing that's going to tell you this, this particular journalists did any research at all or bothered to understand the field. And just to give you a horrible example from an east of meeting I went to, what's that, I think that was in Italy. But they had brought in a chemist from Israel that just won the Nobel prize, he had done work on protein folding. And there was a German television reporter always want to trash someone who's not a print journalist like me. But there was a German television reporter, who stood up in the press conference and said to him when you're an expert in proteins. And could you give me your perspective on protein and rich shampoo. [LAUGH] And my was, because when you were a reporter you're like, this looks great for the profession. And you know what he said to her, he was great and he said to her, well, you know, that's not really my area of expertise. But he went on to say, your hair doesn't actually absorb protein so you can put as much protein you want into a shampoo. It just washes right off. And so, just be aware. >> [INAUDIBLE] >> Yes, [LAUGH] that's exactly right. I mean, I still remember that so clearly in this PDS kind of way. But the fact of the matter is, reporter will send a message to the scientists about whether they've done any basic homework. And you want that message going into the interview. And you would then want to have thought in advance about what are those. And I usually say to people, the 3 to 5 main things that I absolutely think needed to come across and I want to get through. >> So, plan it in advice. >> That's right. And, if it's no more than what's really important to me, is that you spell my name right and acknowledge my major professor. If I'm a grad student, or what is it that is, or here's what I think is the primary point of this finding. >> Yeah. >> And I absolutely want to make sure that you have gotten that primary point. And I say that because, I get interviewed a lot because I'm a book author. And I developed this strategy very early on, here's the five important things. And then don't sweat the small stuff which scientists often tend to do, well, they didn't mention that, they said my coffee cup was red and it was really blue. We don't care about that, right? We care about getting the point of the actual experiment across. So, focus on what you want to get across and have something of that in your mind when you >> Can you do this by email and interview? >> You can do email interviews, they're better in person on the phone or by zoom or however you choose to do it, because you have more of a give and take. >> Because I've often found that some scientists are almost afraid to talk on the phone because they think they they put it in writing it will get incorrectly. >> Yes. And I will accept email interview. I like email best for follow up, right? >> Yeah. >> And I like the conversation to actually build the relationship. So, you get a sense of each other. One of the things that good journalists do and you can listen for this is something that is often called at least in our professional, echo interview. In which I'm talking about water. But what I say to you, is H 20 is one of the most dominant compounds on the planet. And then I echo that back to you. So, I'm hearing you say that there's a lot of water on earth. >> Yeah. >> And that allows you to hear me translating it into the common language and and understanding if I've actually gotten that translation right. And so, that's a technique I'll use a lot, a scientist will talk as they often do in a jargon anyway. You're trying as a reporter to coax them out of the jargon. But sometimes the most effective thing you can do and if you're a scientist you can listen for this or encourage it. Is to echo it back in the way you might translate it, so they can get a feel for whether you're actually understanding what they're saying. And so, you can't actually in an interview, launch into some highly technical explanation. And then, say to the reporter, could you repeat that back to me so I can make sure I've explained that well, right? And so, there are different ways that you can actually try to make sure that the points you want to get across are understood by the reporter. And that you've expressed them in the best possible way. >> So, but this presupposes that if the journalists understood it it gets correctly conveyed into print or TV. >> Right. >> What do you do if it isn't? >> Well, some scientists will ask to look at the story in advance. >> Do you say yes to that? >> No. >> Why? >> I don't because I think as a standard I say yes to, let me show you this these parts of the article that our technical that I want to make sure I've explained correctly. And let me say yes to, I'm going to use this quote of yours and I want you to be comfortable with the context I'm using it in, right? >> I will do that. >> So, I'll do specific parts, but I don't want my sources To have to see the whole article and have any kind of vetting authority over there because that's a little too cozy, we wouldn't do that. And with a political reporter or I'm reporting on Donald Trump, I'm not going to say to him, please approve this story in advance, right? >> Right. >> And I think to me that same principle applies to science except that you do have a highly technical information and sometimes you want to make sure you've gotten the description right. And I will do >> Deborah there's a huge variation however, culturally around the world on this question.I mean, you're describing orthodox American view of it in Germany in the press. It's a different expectation and attitude that there are many German journalists I know will send the whole article and the scientists will come back wanting changes and insisting on changes. >> So if I'm a reader rich in that situation and I know that that's the process. Do I trust the journalist to have done the independent inquiry and as we hail objectivity that this is an objective story when the scientist has approved and altered it. >> Depends on the culture of your country and society, right? So, I mean, I think the answer would be different in Japan or Germany than it would be if you were talking in Italy or Spain. That is to say, I mean there's a lot of research is to country by country, to what extent do people trust authority and or distrust authority and that also affects how much they believe in what they read. >> Yeah, that's a good and if you totally didn't trust journalists, but you did trust scientists, maybe you would trust the story more. I like this kind of partial I've had scientists vet this the scientific facts are correct better than my primary source approved my article, right? Maybe that is an American. Well, a problem that we as journalists in Europe often encounter is that if you do get drawn into that situation, which sometimes is unavoidable, then you find the source commenting on what other people said, Are we going to have a dialogue with people who aren't present? >> Right, and so you and in that sense, you may have even ambushed the other people. >> Yeah, because they didn't see that. >> And then the scientists who didn't like what they said, writes them and said I see you are a **** about me or words to that effect. And so it opens the allowing someone else to vet the whole thing when there are a source in your story opens all of these really difficult things. >> Okay, is it any different now, let's imagine you're a policymaker talking to a science journalist. So we're talking about somebody at one of the the European medicines agency or something who reviewing Covid vaccine authorizations? So, is it any different for them dealing with the journalist? >> I mean, I think that there's some of my advice would be exactly the same. You think about the points you want to get across, right? And you should have those clearly in mind to come out on the other side of the interview or to read this story where you're going to feel like you succeeded is when the points that you thought had to be made actually showed up in the story. That doesn't mean that the journalists might talk to other people who criticize some of your points, but your points are there and you've made them well. And I think that applies equally to whether you're a scientist or a policymaker. You really want to think what is it that I absolutely have to get across in this interview. >> But the penalties for being misreported or perhaps directly reported is higher. The penalty is higher for a public servant than it is for a researcher. >> It can be, right? Now that researchers can't take a real beating in public too as we all can. Part of that is and, and again, I think there's some overlap in both of these situations. You think as a policymaker about the risks of exposure? Probably in a different way, right? What do I need to get across? What could be misinterpreted? What do I not want to share? And so one of the tricky things and all of this is that I I believe I'm a journalist. I believe that everything grows better in the light including policy. I believe that policy makers they're public servants so the issue is not whether people are going to be mean to them. The issue is whether they're getting good information about a proposed policy or even a policy that's about to be put into effect out there. >> Well then this gets the prime question, why do we need science journalists at all? Why do we need a mediator? >> Well, so I think I of course I'm a longtime science journalist. I think that we need people who stand apart from the institutions themselves to tell the story. Then stories to explore and this could be science, this can be other governmental actions, this can be international intrigue. This can be it doesn't matter what the institution is. But I think we always need as a society people who tell these stories who aren't standing within the midst of the institution but outside it. And we need that because those people in the way that for instance we were just talking about false balance right are going to look at all the different angles of the story. We're not invested in the position of the British government, we're not invested in the politics of the German environmental agency. We are not invested in making the US, EPA look good when sometimes it doesn't ,right? We are invested in telling the story as accurately as we can in journalism at its best is exactly that were independent inquiry. We're the people who tell the stories of science and we shine lights on parts of it. The human parts of it that need to be understood that the institutional science may not feel so warm and fuzzy about sharing right? We eliminate that and we do it in ways and this I think is one of our unique gifts that make it accessible to people who are not part of the science community, right? That gives them the tools to packing up and getting even higher on my soapbox here. Science and technology are transformative forces in the world, right? And they they continue to transform the world today. Climate change is a is a product of technology right? And the way we've developed our use of fossil fuels for instance. The fact that we're talking about digital media and the problems of the big media social network platforms like Facebook is the development of technology the our understanding of Covid 19 and our ability to push back in it is a product of science. This is a powerful transformative force in our lives and all of us need to understand it well enough that we can navigate the world if it as it changes and science journalists because we're part of the general public were not part of the institutions. We actually are part of the general public. Understand the importance of those navigation tools and we want to share them. We don't they were not held back by politics. We're not worried about how our policy is going to look to the general public. We want to give you the tools to understand and explore the world around. And frankly we need them. And in the same way that people will talk about the importance of independent journalism for democracy. We need that for science too. We need that for all human enterprises. I won't argue that journalism isn't also a human enterprise. And that we shouldn't shine a light on ourselves because we should also do that. But in telling the story of science, if we turn only to institutions with vested interests, all of us are very poorly served. And science journalists are essential to the fact that we're able to go beyond that. >> Which is essentially the same argument about why there should be an independent press generally. >> Yes. And it's a really good one. >> Well thank you very much Deborah very interesting discussion and good luck with the program at MIT. And your new crop of journalists coming in soon. So thank you very much. >> Thank you Rich, I've enjoyed every minute of the conversation. >> Well that was a very interesting discussion, I'm sure. And I hope that you found what do we take away from this? Let's say that you are a researcher, a scientist in Europe and the US anywhere. And you're thinking about how to talk to a journalist maybe to get your research published talked about maybe even getting into Facebook heavens, what do you do? So some basic suggestions, I think come from that discussion that you just heard. One, find out who you're talking to what publication are they from? Is it big? Is it small? Can you glean anything about the quality of the work they do google them? The journalist is googling you as a researcher so you might as well turn the tables and go back. Find out how far you think the knowledge of that journalist has developed in your field. And then I guess the third thing you do is think about a little bit. Why do they want to talk to you? Why would they want to talk to you? Let's assume that you've had a paper published in a reputable scientific journal. And the journalist promoting it as news. How do you get the journalist to talk? Why would they talk to you? And so that comes back to then who is their audience? Is it a general audience? Is it a specialized audience, a knowledgeable audience or not? All of these are questions that you should be thinking about before the discussion even begins with the journalists. And I think another point that came through that discussion is before you pick up that phone or send the first email. You should also think about what is that you want to get out of this interview out of this article. What's Deborah suggested five key points. I might even go further and say, what's the one key point that you really want to be sure that the journalist understood. And the journalist gets into the published article or the shown video. Think about that in advance. Actually write it down in advance one sentence and keep that in mind. Don't get too distracted. The interview goes forward. The journalists may want to get back to you. Don't expect necessarily that the journalists is going to come back to you to clear your quotes. In many countries, particularly the US, they probably will not in some countries they will. It's up to you in the discussion with the journalists to make sure the journalists understood it. And you can actually ask directly, did you understand what I'm saying in a polite way, polite away than that, please. But get them to repeat it back to you. And lastly, I would say that if when the article appears. If you think there were errors in it of significance, mind not trivial ones, complain and follow up and make sure that that publication corrects it and don't give up until they do. If it's important, it should be corrected. And if they're reputable, they should correct it. So that's a suggestion. And the last thing I would say also, if you are at a university, then you probably have a press office or communications department. And you probably ought to talk to them about this before you do it all. Perhaps they might help you, particularly if you're trying to promote the research that you're doing. So those are the lessons for the researcher. There were some lessons I think that came out for journalists themselves. For science journalists, some of their obvious but they are part of the ethics of what we as science journalists do or should do. And when you're in science journalism, the first thing is be careful. Check the papers, check the bona fides of the researchers that you're talking to. Don't take it for granted that if somebody's got a Nobel Prize in chemistry, they're qualified to talk about social science. Be aware of who you're talking to and what they know. And again check and double check. That's both when interviewing them. But also when writing and when editing any professional journalist knows, no matter how much you try errors do creep in. And so you have to check and double check. The second point is be responsible misinformation and disinformation, particularly in fields like health science can kill people. It's important to realize that and to not get taken away by the desire to get clips to please an editor or to get a big audience. It still has to be right and responsibly written. The last point is as journalists, we must be interesting. Think why would people read this article? As simple as that basic skills of journalism. So thank you very much for watching this episode of the online course. Thank you. [MUSIC]
