Many environmental scientists understand that there is value in communicating about their work through the media, as publicity can help raise public awareness of a conservation threat and help build support for a policy solution. Most training material focuses on how to craft and deliver effective messages. However, this is only part of the skillset required to be effective as a media-savvy science communicator. Despite recognizing how positive media coverage can help the environmental causes they care about, many scientists are leery of speaking with journalists about their areas of expertise, owing to concerns about possible bad experiences. Here, we argue that scientists have many tools available that can affect the likelihood of whether a given interaction goes well, or goes poorly. We articulate some basic differences between professional norms in journalism versus those of science, and provide specific advice and strategies that can maximize the likelihood of a positive outcome, and reduce potential for harm. Specific examples of how we’ve used these strategies in interviews about climate change and endangered species conservation are provided throughout. By more thoroughly understanding all sides of a scientist-journalist relationship and the associated science-media cycle, scientists will be in a better position to increase the chance that their work will have the conservation impact they intend.
This section (part 4) focuses on common issues associated with scientists speaking to journalists, and their solutions. Part 1 focuses on key background about the science-media ecosystem and the roles and responsibilities of journalists. Part 2 focuses on mastering interviews themselves. Part 3 focuses on a scientist’s role in writing a press release about their work. Subsequent parts will include tips for navigating the current science crisis in the United States. While our examples reference our careers as conservation scientists, the principles and tips discussed throughout are broadly applicable to scientists in many related disciplines.
1) Common issue or point of potential conflict: Scheduling and availability
Desired outcome: An interview occurs that allows a scientist to provide their perspective
Undesirable outcome: An interview does not occur
Scientist actions likely to increase the chance of a desirable outcome: Scientist clears their calendar entirely during the period in which interviews may take place. Scientist provides journalist with phone number where they can be reached at short notice. If a call or email is missed, they respond promptly – within 15 minutes, ideally, even if it is to schedule or decline an interview.
Scientist actions likely to increase the chance of an undesirable outcome: Scientist is non-responsive to requests. Scientist does not take reasonable steps to make themselves available for interviews in a manner that fits the schedule of journalists.
2) Common issue or point of potential conflict: Terminology
Desired outcome: The scientist clearly expresses their perspective in an understandable, relatable way and it gets quoted
Undesirable outcome: The scientist’s perspective is not included because the journalist could not understand it, or is included but presented incorrectly
Scientist actions likely to increase the chance of a desirable outcome: Care is taken to avoid jargon or, where necessary, define it. Any analogies or metaphors are precisely selected to enhance the journalist’s ability to understand the topic
Scientist actions likely to increase the chance of an undesirable outcome: Scientist uses abundant jargon without offering definitions. Imprecise metaphors are used that do not reflect the scientist’s intent. Repeated requests by the journalist to clarify points are ignored.
3) Common issue or point of potential conflict: Presentation
Desired outcome: The interview goes off without a technical hitch, the focus of the discussion is on the topic at hand, not “can you hear me now”
Undesirable outcome: Audio quality or internet connection is so poor that the scientist is not clearly understood or heard at all.
Scientist actions likely to increase the chance of a desirable outcome: Scientist is engaged, appears and sounds interested in their work, and is enthusiastic to share it.
Scientist takes all reasonable steps to have a clear connection with little background noise, particularly for radio interviews.
Scientist actions likely to increase the chance of an undesirable outcome: Scientist appears distracted or disengaged from the topic, or is reluctantly or combatively engaging with the interview. (e.g. “my chair is making us do this, so let’s get it over with”) Scientist has a broken microphone with poor audio quality. The interview is conducted in a space with lots of background noise.
4) Common issue or point of potential conflict: Accuracy
Desired outcome: The article accurately reflects key points and the scientist and their peers and funders are pleased with how everything is presented.
Undesirable outcome: The resulting article perpetuates confusion or misconceptions, sometimes indirectly implying that the interviewed expert said something opposite of what they were trying to say.
Scientist actions likely to increase the chance of a desirable outcome: Scientist speaks with precision. Scientist accurately communicates within the domain that they intend to communicate. Key points are prepared in advance, and key statistics are accurately and clearly presented to the journalist.
Scientist empathetically works with the journalist to frame the subject accurately. When questions from the journalist appear to misunderstand the premise of the topic, the scientist appropriately bridges to an answer that accurately reflects the work.
Scientist actions likely to increase the chance of an undesirable outcome: Scientist does not prepare key points in advance, and attempts to articulate them without preparation. Loose terminology makes it difficult for the journalist to know specifically what point the scientist is trying to make. Scientist mocks the journalist for asking a “stupid question” rather than saying “I think you mean this…”
5) Common issue or point of potential conflict: Sensitivity/social responsibility
Desired outcome: The focus of resulting conversation is about the article about the scientist’s work
Undesirable outcome: The article about the scientist’s work is used to perpetuate harm to vulnerable communities
Scientist actions likely to increase the chance of a desirable outcome: Scientist uses inclusive metaphors that do not perpetuate racism, ableism, etc. Scientist is mindful, thoughtful, and inclusive in their presentation of their work.
Scientist actions likely to increase the chance of an undesirable outcome: Scientist uses problematic terms, racist metaphors, Scientist presents their views as the views of a community to which they do not belong.
6) Common issue or point of potential conflict: Political sensitivity
Desirable outcome: The scientist avoids having their work used to advance a harmful cause
Undesirable outcome: The scientist’s work is used to advance a cause contrary to the public good
Scientist actions likely to increase the chance of a desirable outcome: Scientist is mindful about how their work is likely to be used to advance a particular cause, and remains engaged in the public conversation especially if their work is used in anti-social ways
Scientist actions likely to increase the chance of an undesirable outcome: Scientist believes themselves to be “above the fray,” without responsibility for the impacts that their research, believes they can “just talk about the science” and not worry about likely use of their work
7) Common issue or point of potential conflict: Validity
Desirable outcome: Scientist clarifies misconceptions and aids in public understanding of their area of expertise
Undesirable outcome: Scientist perpetuates misinformation about subjects that they do not actually understand
Scientist actions likely to increase the chance of a desirable outcome: Scientists accurately and clearly present the work from their paper, and avoids commenting on issues that were not a finding of their work or for which they do not possess expertise. Scientists differentiate between when they are speaking as an expert with unique expertise on a given subject, vs. a well-informed member of the public with no specific insider knowledge on a given subject.
Scientist actions likely to increase the chance of an undesirable outcome: Scientist strays from their core message and comments on things that they do not have expertise on, likely introducing errors. Scientist presents an off-the-cuff opinion not strongly supported by their work without clearly establishing the difference between that off-the-cuff remark and key conclusions from their paper or report.
REFERENCES for all parts of this series
Albæk, E. (2011). The interaction between experts and journalists in news journalism. Journalism, 12(3), 335-348.
Autzen, C. (2014). Press releases—the new trend in science communication. Journal of Science Communication, 13(3), C02.
Bhattacharya, A. (2012). Nine Ways Scientists Demonstrate They Don’t Understand Journalism. The Guardian, 01-17.
Bossema, F. G., Burger, P., Bratton, L., Challenger, A., Adams, R. C., Sumner, P., … & Smeets, I. (2019). Expert quotes and exaggeration in health news: a retrospective quantitative content analysis. Wellcome Open Research, 4.
Boykoff, M. T., & Boykoff, J. M. (2007). Climate change and journalistic norms: A case-study of US mass-media coverage. Geoforum, 38(6), 1190-1204.
Cooke, S. J. (2019). From frustration to fruition in applied conservation research and practice: ten revelations. Socio-Ecological Practice Research, 1(1), 15-23.
Cooke, S. J., Rytwinski, T., Taylor, J. J., Nyboer, E. A., Nguyen, V. M., Bennett, J. R., … & Smol, J. P. (2020). On “success” in applied environmental research—What is it, how can it be achieved, and how does one know when it has been achieved? Environmental Reviews, 28(4), 357-372.
Crandall, C. A., Monroe, M. C., & Lorenzen, K. (2020). Why Won’t They Listen to Us? Communicating Science in Contentious Situations. Fisheries, 45(1), 42-45.
Dayer, A. A., Williams, A., Cosbar, E., & Racey, M. (2019). Blaming threatened species: Media portrayal of human–wildlife conflict. Oryx, 53(2), 265-272.
De Semir, V., Ribas, C., & Revuelta, G. (1998). Press releases of science journal articles and subsequent newspaper stories on the same topic. Jama, 280(3), 294-295.
Dijkstra, A., Roefs, M. M., & Drossaert, C. H. (2015). The science-media interaction in biomedical research in the Netherlands. Opinions of scientists and journalists on the science-media relationship. Journal of Science Communication, 14(2), A03.
Evans, M. C., & Cvitanovic, C. (2018). An introduction to achieving policy impact for early career researchers. Palgrave Communications, 4(1), 1-12.
Fjæstad, B. (2008). Why journalists report science as they do. In Journalism, science and society (pp. 135-144). Routledge.
Ferry, L., & Shiffman, D. S. (2014). The value of taxon-focused science: 30 years of elasmobranchs in biological research and outreach. Copeia, 2014(4), 743-746.
Friedman, K., Braccini, M., Bjerregaard‐Walsh, M., Bonfil, R., Bradshaw, C. J., Brouwer, S., … & Yokawa, K. (2020). Informing CITES Parties: Strengthening science‐based decision‐making when listing marine species. Fish and Fisheries, 21(1), 13-31.
Glithero, L. D., & Zandvliet, D. B. (2021). Evaluating Ocean Perceptions and Ocean Values: The Canadian Ocean Literacy Survey. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education (CJEE), 24(1), 216-232.
Gow, E. A., Burant, J. B., Sutton, A. O., Freeman, N. E., Grahame, E. R., Fuirst, M., … & Shiffman, D. S. (2022). Popular press portrayal of issues surrounding free‐roaming domestic cats Felis catus. People and Nature, 4(1), 143-154.
Hartz, J., & Chappell, R. (1997). Worlds apart: How the distance between science and journalism threatens America’s future. First Amendment Center.
Jacobson, S. K., Langin, C., Carlton, J. S., & Kaid, L. L. (2012). Content analysis of newspaper coverage of the Florida panther. Conservation Biology, 26(1), 171-179.
Maillé, M. È., Saint-Charles, J., & Lucotte, M. (2010). The gap between scientists and journalists: The case of mercury science in Québec’s press. Public Understanding of Science, 19(1), 70-79.
McCall, R. B. (1988). Science and the press: Like oil and water?. American Psychologist, 43(2), 87.
Parsons, E. C. M., Shiffman, D. S., Darling, E. S., Spillman, N., & Wright, A. J. (2014). How twitter literacy can benefit conservation scientists. Conservation Biology, 28(2), 299-301.
Peters, H. P., Brossard, D., De Cheveigné, S., Dunwoody, S., Kallfass, M., Miller, S., & Tsuchida, S. (2008). Science-media interface: It’s time to reconsider. Science Communication, 30(2), 266-276.
Peters, H. P. (2013). Gap between science and media revisited: Scientists as public communicators. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(supplement_3), 14102-14109.
Phillis, C. C., O’Regan, S. M., Green, S. J., Bruce, J. E., Anderson, S. C., Linton, J. N., … & Favaro, B. (2013). Multiple pathways to conservation success. Conservation Letters, 6(2), 98-106.
Pottker, H. (2003). News and its communicative quality: the inverted pyramid—when and why did it appear?. Journalism Studies, 4(4), 501-511.
Reed, R. (2001). (Un-) Professional discourse? Journalists’ and scientists’ stories about science in the media. Journalism, 2(3), 279-298.
Shiffman, D. S., & Hammerschlag, N. (2014). An assessment of the scale, practices, and conservation implications of Florida’s charter boat–based recreational shark fishery. Fisheries, 39(9), 395-407.
Shiffman, D. S. (2018). Social media for fisheries science and management professionals: how to use it and why you should. Fisheries, 43(3), 123-129.
Shiffman, D. S., & Hammerschlag, N. (2016). Preferred conservation policies of shark researchers. Conservation Biology, 30(4), 805-815.
Shiffman, D. S. (2020). Recreational shark fishing in Florida: How research and strategic science communication helped to change policy. Conservation Science and Practice, 2(4), e174.
Shiffman, D. S., Bittick, S. J., Cashion, M. S., Colla, S. R., Coristine, L. E., Derrick, D. H., … & Dulvy, N. K. (2020). Inaccurate and biased global media coverage underlies public misunderstanding of shark conservation threats and solutions. Iscience, 23(6), 101205.
Woloshin, S., & Schwartz, L. M. (2002). Press releases: translating research into news. Jama, 287(21), 2856-2858.