 |
| Via Wikimedia Commons, Gnu free documentation license. |
A public information officer (PIO) I contactedabout the role of PIOs and the issues they face has agreed to respond as ananonymous source to some questions I’ve had about the practice of PIOs incommunicating science. This person does not want to be named for reasons of notwanting to implicate anyone specifically or do any potential damage to theirown career or PIO office. Let’s call him Evelyn, after the author of thatEdwardian dreamscape, Brideshead Revisited.
Evelyn and I had a discussion about some ofthe highs and lows of being a science PIO and about what some of the greatestissues are for science PIOs. Below is the content of our discussion, conductedby email.
Evelyn: One of the things I'm going to say over and over as I answerthese questions is how shocking it is to me--in both positive ways as a PIO andnegative ways as a former journalist--just how prevalent the sort ofnews-milling you talk about is. It's not just PhysOrg and Science Daily. It'sEVERYWHERE. And it's not always quite so obvious. [Here, Evelyn mentions a high-profile news outlet having used newreleases verbatim from Evelyn’s organization, sometimes without clearlyidentifying them as such.]
Knowing what I do about the varying quality of the sciencewriting that comes out of universities, the idea that media outlets might bepublishing some of the really questionable stuff without any indication thatthe information came directly from a press release? If you ask me, THAT is thereally big-deal story around [organizational] science writing these days...thedepth and breadth to which it is being redistributed without anyone knowingwhere and from whom it came originally.
BF: There's a rumor going around that some PIOswill put out news releases without vetting them with the relevant researchers.Have you ever witnessed this behavior or heard of such a thing? The PIOs with whomI've spoken say they would never engage in that kind of behavior.
Evelyn: I would never do that, and I don't know anyone who would. Butthat doesn't mean it doesn't happen!
BF: At the Science Online conference I justattended, some clear stress lines emerged--have always been there--betweenscientists and journalists. PIOs are often a bridge between the two. What areyour most difficult issues as a go-between for these two sometimesnot-very-agreeable groups?
Evelyn: My biggest problem, frankly, is that I'll spend a lot of timeand effort convincing a scientist to let me publicize his/her findings, only tohave the media do exactly what he or she was afraid of...make a mess of thefindings and ignore the subtleties and/or caveats. I can usually get them tostop treating ME like I'm 'the enemy,' but it's hard to get them to trustjournalists when the journalists really do make a mess of their researchfindings at times!
BF: Anotherissue that arises in discussion is the problem of scientists going solo and notusing their institution's PI office at all. Have you had experiences with that,and if so, what has been their outcome? Is it generally not advisable?
Evelyn: This one isn't a huge issue for us; most of our scientistshaven't the interest nor the time to push out their own findings. And I don'tcare if a journalist contacts them for a quote without going through ouroffice. I do like if one party or the other lets me know so I can look for thearticle, but other than that...
We do have a couple ofscientists who like to write the first drafts of their releases rather thangive me an interview. That works out OK about half the time. I have a couple ofscientists who write a pretty darned good first draft, for instance, and whodon't mind my editing them. Then there are the scientists who hand me 5,000-word,barely comprehensible releases and get upset when we chop at it; that's notnearly as much fun.
BF: Bluntquestion: How are scientists in general at communicating their results to ageneral audience? Do they truly, badly need your help?
Evelyn: It depends on the scientist. But overall? OHHELL YES THEY NEED OUR HELP. Not so much in talking to a science writer, but ingetting their point across to a general assignment reporter? Absolutely. I havea few who can talk to anyone and [don’t] need me to translate for [them]. Butfor every one of those, there are a dozen not-one-of-those.
Also, there's adifference between talking about a general science subject and/or commenting onsomeone else's research in a general sense (which about half or more of myscientists can be trusted to do without much assistance) and describing theirown research in an accessible manner (which very few of my scientists can doright off the bat). What I find is that, in putting together a press releasewith me (going through an interview, correcting my drafts), they're figuringout what they should and should not say to a reporter. I usually don't dospecific media training with them, but they can at least begin to tell, fromwhat works when they’re explaining it to me, what might work to explain it to areporter who's never talked to them before.
BF: Whatwould be most helpful to you that scientists/researchers could do to facilitateyour doing your job well?
Evelyn: Simple: CONTACT ME. Tell me when you get an acceptance on apaper you're excited about; don't wait for the journal to contact me, becausethey'll only give me a few days' notice and I can't turn a press release aroundthat fast. And tell me when you've got interesting work being published, evenif it's not in a top-tier journal. Tell me when you have an interestingscience-in-progress story, even if you can't talk about your findings. Tell methat you've just submitted some interesting data and you can't tell me about ityet, but that I should check in with you again in three months, so I can atleast keep you on my radar. Between faculty, grad students, and postdocs, I'lllose you in the shuffle if you don't help me out. I want to publicize yourwork, but I can't do it if you don't tell me about it.
BF: Whatwould be most helpful to you that journalists could do/not do?
Evelyn: From a PIO point of view? Make sure youmention my organization in your story. I know it eats up words, but if youdon't use my organization’s name, I'll probably never even know you wrote aboutour research, and I won't get any credit for my hard work putting together agood release.
BF: Howmuch do administrative-level decisions influence/interfere with your ability todo your job?
Evelyn: Oh dear god you have no idea. For whatever reasons, we have significantadministrative hurdles to our press release process. There are ways in which itis useful, but there are many more ways in which it hurts our ability to getnews out quickly and easily and under embargo. For instance, in addition togetting the researchers involved to approve my drafts and then my finalversion, I also need to have each release looked at/approved/edited by [several]additional people, including some who will often question everything fromgrammar to content to our decision to cover the story in the first place. Whichis not to say those questions are necessarily wrong...just that there is asignificant amount of "input" that does not contribute to our pushingthings out in a timely fashion.
BF: What'sbeen your worst experience as a PIO? You may have seen that Case-Westernrecently withdrew a news release for a controversial publication from one ofits assistant professors. Have you ever had an experience like that?
Evelyn: One of the main (and possibly only) advantages of our onerousprocess is that something like what happened at Case Western would be SERIOUSLYunlikely to happen here. At least two of the people who review our release andweb stories are part of the process specifically to make sure we're not pushingforward a researcher about whom anyone has serious reservations. A researchercan't just come to me and say, "My research is fascinating; put out arelease about it," and expect me to immediately fall into line. I need todo due diligence. And if it turns out that anyone's concerned about the qualityof the science, the release will probably never get off the ground in the firstplace.
BF: Do thepeople in your office who write releases have a scientific background? Whatsteps do they take to ensure that the science, as they're disseminating it inreleases, is accurately presented?
Evelyn: [Describes how their process is to ensure that they hirewriters who have a science background.] As for the steps these writerstake...see above. Interviews with the scientists, reviewing with thescientists, and then many outside eyes on their stories. What don't we do? Wedon’t get outside/objective criticism of the research. I once had someonesuggest we do that for all our releases, to give them 'legitimacy.' I don'tthink that's necessary. At all. What we do is as well-researched and carefullyconsidered as we can make it, but we're still writing for and about ourinstitution. I'm not interested in putting forth some other, outside expert onmy scientists' work and shifting the spotlight away from 'my guys.' If someonefrom outside thinks the research we're writing about is flawed, let them writea rebuttal.
BF: You'reprobably aware of the news release mills like Physorg and Science Daily. Do youfeel that it's important for your office to write releases that are asnews-focused as possible? Do you feel that PIOs should write more like anallegedly disinterested journalist and less from the perspective of marketing,knowing that many, many people will simply see these releases and treat them asnews? Or is a PIO's first loyalty to the marketing aspect on behalf of theinstitution they represent?
Evelyn: So, I half answered this earlier today [seeopening comments, above]. And I just slightly answered your question aboutbeing "disinterested" in this last response. But let me say just abit more. Ninety percent of the time, our news releases will be about research.Most of the time those research-based releases are about peer-reviewedresearch. So, already, we’re news focused. We also almost never usesuperlatives; we just write about the research and what the scientist who didthat research thinks it might mean in the long term...where it fits in amongother pieces of whatever puzzle they're working on. That's as “disinterested”as I think I would ever need to be.
I'm not trying to sellanything or make anyone money, in general. What I am trying to do is show asmany people as I can the incredible work we're doing at my organization, in thehopes that, ultimately, that spotlight will help our scientists to do evenbetter work (because like it or not, public attention on science does tend tolead to more/better funding/philanthropy). So, yes, I guess that's marketing;and, yes, that's what I'm here to do. But what I'm marketing is science. Goodscience. Not diet aids and breast-enhancing creams. I can totally live withthat.
But still, as amarketer--or as a PIO, to be more accurate--I'm not going to point out thenegative. I'm not going to tell you about the warts and bumps. But I'm also NOTgoing to try to tell you that those warts are actually beauty spots. That wouldbe wrong from an ethical point of view, and it would also be stupid from amarketing point of view; you'd see right through me, and you'd call me out. Ifsuch bumps and warts exist, I'm just not going to draw your attention to themat all. Because that wouldn't help me get the word out about good science.
All of which is to saythat, if I put out a press release, you the public can trust that the work I'mdescribing will almost certainly be just as good as I (or, rather, thescientist I'm talking to, and whom I trust) say it is--no worse, and maybe alittle bit better. (Scientists, man. They don't like to toot their own horns!What they do love? Qualifiers. Sigh.) That's why the PIO part of medoesn't mind the churnalism stuff AT ALL. I know that what I put out is ontarget and properly attributed and doesn't overstate the findings, at leastfrom the researcher's point of view. When some journalist (especially one who'snever covered science before in their lives) gets that release and puts theirown spin on it? Sometimes it's a great experience, but sometimes…well, just aslight change in wording [can lead] to the findings being significantlymisinterpreted. Science can be so subtle. Journalists aren't always.
The difference is that I only write about one group ofscientists, and don’t go beating the bushes for interesting stories in far-awaylands. Frankly, though, there’s plenty for me to write about right here athome.
BF: Finally,I see some journalists complain about being poorly targeted by PIOs fromvarious institutions. What are your processes for ensuring that the writers youtarget are appropriate for the release at hand? What do you do to maintain goodrelationships with the news media?
Evelyn: I could be glib and say, oh for crying outloud. If I send you a press release that you're not interested in, DELETE IT.Stop whining, journalists! But then again, I like to think they're not talkingabout me in the first place, because we make a point of trying not to put outmore than one release a day, and on average not even that many. We try to makesure that what we do send out is interesting, and engaging, and at least hasthe potential to be worthy of coverage. Most people who see our releases do sothrough Eurekalert or wherever. We also send stuff out to a few journalists througha searchable database; who we’ll send to changes depending on the subject ofthe release. I doubt any one journalist gets more than one release from us per weekin their email, on average. Unless, of course, they’ve asked us to send themeverything we put out; in that case, I’m sure they’re not complaining!
Evelyn is a (clearly) experienced PIO at alarge organization that produces a great deal of research results worth noting.
For more insights from another science communication PIO, Matt Shipman, see his post over at Nature Blogs, where he addresses some of these questions, as well.
For more insights from another science communication PIO, Matt Shipman, see his post over at Nature Blogs, where he addresses some of these questions, as well.
