| |
Autumn 2007
|
Stempra newsletter
From the Chair A story that generated substantial coverage across the national print and broadcast media highlighted the work of Professor Hammond, on how new technology could be used to look at facial characteristics that are common in certain genetic disorders. However, it was the BBC News Website article by Nick Higham, 'When science and journalism collide' which appeared the next day, that provided the most food for thought. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6988088.stm As I read it and reread it - I could feel the pain on all sides! One line that sent a chill down my spine was Professor Hammond's comment that he only agreed to speak to the media against the advice of his colleagues. Regarding an interview request from BBC News 24, Higham reports that, 'Professor Hammond cried off. He was, he said, extremely angry. His work had been misreported, he had been misquoted, and he wanted nothing more to do with the media. A colleague had warned him this would happen, he said, and he should have listened.' It's this shady 'colleague' character that causes me most concern. In every lab does there have to be one cantankerous and usually senior individual who warns colleagues young and old about dabbling with the media? You usually find they were misquoted in the Ripon Gazette twenty years ago - and have never entered into the media fray since. Not so much as a quote to the Times Higher will pass their outbox. Instead, they content themselves with badmouthing journalists, snorting with derision at any science coverage you send to them for interest and treating those colleagues who do choose to speak to the media with thinly disguised contempt. I speak from bitter experience. However, I hasten to add that there may be one in every lab but they still make up the minority and I do not for a second wish to cast a shadow over the hundreds of willing and media-savvy scientists we work with on any given day. I also understand and sympathise with Professor Hammond. If you're an expert in a complex area of work it can be galling to see something you see as inaccurate or misrepresentative booming out over the airwaves or splashed across, not just the Daily Mail, but also the respectable broadsheets that you know your peers will have seen. How often have you persuaded a scientist against the advice of his or her peers to work with you on a media story, promising them a good experience and an introduction to some of the most experienced and trusted science correspondents in the UK? It's usually the start of something beautiful! And I think the way this particular story unfurled is pretty bad luck all round. The story itself generated a great spread of coverage from BBC Radio 4's Today programme onwards. Normally, a PR officer's dream. I don't know what the outcome was on this. However, I really hope that the relevant PR officer had a chance to debrief with Professor Hammond, to put the coverage into perspective and ensure that he feels confident and willing to speak to the media again. The real tragedy here would be if this experience made Professor Hammond go the same way as his 'colleague' and if an articulate and interesting scientist was lost to a number of very decent journalists. Katrina Nevin-Ridley |
|