Summer 2008
From the Chair
New members
Sci Comm news
Eurochat
Feature: Publicising non peer-reviewed science
Feature: New media, new opportunities
Feature: Spinning science
Event Report: Science and the embargo
Event Report: Podcasting and new media
Interview: Emma Morton, The Sun
|
Stempra newsletter
EVENT REPORT: Hold the front page; science and the embargo
Chair: John Davidson
Panel: Robin McKie (The
Observer), Katrina Nevin-Ridley (The Wellcome Trust), Tony Kirby (The
Lancet), Steve Connor (The Independent)
Embargoes can be fragile at the best of times. It only takes
one over-eager newspaper editor or a less-than-scrupulous science
correspondent to break ranks and grab a headline for themselves, and
the story is dead. News out in the open is simply old news. But if it
was tough to keep hold of a story in the old days then the advent of
rolling 24-hour broadcast news, and continually updated websites, is
putting the system under even more strain.
Before going into the vagaries of how the embargo might have
to change – if at all – journalists Steve Connor and Robin McKie, from
The Independent and The Observer respectively, were keen to stress
their support for it. "It keeps everything from happening at once";
without it, journalists would be faced with the prospect of rushing
their stories through in order to beat the competition, not having time
to research them thoroughly.
The press officers on the panel concurred, if for subtly
different reasons. Press officers "need to be clear about who they are
targeting," noted Katrina Nevin-Ridley, Head of Media at the Wellcome
Trust, "Do you want that prime spot on Today? Is it strong enough go
out at lunchtime but hold until the 10pm news?" For press offices,
embargoes are clearly all about news control and maximising coverage -
which makes it all the more crucial that any embargo-breaking offenders
are whipped back into line.
Tony Kirby, press offer at The Lancet, spoke of the measures
his journal would take against newspapers. Removal from the press
release list is an obvious one, but other action could include denying
access to The Lancet's archive and to its editor, Richard Horton.
Largely, though, the mutually-beneficial relationship means that the
system is respected.
Not that there weren't some dissenting voices from the
audience. It's fairly easy to establish that the embargo is good for
press officers and journalists, as it makes their jobs easier, and for
journals and research funders, as it guarantees them press coverage –
but is it good for the general public? Not everyone was convinced that
embargoed press releases allow for stunning science journalism; do
they, in fact, only lead to the information in a press release being
garnished with a couple of quotes from the study's author before being
called a story? That might be a 'success' for the press office in
question, but whether it adds any value for the readers is
questionable.
The point was stressed further, when the discussion moved on
to real conflicts of interest arising from scientific conferences.
What's a journalist to do when he finds a great basis for a story in
the midst of a scientific conference, which are largely un-embargoed?
What's a scientist to do when she can't talk to the journalist about
the research, for fear journals then not wanting to publish her
research? And what's a press officer to do, caught in the middle of it
all? The journalist ends up writing the story, not able to get an
interview with the scientist, and the public suffer – just so, as the
story goes, the big journals can maintain their commercial interests by
asserting their complete control over the science news.
It is, of course, not quite as simple as all that. It's true
that much of the research done in this country is publicly funded, so
the public should have a right to know what is being done with their
money. However, journals make significant investments too. Not,
admittedly, into the research itself, but the machinery of the peer
review system, the wages of the editorial staff, and the actual
technology of publication all need paying for, and all add value to the
research paper. The journals would (and did) argue that controlling
news output to get adequate coverage is the only way to keep the money
coming in; and ultimately, that money is invested back into the system.
There weren't easy answers to many of the questions posed, but
a number of concrete ideas came out of the debate. One of them was
championed by Robin McKie. He pointed out that virtually nobody
embargoes content for the Sunday papers; people prefer to embargo
stories for Monday, to get in the dailies as well as on the Today
programme. The Sunday papers are, however, read in a more relaxed
environment and could provide an analytical style of coverage more
suited to science stories – if press officers want to take the risk of
them not being covered at all.
So embargoes are here to stay, for now. It's going to take
increasingly savvy press officers to get the best out of them, but they
remain the best tool we have for managing news flow.
Imran Khan is a young science journalist based in London.
Having graduated with a degree in Biology, and spent a year running
volunteering, charity, and environmental campaigns at his Student
Union, he is now studying for the Science Communication MSc at Imperial
College - and is available for freelance work.
imrankhan85@gmail.com
|
<< Back to
current newsletter
|
