Winter 2011

From the Chair

Upcoming events

Eurochat

Sci Comm news

New members

Event Report: NHS reform debate

Event Report: Society of Biology report launch

Event Report: Bright Club

Event Report: Christmas party

Feature: Blurring the lines

Feature: Stem cell patents

Interview: Q&As with new science correspondents

The Last Word

Stempra newsletter

FEATURE

Blurring the Lines: the future of PR and journalism

On Wednesday 25 January, Stempra will be holding an event entitled "Blurring the lines: the future of PR and journalism" in memory of Stephen White, the first chairman of Stempra who died in 2010 (obituary). This guest feature, written by Sallie Robbins – who will chair January’s event – should whet the appetite ahead of what is sure to be a lively and interesting debate on a topic of relevance to all Stempra members. We would encourage everyone to come along – watch out for details of speakers and the venue.

Sallie writes – A recent guest blog for the Guardian, highly critical of scientists’ requests to check journalists' articles, led to a huge outpouring of anger from scientists. Right of reply was given to the scientists through a further guest blog post, which amongst many 'recommendations' for change suggested that science news articles should be peer reviewed. Stempra members might find this gently amusing but it is a vivid illustration of the gulf that can exist between scientists and journalists.

The differing worlds of science and the media have been described beautifully by Quentin Cooper, of BBC Radio 4's Material World:
"Science values detail, precision, the impersonal, the technical, the lasting, facts, numbers and being right. Journalism values brevity, approximation, the personal, the colloquial, the immediate, stories, words and being right now. There are going to be tensions."

But of course, these tensions are nothing new and anyone involved in the field probably felt the recent Guardian tit-for-tat was a case of 'here we go again'. Efforts to improve the relationship between science and the media are, and need to be, ongoing, and leading the way have always been science press officers, not scientists or journalists. The view of the press officer as 'gate keeper' has really never applied to the great and good in science PR. These aren't gate keepers but facilitators that tread the tense and difficult path between journalists and scientists. They want a good outcome for their scientists and a good outcome for the media and their public audiences and much of their work is about reaching some kind of compromise and promoting continued good relationships.

Given this key role of press officers should we be concerned about an apparent shift in focus from being facilitators to news producers? Most recently we have seen the BBSRC advertising for a Head of News to reflect their news output. Although the post encompasses traditional press work to get 'news' in the mainstream media it also focuses on production of news for distribution and publication in BBSRC's own outlets, as well as through social networks and other means of reaching an audience directly.

The BBSRC are not alone and increasingly scientists, science organisations and their press teams are 'doing it for themselves'. Maybe tired of misrepresentation or just making the most of the opportunities that the internet provides, they are producing their own news, through blogs, podcasts and video. This is great news for the scientists who feel they are now 'in charge' but is it such good news for the public? Isn't this just science 'PR', a glorified 'advertorial' for science and science organisations? Who is calling science to account in these initiatives? Aren’t the public better served by journalists investigating, criticising, getting to the truth? Or, at a time when journalism is increasingly under pressure, might we be better off with organisations producing their own news – which is more in depth and more accurate than the hype and spin of the 24-hour news beast?

There might also be implications of this shift towards press office news production for the carefully built relationships between scientists and journalists. There used to be a time where scientists rarely spoke to journalists for fear of misrepresentation, ridicule by colleagues or because their work was 'just too complicated' for public consumption. Do science press officers and organisations that produce their own news reinforce this view? Does becoming a producer of news detract, or at the least distract, from the key role that science press officers have in facilitating the scientist/journalist relationship that can so often lead to great science coverage in the mainstream media? And might we see less good science coverage in the mainstream media as a result?

It may be that the scientific community can ultimately focus on both news media and more direct to public routes, and there is room for both approaches given appropriate time and resources. But this is only the start of a trend and the short and long term implications need to be considered particularly by those it affects most, in other words, members of Stempra. On the one hand we have parts of the mainstream media losing its audience and financial backing, and journalism in disgrace and under the spotlight through the Leveson enquiry, on the other hand we have scientific organisations continually extending their own means of news production. Perhaps we will reach a point where the internal route of controlled message, medium and specific audience are more attractive than the external less manageable and currently for some less reliable message. But in whose interests would this be?

Sallie Robbins
Freelance
sr@srpr.net