Talking to the media
It’s been an interesting few weeks for me in terms of talking to the media (and for many of my colleagues too – I see John Eastwood, my co-author on Out of My Skull and Erin Westgate getting loads of attention in the media). It’s an important thing that we do. The public pays for us to do our science and I don’t think we do nearly enough to let them know what we find.[i] So, I typically say yes whenever a media request comes through, and in the midst of the covid-19 pandemic, while we’re all cooped up in our homes, there has been an explosion of interest in boredom.
But for this blog I wanted to explore what it’s like as a scientist to chat with the media. In general, I’ve had really great experiences. But it’s not without its anxieties.
My first ever foray into representing science in the media was a 20 second bit on Global News t.v. I can’t even recall now what their angle was. I sat in front of a green screen in the University of Waterloo’s Media Centre and only later saw that as I spoke about boredom, they played scenes of people on roller coasters. So it must have been something about boredom and sensation seeking.
That was more than a decade ago now and I was nervous as hell. I worried that I would come off looking stupid in the first instance (and if anyone is able to find that clip online, I would argue the hairdo was a little stupid! But that’s, of course, not what I mean by looking stupid). Worse than that, I worried that I would somehow be misrepresented. That all my colleagues would see the bit and be screaming at the t.v. every time I stepped just a little beyond the data! Of course, I didn’t realise that I wasn’t talking to my colleagues. And even if they did see it, they were likely to be much more forgiving than I imagined. What I needed to realise was that I was speaking to the public and I had to find ways to make what I do seem both interesting and relevant to them.
After a few more interactions with media (mostly print and some radio), I decided to stop worrying about that – I accepted that the media couldn’t help but misrepresent the science. It is not a forum that has the time or space to give full due to the nuance of what we do – that’s why the science is presented in journal articles. The trick I think was to stop thinking the media was trying to misrepresent. They rarely, if ever, are. They’re trying to condense complex information and present it in an engaging way.
We are a reluctant mob, scientists. Reluctant to be nailed down to certainties. Reluctant (as we should be) to speak of “truth”. Reluctant to stick our necks out in many ways (we also typically turn out to be horrible advocates in the political domain – who wants to be seen to be biting the hand that feeds?). But I think we could reframe what the “media” are looking for and go a long way to alleviating anxieties about being misrepresented.
I’ve worked with many great print media people over the past few years. Sandra Upson was my first in depth media editorial experience with Scientific American Mind[ii] – she really pushed me to define terms I thought were self-evident but clearly were not. What did I mean by “engaged”? It was tough to work through and at the end I felt that Sandra had perhaps done more to write that article than I had. But upon reflection, it was a fantastic experience. I was dealing with an intelligent, educated person who simply wanted to understand the work devoid of all its jargon. That really pushes you to think hard about what your concepts are and how to relate them to others.[iii]
I have since had some excellent media training from the folks in the media department at UW, people who had decades of experience in the media before coming to UW. One thing that stuck in my mind is the notion that we – scientists – should see our interactions with the media as collaborations.
My latest foray with the media was for the Washington Post[iv], with Christopher Shea as my editorial contact. Like Sandra, Chris pushed me to define my terms and to clarify the ideas I wanted to convey. He also pushed me to personalize the story, which I think is another thing scientists are reluctant to do. Somehow we ought to be dispassionate automatons who collect and analyse data with mechanical precision. But of course, we are not. We are all personally invested in what we do. And personalizing our science is merely a way of making better connections with the public. If we can’t (or don’t) show why we care about what we study, how can we expect anyone else to give a damn?
Now, as for talk back radio? That’s a whole other ball game!
[i] John Ralston Saul in one of his books (my favourite is Voltaire’s Bastards, but A Fair Country is important for Canadians to read and On Equilibrium and The Collapse of Globalism are also excellent reads) suggested that academics, who are typically evaluated along three domains – research, teaching, and service (read – administrative duties), should have a fourth domain along which they are carefully assessed – knowledge translation. I agree whole heartedly.
[ii] Sandra guided me through the article Descent of the Doldrums which appeared in 2013. In that article I still talk of two types of boredom – apathetic and agitated. I no longer believe this distinction is relevant (or even exists) – and I’ve said as much in a number of journal articles since – but that is one instance in which the media piece had a larger and more lasting influence. I still get asked by other media writers about this distinction and have to correct it. It seems that they start with media representations and then make contact with the actual science (or scientist).
[iii] I still feel Sandra did more to write that article than I did – perhaps as an exercise I should publish my first draft alongside the finished product! Others I feel I should mention include Maggie Koerth-Baker and Mary Mann – both experiences were fun and what they wound up writing was engaging and faithful to the science.