There is a gap between the media and scientists, which impacts on the way that information is shared between the two entities and then disseminated to the public; however, there are measures that can be undertaken on both sides to bridge this.
This was indicated by speakers during the Oppenheimer Generations Research and Conservation’s webinar on February 23, which explored the gap between the media and scientists.
Representing the scientific viewpoint, but speaking in his own capacity, Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Nelson Mandela University Dr Nehemiah Latolla said he was not trained to share his scientific findings in a way that was accessible to the public, nor was it compatible with the way in which the media disseminated or researched stories.
He explained that science was usually a very complex endeavour, with scientists trying to understand a small part of a larger context. This was where the point of contention between the entities came in, he averred, as the media was interested in context, and not necessarily in scientists’ niches.
Also, he said, scientists were careful not to overstate the implications of their research, whereas the media, by contrast, was very interested in the implications of research.
Latolla also averred that science tried contribute towards bettering the human condition, while the media came more from an angle of trying to tell the human story, and these do not necessarily always complement each other.
He referenced the scientific communication that occurred at the height of the Covid-19 pandemic as evidence of this, where there was considerable misinformation and disinformation spread either because scientists were not telling the story or were not being very effective in communication, or because politicians were citing one comment or article to make “brazen statements” that suited their agenda.
Latolla said, therefore, that it was important for journalists to interrogate scientists, noting that this could, however, sometimes be daunting for scientists that were just starting out, or for those that were in a particular niche area.
“As scientists, we need to learn to communicate our research more effectively. There is a saying that I go by: ‘research worth pursuing is research worth sharing’.”
Latolla also highlighted the need for media and scientists to meet in the middle and build trust, given that science was not clickbait, or the science being discussed did not sell newspapers.
He said this sometimes misplaced the meaning of the science or forced the scientist to make statements that the results simply were not ready to back.
Therefore, he emphasised that trust was a key factor moving forward, as was finding better ways of engagement by scientists to get their messages out to the public.
This need for "brand building" was said to be important for both scientists and journalists, with journalists needing to make themselves known so that scientists knew who to contact, and vice versa. In this regard, Latolla highlighted social media as an important tool for researchers.
Meanwhile, speaking from a journalistic perspective, freelance journalist Elise Tempelhoff said journalists required input from scientists about what they were working on, so that this could be conveyed to the public.
She averred that the content should be conveyed and written in such a way that people could understand it.
She also noted that news had to be conveyed using the medium that best suited the content. For example, time-sensitive information like environmental dangers would be put immediately on social media to alert the public, rather than saving this for a print story the next day.
Tempelhoff mentioned a challenge as having to adhere to tight deadlines, when often much time is needed to unpack comprehensive reports and complex scientific concepts.
She also mentioned that the nature of reporting had changed, with online often prioritised, which meant having short online stories, and longer in-depth stories with more content only following later.
Tempelhoff added that there was a need for specialist journalists to be part of newsrooms, as it was important for them to understand the background of the beat and the context so that they wrote accurate stories.
However, with newsrooms shrinking, this expertise was being lost and specialist journalists were having to resort to freelance, she pointed out.
Tempelhoff also called for transparency on scientific matters in the country to ensure that journalists had access and could then convey this to the public.