Twitter
Facebook
Reddit
Digg
Tell us what you think!Send a letter to the editor about this or any other article in The Maine Campus.
In a room comprised largely of University of Maine graduate students and professors, good-natured intellectual jabs, apprehension and attempts at building bridges between both journalists and scientists were the order of the day during at a seminar titled “Journalists are from Venus, Scientists are from Mars – Bridging the Two Worlds” on Friday, Sept. 21.
The seminar brought one scientist experienced in communicating with the media and one journalist with experience as an environmental journalist accompanying scientists in their studies of marine life to UMaine. Co-sponsored by the Maine Sea Grant, the School of Marine Sciences and the Senator George J. Mitchell Center for Environmental Science and Watershead Research, the seminar was held in room 107 Norman Smith Hall at 11 a.m. It was the first seminar of the year in the Environmental Solutions Initiatives series.
Nancy Baron, a zoologist by trade, is the author of the field guide “Birds of the Pacific Northwest.” During the hour-and-a-half seminar, Baron spoke at length on her experiences as the lead communications director for the Aldo Leopold Leadership Program. From her position in the Aldo Leopold Leadership Program, Baron has held workshops for several years in which she works with other environmental scientists, helping them to focus their messages, translate them into language that most readers of mainstream media can understand and videotaped her interactions with them to help them feel more comfortable communicating for an audience.
Baron showed the audience a video of those participating in the Aldo Leopold Leadership Program explaining their difficulties communicating with the media, interspersed with humorous quips, old-fashioned horror-movie music and ominous headlines such as “True Confessions: Coming Out of the Ivory Tower” and “Media Phobia!”
“Everything you’ve been taught to do is in-depth, but journalists really need the quick overview,” Baron said of one of the sources of difficulty in communication between scientists and journalists. Many scientists featured in her film were skeptical of the media, as they had read articles written by those who interviewed them in which their messages were conveyed inaccurately. Baron demonstrated her “Message Window,” a method for scientists to simplify their knowledge of their subject and the information from their research to better convey accurate information when speaking to those outside of the profession, particularly journalists.
Following Baron, Ken Weiss, a Pulitzer-Prize winning writer for the Los Angeles Times, spoke from the other side of the equation. From his perspective as a journalist, Weiss distanced himself somewhat from Baron by more heavily emphasizing that not all media are the same. He also disagreed with Baron’s assertion that journalists set the agenda for the national debate, instead emphasizing that it is the editors, through deciding what material should be covered and go on the front page, and the general public, through deciding what to purchase – and, thus, what material editors believe to be newsworthy – that set the agenda.
According to Weiss, one major aspect of the relationship between media and the scientific community is that, unlike politicians, with whom journalists engage in vigorous debate, ask hard-hitting questions of and then proceed to socialize with – often going out to bars with, an example Weiss gave – journalists and scientists do not have as congenial a relationship. Since scientific fields are highly specialized and make use of a litany of jargon, communication with scientists is more difficult. “As translators, we really need your help,” Weiss said.
Baron and Weiss’ presentations were followed by a question-and-answer session with heavy audience interaction and pointed questions to the guest speakers. During this period, and throughout the seminar, a running theme, articulated by both presenters, was the need for the scientific community, through the media, to disseminate accurate information that the public will understand, which will change the focus of the national debate and, eventually, reach policy makers and other leaders in society who have the power to make positive change.
Baron commented, “The bottom line is: just doing science, even the best science, is simply not enough.” Weiss pointed out that, in addition, if scientists do not disperse accurate, understandable information to the public, “there are other entities out there who will fill the void.” Weiss proceeded to describe those “other entities” as AM talk-radio hosts such as Rush Limbaugh and politically motivated think-tanks, many funded by large economic interests, such as the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation.
Although there is much to be done in bridging this gap between scientists and journalists, towards the end Baron inserted some rather optimistic words: “There is a lot of common ground … Journalists are just like ADD and scientists are obsessive compulsive.”
Bangor Daily News