Science news rocks when it has context
Matt Chin |
By Matthew Chin
Summer 1999 Scholar
Posted: Aug. 15, 2003
In 1996, a baseball-sized rock caused an upheaval in the science community.
The Mars Meteorite, Smithsonian Institution catalog number ALH-84001, was said
to contain fossilized evidence that tiny microscopic life once existed on the
red planet.
Media coverage came fast and furious. Headlines screamed “Life on Mars!” Then-President
Bill Clinton issued a statement on the profound meaning that the rock would
have if the findings were true. His statement was appropriated for the 1997
Jodie Foster movie Contact.
After the initial announcement, another group of researchers cast doubt on
the findings. Follow-up headlines read “No Life on Mars.”
For months, the headlines went back and forth. Readers couldn’t tell what to
believe. So much for the media covering serious but controversial science.
We got to see this famous Mars Meteorite on the final day of a science writing
workshop at the Metcalf Institute for Marine & Environmental Reporting at
the University of Rhode Island Graduate School of Oceanography. David L. Evans,
undersecretary for science at the Smithsonian, described the meteorite's wild
media ride, noting that news organizations didn't have the expertise to put
the debate in context.
It was a chance for the media to enlighten millions on how science works --
sometimes by a long, painstaking process and disagreement among experts. Instead,
“Life on Mars Yes” and “Life on Mars No” dumbed-down an important and interesting
story.
Our charge during the fellowship week was to look for ways in which journalists
can cover science accurately and fairly and make information digestible for
a general audience -- all without over simplifying.
So what do you do when a Mars rock story hits? Here are some thoughts on how
to cover science effectively:
Lesson one: National Public Radio’s Steve Krueger says he asks scientists
to simplify in ways that they may not be used to. He encourages scientists to
recall their dumbest student. “Now explain it so he could understand,” he asks
them.
Lesson two: Krueger suggests reporters keep a list of environmental
sources to gauge stories for them. These sources, Krueger says, usually don’t
end up as sources in his stories. Instead, he asks them what information might
be missing from a story, what could be biased and, most importantly, whether
a story is worth reporting.
This is an important tip. Even if you have extensive training in one area of
science, you may not know what’s going on in other areas. Reporters need relationships
with experts to help them cover the good stories and avoid the bad ones.
Lesson three: Don't overlook the lone-voice scientist. One scientist
who spoke to the group asked why journalists cover scientists whose ideas are
considered folly by their colleagues. But another scientist pointed out that
these lone voices can turn out to be right. Remember that it was once a “scientific
fact” that the Earth is flat. The important thing is to put them -- proposals
and zany ideas -- out there in context. If you cover something that flies in
the face of convention, say so in your story. Context makes all the difference.
Lesson four: Read, read and read some more. Reporters at this workshop
devoured science news. They read general-interest science books and publications
and scientific journals. What everyone shared in common was an appreciation
for science stories. So read them -- reading can be as fun as reporting.
Matthew Chin was a Summer 1999 Scholar at The Californian
in Salinas. Reach him at mlchin@sbcglobal.net.
Back to Top |
