Science and the Media
Outreach Partnership Program 2005 Annual Meeting
Friday April 1, 2005
Jeremy Olson, Investigative Reporter
Omaha World-Herald
Mr. Olson, who was a medical reporter prior to becoming an investigative reporter, began by picking up on the plenary discussions about teen depression, risk of suicide and use of antidepressants. Currently, this is a hot topic for reporters and health journalists, and the challenge on this and many other stories is how to provide perspective and context to an issue when there are conflicting findings and opposing, compelling opinions being voiced by experts.
Reporters and people like the Outreach Partners and researchers have a common goal: providing important, relevant health information to the public and ultimately helping people to be better health consumers. However, their perspectives are quite different. A look at the summary of a scientific study reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), for example, illustrates one difference, and can help to demonstrate how reporters and experts can work together to be more effective. The summary first outlined the research objective and the study design, and proceeded to report the outcome measures, the results and the conclusion. The conclusion was that laws restricting children’s access to guns are associated with a modest reduction in suicide rates among youth age 14 to 17 years. There is a logical reason for this progression in a scientific report, but in a news story, that would be called “burying the lede.”
A reporter has to lead with the news, and then show how the case was made; otherwise, he is not doing his job. The journalist’s audience is the general public, and it is important to keep in mind how the general public is going to want to learn new information.
The current president of the Association of Health Care Journalists advised Mr. Olson to clarify that journalists are not health educators. This is important, because sometimes there is friction resulting from a reporter’s desire to tell a story that’s going to engage readers, and the scientist’s concern that the reporter is not appreciating the nuances of the work. The journalist is a storyteller who is attempting to draw in readers with an informative, sometimes entertaining, compelling story.
You can expect that in many cases a journalist will try to incorporate personal stories to make the research relevant to real life. This is tremendously difficult in mental health stories, especially those involving children. It is hard to find families or professionals who are willing to talk, and of course no one wants to do anything to harm an individual or cause damage in any way. Yet personal stories help to make research and research findings meaningful and useful. This is especially true if people can relate their experiences as participants in research studies. You can help journalists gain access to people willing to tell their stories. In so doing, everyone’s interest is served.
The end goal is a story that is clear and accurate and that informs readers appropriately. It is reasonable to expect a reporter to come prepared and knowledgeable about the subject of the story, but at the same time, the person providing information needs to have a sense of the reporter’s grasp of technical material and terminology. Be ready to answer simple questions, and anticipate the need for patient explanation of how everything fits together. Sometimes, scientists have problems making difficult concepts and terms understandable to the public, and you can help by providing clarity.
The most effective thing you can do in working with the media is to know the reporter’s deadline and tailor your response accordingly. If a reporter is calling you on deadline, chances are that he has seen a study and has a basic understanding of it, and is looking for a knowledgeable person to furnish perspective, express an opinion and perhaps provide some background, but right now. If the reporter is working on a longer-term project, it is a slower process, involving an initial conversation and lots of exchanges of email.
Take steps to add perspective. It is helpful when a researcher knows what else has been in the scientific press that relates to his or her work, can articulate the similarities and differences, and can give that context. When talking with a reporter, it is important to back up statistics and references with citations or studies, and when possible, provide copies of the studies or cite a title in PubMed (from the National Library of Medicine at NIH). It also is important for researchers to volunteer up front whether they have affiliations with drug companies or other sources of funding that could create a possible conflict of interest.
The “burst in the door” theory has to do with starting out with your strongest piece of information — engaging the listener (initially the reporter and ultimately the readers/viewers) so you get his attention and he understands what is most important. Then you can provide context and help the reporter and the public, understand how the breaking news fits into the bigger picture. You can also help reporters find data sets and sources of information that will enable them to do their own research on issues when published studies are lacking.
Creating a relationship with a journalist well before there is a particular piece of news to discuss is important. Often, the journalist will come to rely on you as a person who can informally provide perspective on new findings. Also, by staying abreast of current mental health news, and being ready to react when you are contacted by a journalist, you can help to shape the story and thus become a more effective communicator. (A useful resource is the daily news digest from the Center for the Advancement of Health.)
Frequently, after an initial story breaks, a newspaper will be interested in running articles on the following weekend that will explore the subject in greater depth. This is an opportunity for you to contact reporters and editors with ideas and different perspectives, but you should do it that same week.
Questions and Answers
Mr. Olson covered some advantages and pitfalls of emailing journalists: because journalists are inundated with emails from many credible organizations, they pay more attention to those from people they know. Email is especially useful for providing background and attaching relevant reports.
Following up on Mr. Olson’s description of his coverage of incarcerated mentally ill juveniles, a participant asked if he researches practices in other states when covering such topics. Mr. Olson said that he does, and advised participants to be aware of what other states are doing and prepared to give that information to journalists.
On the question of ethical considerations involved in interviewing families and individuals with mental illness and identifying them by name, Mr. Olson said that his goal for every story is to use the full names of real people to lend maximum credibility and make the story powerful. However, many times he has had to use assumed or first names only, or use information without identifying the person who provided it. He added that prior to writing the final copy, he sometimes will allow sources to review excerpts of drafts for accuracy only.
Regarding stigma associated with media coverage of violent crime or suicide and mention of history of mental illness, crime reporters are going to want to tell the whole story. However, health reporters are willing to do interesting stories that elicit empathy for people with mental illness and combat stigma by emphasizing the effectiveness of treatments. When covering suicide, Mr. Olson and other reporters are aware of and consider the guidelines issued by the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention. They also consult with mental health experts on such stories.
In response to a question about the ethics of pitching stories to more than one reporter, whether in the same organization or a competing one, Mr. Olson said that he would want to know who else is working on a particular story. It is not an ethical issue unless (1) you have an exclusive agreement with a reporter or (2) you are dishonest when queried about whether you have sent the information to others. He also advised against blast faxing, but acknowledged the usefulness of blast email.
Ken Libertoff described recent national media attention to what at first seemed to be a frivolous local story, but turned out to be a useful and important vehicle for communicating issues about sensitivity and stigma: the manufacture of a teddy bear called “Crazy for You,” packaged with a strait jacket. Mr. Olson commented that when a so-called frivolous story gets wide attention, it is because it taps into something people care about. These are opportunities to take advantage of.
To address the issue of the public’s suspicion of research, which is based at least partly on widely varying findings and changing recommendations for health, reporters need to explain that science is an unfolding story. It is important to provide context, and the reasons for different conclusions. It is also important not to over-promise potential cures from basic research.
In response to a question about how to approach a reporter whose coverage lacks balance, Mr. Olson replied that he is an optimist who believes that reporters are always trying to tell the best story they can, and encouraged the questioner to keep working with the reporter.
Disclaimer
* This document is intended to summarize a speaker’s presentation at the NIMH Outreach Partnership Program’s Annual Meeting and is not an official statement or opinion of the NIMH. This information is in the public domain and may be used or reproduced for educational purposes without additional permission from the NIMH.
