Science Journalism :: Article :: Art and Science of Press Conference

ARTICLE ::

The art and science of a press conference
by Kyle Harland
November 20, 2007

Dr. Jaymie Matthews pointed to a picture of his project, a Canadian satellite. “We’re the Zellers of space telescopes,” he said proudly. In the world of space telescopes, the 10-million dollars it cost to create the MOST satellite was a bargain. “We call it the Humble Space Telescope,” he said, referencing the better-known Hubble Space Telescope.

Matthews, an associate professor of astronomy at UBC was presenting at the “Future Directions in Science Journalism” conference put on by the University of British Columbia’s School of Journalism. The conference set out to engage the scientific and journalistic communities with dialogue aimed at improving science communication.

Encouragingly, it was a scientist who showed how to present information in an accessible and interesting way during a mock science press conference designed to generate discussion among conference delegates. Traditionally it is the journalist’s job to translate a scientist’s often confusing and esoteric data, and explain it to the public. But Dr. Jaymie Matthews, an associate professor of astronomy at UBC, did just fine on his own.

Matthews presented research on a planet named Gliese 581C, which is just the right distance away from a star to sustain life. It orbits in what astronomers sometimes call the “Goldilocks Zone” – aptly named because the temperature in the region is not too hot, not too cold, but just right.

As if possible alien life weren’t interesting on its own, Matthews’ presentation included elegant analogies, social relevance, historical anecdotes, and humour that had the audience in stitches.

While talking about Canada’s Microvariability and Oscillation of Stars (MOST) satellite, he made sure to point out its uncanny resemblance to the cartoon character Spongebob Squarepants in his presentation. He related the planet he was researching to climate change, saying it was being used in models at an institute in Germany to further our understanding of climate on our own planet.

He had many analogies that were easy to understand, well thought out, and scientific, such as when he described MOST’s ability to detect changes in light up to one part per million: “Even astronomers have a hard time relating to that kind of number,” Matthews said. “Well, go down to New York City, and look at the Empire State Building at night. All the lights are on. All the office window shades are open. You can make the Empire State Building fainter by one part per million by having one person pull down one shade by three centimeters. And that’s what our instrument is capable of measuring.”

Those who knew of Matthews before his mock presentation may not have been so surprised at his appealing talk. Matthews’ aptitude for making complex ideas accessible has earned him the UBC Killam Teaching Prize and the Canadian Association of Physicists Medal for Excellence in Teaching.

But Matthews doesn’t just know how to teach; he knows what journalists want out of him. He gave the “big picture” of his work and made sure to have quotable phrases. He recounted Yuri Gagarin, the first astronaut in space, who said in 1961, “I see the Earth. It is so beautiful.”

Matthews then said, “There’s a very real possibility that I or one of my colleagues in the next few years will be able to say, ‘I see another Earth. It is so beautiful.’”

Richard Black, an environment reporter for BBC News, was particularly impressed with Matthews’ presentation. “I’ve been to a lot of press conferences and I don’t think I’ve ever really been to one that was as good as Jaymie’s,” said Black. “If you combine what he gave you with a few follow-up questions and a bit of your own research, if you can’t get a good story out of that then you shouldn’t be in the business, to be honest. That was as good as it gets.”

But one problem with Matthews’ presentation was that it didn’t really have much news. It certainly sounded good in the press conference, but any reporter who followed up the presentation with research would find that the Earth-like planet was widely reported in April. Yes, Matthews had advanced the research on the planet since then, but even he admitted there wasn’t a lot new that the general public would have interest in.

“I chose a result that is in some sense a null result,” he said when he was asked to discuss why he put his presentation together the way he did. “The idea was to take this particular result and use it as a lead in to the broader issue of exploration of other planets.”

It was interesting, but not “news” as editors most often define it.

The trouble is that science and news don’t go well together. As so many scientists at the conference lamented, journalism doesn’t represent the process of science accurately. Journalists demand big impact, right now. That’s what “news” is. But the process of science is incremental. The “breakthroughs” and “proofs” that are so often presented in the news are a misrepresentation of the science, which is done meticulously over a long period of time. Results take time, and are always in flux. Nothing in science is ever really complete; nothing is ever proven.

Matthews had the incremental data. But he knew it wouldn’t be of interest to journalists, so he gave us the “big picture” story instead. There’s no question that some journalists would question the newsworthiness of his presentation, because what he spoke about wasn’t exactly recent. But if he simply presented his recent data without any context, no one would see much news value in that, either.

It’s a paradox in science journalism. Journalists ask for the relevance and the “big picture” while demanding very recent data and statistics. But science rarely works in a way that satisfies both these needs, that is, without blowing things out of proportion or misrepresenting information. This is a major reason for the disconnect between scientists and journalists.

Journalists’ demands are somewhat ironic, says Black. “If scientists don’t give the process, [journalists] say, ‘Where’s the process?’ But if they give the process but no results, they say, ‘Where are the results?’”

Unfortunately, what science produces and what journalism demands are so wildly different that it’s hard for them to effectively work together. Matthews did an admirable job, but even with such a strong presentation, there were critics.

So what is science journalism to do? Conference delegates – both scientists and journalists – tried to find that answer all day. The only consensus that they reached was that a lot needed changing