Science Journalism :: The Importance of the Editor in Science Journalism

CHALLENGES IN COMMUNICATING SCIENCE TO CANADIANS ::
How Print Reporters and Editors Construct their Science Stories

The Importance of the Editor in Science Journalism

By Stephen J. A. Ward
May 10, 2008

Good science journalism is rarely a solo performance.

In the newsroom, major stories require not just reporters but also editors, photographers, graphic artists and others. The relationship between reporter and editor is often the most important factor in that process.

A survey of Canadian print science journalists found that many reporters have a good relationship with their editors in terms of story selection. A majority of reporters surveyed said their editors usually agree with their story suggestions.

“I consider my relationship with my editors here pretty good,” said a newspaper journalist. I've been in the news media a long time and they respect my views.”

Nevertheless, the reporters identified several variables that put strain on their relationships with editors. These variables include the science literacy of the editor, the type of publication and, sometimes, the pressure to hype a story.

Some reporters felt that magazine editors tend to have a better knowledge of science than newspaper editors. One journalist stressed the need to present stories in a clear and understandable fashion to both editors and readers.

“There’s no point in me presenting something that’s so incomprehensible to my editor that they don’t understand it,” she said. In her writing about physics, “I think I have been given considerable leeway in an area that a lot of editors would have said no.”

One possible flashpoint are editors’ requests for changes to stories that reporters interpret as requests to dumb down or hype the story. When asked if she ever felt pressure to create “pop” science, a reporter said: “Yes. Some editors who try and push stories in certain directions. It can be frustrating.”

Some reporters acknowledged the pressure to hype. “There could be a really interesting development in science that is not a cure for cancer, for example,” said a reporter. “And they want you to massage it into something where they can say ‘cure for cancer on horizon.’”

The fact that a story is popular with readers can cut both ways. Some editors may feel that enough has been written on the topic. Otherwise, popularity helps. “If there is an already established interest by either the editors or the public, that will influence it. Something on genomics or climate change sells well these days,” said a reporter.

One growing issue is a suspicion among some editors that scientists at universities are starting to hype their own research or promoting themselves. “He’s [the editor] sometimes suspicious that they’re just being self-promotional, not newsworthy,” said a newspaper reporter. “I think lots of papers struggle with that.”

One newspaper journalist talked about his frustration at persuading editors to consider science stories. “The hardest thing about my job is convincing the editors that these stories are interesting. That’s by far the hardest part of my job -- getting them to publish science stories. In order to do that I often feel that if I could, I have to jazz it up. Science is not a priority here, so they tend to fit it in when they have space available.”

The reporter added: “What most media are interested in are crime, politics, business, health. Science is outside that mainstream, so I’m on the fringe of their interests. So for science journalism to improve it shouldn’t be on the fringes anymore but I don’t know how you change that.”

Several reporters felt uncomfortable with the level of scientific understanding of the other journalists and support staff in the newsroom. Sometimes, newsroom cutbacks mean there is no science editor. “I’ve had editors tell me that I have to define words like cell,” remarked a reporter.

For another reporter, having an editor who does not know a lot about science is a
“twin-edged sword.” He said: “The reader I’m writing for doesn’t know anything about science so if my editor can’t understand it that’s a good sign I haven’t explained it very well. The disadvantage is that they [editors] won’t catch mistakes.”

A reporter for a major newspaper described how he set out to describe the legacy of Einstein among today’s physicist in about 10,000 words, written “from a dummy’s point of view.” The editor’s response to the article was: “Writing-wise, it’s fine, but I cannot judge the validity of what you’re saying here because it’s just beyond me.” The reporter added: “There certainly is a lack of editing skills in terms of asking critical questions about the science we’re writing about, and I don’t think that’s anyone’s fault… we’ve just pared down newsrooms.”

One journalist reflected on how the difference in age between editors and reporters can influence science journalism.

“I think we’re working in an era where a lot of editors are in a generation that’s not very scientifically literate, and they’re less scientifically literate than most of our readers are, especially younger readers. … They may try to send you off in an angle that’s kind of ridiculous.”

The pressure on journalists to write shorter stories can damage stories. “I wrote a story about flu patterns . . . about how the advent of 9/11 delayed the onset of the flu in North America,” recounted a reporter. “I had talked to so many people for that story. What ended up happening is that only one person appeared in the story, and I was so embarrassed.”

Ultimately, many reporters stressed how economic factors influence their best attempts to improve science journalism.

“It’s [good science journalism] really just about a commitment from the media to it. But it’s really a market driven thing,” the reporter said. “We’re driven by what people are interested in and what our editors believe and see from public opinion surveys and reader surveys.”