The challenges of science journalism: The perspectives of scientists, science communication advisors and journalists from New Zealand.

Public Understanding of Science http://pus.sagepub.com/

The challenges of science journalism: The perspectives of scientists, science communication advisors and journalists from New Zealand Douglas James Ashwell Public Understanding of Science published online 11 November 2014 DOI: 10.1177/0963662514556144 The online version of this article can be found at: http://pus.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/11/10/0963662514556144

Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Public Understanding of Science can be found at: Email Alerts: http://pus.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://pus.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://pus.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/11/10/0963662514556144.refs.html

>> OnlineFirst Version of Record - Nov 11, 2014 What is This?

Downloaded from pus.sagepub.com at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on November 21, 2014

556144 research-article2014

PUS0010.1177/0963662514556144Public Understanding of ScienceAshwell

P U S

Theoretical/research paper

The challenges of science journalism: The perspectives of scientists, science communication advisors and journalists from New Zealand

Public Understanding of Science 1–15 © The Author(s) 2014 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0963662514556144 pus.sagepub.com

Douglas James Ashwell Massey University, New Zealand

Abstract The news media play an important role in informing the public about scientific and technological developments. Some argue that restructuring and downsizing result in journalists coming under increased pressure to produce copy, leading them to use more public relations material to meet their deadlines. This article explores science journalism in the highly commercialised media market of New Zealand. Using semi-structured interviews with scientists, science communication advisors and journalists, the study finds communication advisors and scientists believe most media outlets, excluding public service media, report science poorly. Furthermore, restructuring and staff cuts have placed the journalists interviewed under increasing pressure. While smaller newspapers appear to be printing press releases verbatim, metropolitan newspaper journalists still exercise control over their use of such material. The results suggest these journalists will continue to resist increasing their use of public relations material for some time to come.

Keywords media and science, science journalism

1. Introduction Science is an integral part of our lives and surveys continue to show ‘the vast majority of the public get most of their information about science from the mass media’ (UK Science and the Media Expert Group, 2010: 3). The UK Science and the Media Expert Group (2010) also argues media reporting of science cannot be ignored as ‘some of the most important science debates of our times have been conducted on the front pages and in the headlines of the mainstream news’ (p. 3). Therefore, how scientific issues are reported is an area of interest, for researchers, policy makers, scientists and all involved in science communication.

Corresponding author: Douglas James Ashwell, Massey University, Pamerston North, 4442, New Zealand. Email: [email protected]


2

Public Understanding of Science

Väliverronen (1993) notes the growth of investigation into the ‘relations between science, the media and the public since the 1980s’; media researchers who produce research too ‘science-centered’ or too ‘media-centered’ to encapsulate ‘the changing relationships between science and the massmediated public sphere’ have dominated this field of enquiry (p. 23). Bucchi (2002) argues this research has concentrated on two aspects of the science communication process; first on the public’s understanding of science, where research measures the public’s ‘degree of awareness and understanding about scientific issues reported by the media’ (p. 4). The other aspect has primarily examined the relationship between scientists and journalists. The results of the latter suggest the relationship resembles the clash between two distinct cultures, with the demands of journalism meaning journalists will never satisfy the demands of science (Bucchi, 2002; Peters, 1995). However, Bucchi (2002) argues both the public’s understanding of science and science reporting are measured against the standards of science, resulting in the media being blamed for misrepresenting science, thereby exacerbating public misunderstanding. Both strands of research operate from a ‘deficit model’ of science communication. For example, solutions proposed to alleviate the public’s apparent lack of scientific understanding recommend supplying more correct information so they will understand and appreciate science in the expected manner. In terms of media, the proposed solutions are journalists having more time to write stories and to be better educated about science (Bucchi, 2002). As Irwin and Wynne (1996) suggest, the deficit model implicitly accepts scientific knowledge has unquestioned authority and legitimacy. However, Irwin and Wynne (1996) argue, science knowledge only receives public legitimation and authority if it is communicated in a manner that appreciates the social–cultural context in which people live and furthermore, knowledge can be of use in that context. Moreover, concentration on the relationship between scientists and journalists misses ‘the increasing market orientation of universities and other scientific organisations’ (Väliverronen, 1993: 23). According to Bauer and Gregory (2007), scientific research in the United Kingdom and other industrial countries has, since the 1980s, become increasingly privatised leading to a new regime of science communication. In this situation ‘the modes of reporting and attention to issues are now more the outcome of strategic public relations than the older journalistic agendas of investigations, education, and enlightenment’ (Bauer and Gregory, 2007: 44). The move towards more commercialised scientific research has coincided with ever increasing competition in the media sector (Bauer and Gregory, 2007). Moreover, the global financial crisis of 2008–2009 has ‘led to stagnation in total advertising expenditures, and in a few cases actual decreases’ (Nielsen and Levy, 2010: 5). This decline has especially affected newspapers. For instance, 2009 saw a number of newspapers in the United States reduce their delivery, a few went online-only, others filed for bankruptcy, while others folded altogether and many laid off employees (Chyi et al., 2012). Siles and Boczkowski (2012) note that decreases in circulation and reductions in staff numbers have also occurred in Europe, Great Britain, Australia and Canada. New Zealand can also be added to this list (Ahmed, 2013; Myllylahti, 2012). These events affect science journalism. A survey of UK science journalists found 61% of the respondents believed ‘that in terms of staffing levels the UK national science beat is either stagnant or in decline’ (Williams and Clifford, 2009: 3). Brumfiel (2009) argues this situation is echoed in the United States and Europe as increasing economic constraints affect newspapers. In addition, a 2004 survey of Latin American science journalists illustrated they were coming under increasing pressures, with science sections for which they wrote often threatened with closure (Massarani et al., 2005). Given this survey was conducted before the global financial crisis of 2008–2009, science journalists probably now face additional pressures. Television coverage of science has also declined. Russell (2010) cites CNN decision to cut its entire science, technology and environment team in 2008 as an example of this trend. In Europe,


3

Ashwell

Verhoeven (2010) notes that despite high public interest in science, ‘news items about science are brief and always about the natural sciences or technology’ (p. 347). The decreasing capacity in science journalism outlined only serves to increase stresses on those science journalists remaining. For example, surveys of science journalists in the United Kingdom and United States reveal that the rise of Internet and multi-media platforms finds journalists subject to increased demands for content (Brumfiel, 2009; Williams and Clifford, 2009). Increased workloads mean journalists have less time to investigate stories leading to reliance on ‘predictable news agency – PR-led news (so called low hanging fruit)’ (Williams and Clifford, 2009: 4). As Hall et al. (1978) argue, the media ‘do not autonomously create news items; rather they are “cued in” to specific topics by regular and reliable institutional sources’ (p. 253). Therefore, public relation (PR) material coming from reliable institutional sources is more likely to be used than PR material coming from less well known sources for example, grass roots environmental groups. In New Zealand, this could result in journalists becoming reliant on material from government agencies and research institutes. As noted, Bauer and Gregory (2007) argue the influence of PR on the communication of science has increased since the 1980s. Gopfert (2007) says the content of science news in Germany is increasingly influenced by PR because of mounting pressures experienced by journalists in newsrooms. Lewis et al. (2008) also found UK journalists relied heavily on PR material and this raised ‘significant questions concerning claims to journalistic independence in UK news media’ (p. 1). Gopfert (2007) fears closer relationships between journalists and PR practitioners will lead to interest-driven coverage replacing independent journalism, resulting in the reporting of a distorted view of science. I examine some of the impact these pressures are having on science journalism, in the small, yet highly commercialised media market of New Zealand.

The New Zealand media and science research landscapes The nature of science journalism needs to be seen in the context of both local media and science industries. New Zealand has a relatively small population (approximately 4.4 million) with onethird living in the largest city, Auckland. Historically, rugged terrain combined with isolated pockets of population spread across the country’s two major islands worked against the development of national daily newspapers. Rather, there are four large metropolitan dailies; two in the North Island, The Dominion Post and New Zealand Herald and two South Island newspapers, The Press and Otago Daily Times. There are also three national Sunday newspapers, the Sunday Star Times, Sunday News and the Herald on Sunday. In addition, other regions are served by a number of regional dailies. There are two major television networks, state-owned Television New Zealand (TVNZ) and the TV3 network owned by MediaWorks. There is also one major pay-per-view network, Sky Television. Finally, per capita, New Zealand has the largest number of broadcast radio frequencies anywhere in the world (Shanahan and Duignan, 2005). The Radio Network (TRN) and MediaWorks own most of the commercial stations dominating the commercial radio market. Outside this duopoly are a small number of privately owned radio stations. An important player in the radio landscape is Radio New Zealand. The state-owned public service broadcaster has two networks, National Radio, broadcasting news and current affairs, including an award-winning science programme called Eureka, and Concert, concentrating on the arts (Dubber, 2005). Reports of media ownership in New Zealand describe it as highly concentrated and highly commercialised (Myllylahti, 2011; Rosenberg, 2008). Myllylahti (2011) argues a number of recent developments, including the Government’s removal of both the TVNZ public service charter and funding for pre-existing commercial free,


4


digital channels TVNZ6 and TVNZ7, the latter of which delivered 24 hour news and information, including science programmes, has only exacerbated the commercialisation of New Zealand media. Myllylahti (2011) says these developments mean, ‘New Zealand’s public media space is shrinking as commercial imperatives prevail’ (p. 22). While similar moves are found internationally, New Zealand has arguably gone further in allowing commercialisation to dominate the media landscape, with the Government encouraging the state-owned TVNZ to follow a wholly commercial agenda. According to Paul Norris (2010), academic and former Director of TVNZ News and Current Affairs, this leaves Radio New Zealand the only ‘organisation that can rightly claim to be a national public broadcaster’ (p. 28). According to a recent survey, an estimated 1500–2900 journalists work in this media landscape (Hollings, 2014). Of these, only a handful work as science or science environment reporters, and most are expected to cover stories from different beats in addition to their science/environment beat. Furthermore, preliminary results of this survey suggest while most journalists are happy in their work (82%), 59% believe the standard of journalism in New Zealand is average or below average. Furthermore, journalists felt in the past 5 years, time for them to investigate stories has decreased, as has the credibility of journalism (Hollings, 2014). While this survey took place after interviews for this research were conducted, the number of science/environment journalists in New Zealand remains reasonably static. Compared to other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries of similar size, for example, Denmark and Singapore, scientific research in New Zealand has a low level of investment at just 1.3% of gross domestic product (GDP) (Science Media Centre New Zealand, 2012). Of this research funding, ‘41.5% is funded by the private sector, 25.7% directly from Government and 32.8% from the university sector’ (Access4.eu, 2013: para. 9). Crown Research Institutes (CRIs), the eight national universities, conduct most of the non-private research (Access4.eu, 2013). CRIs established in 1992 are government-owned businesses conducting scientific research into particular natural resources or productive sectors of the economy including agriculture, plants and foods, forestry, the environment, water and atmosphere, land care, industry and, nuclear and physical sciences (Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, 2014). In short, New Zealand has a small and relatively underfunded research sector and a small, highly commercialised media sector with poorly funded Radio New Zealand the only non-commercial public service broadcaster. Employing qualitative methodology, the research explores perceptions of participants from a wide range of media outlets, CRIs and other research organisations in New Zealand. The study sought to answer the following questions: How well is science being reported in New Zealand? What type of relationships did these groups have with one another? How did journalists view press releases and how much did they use them? Were there differences in how press releases were viewed depending on their source?

2. The research method A total of 25 semi-structured, investigative face-to-face and telephone interviews were conducted between 2009 and early 2011. According to Rubin and Rubin (2005), investigative interviews are narrowly focussed and well suited to examine events and processes. They are therefore suitable for investigating the roles and opinions of science communication/PR advisors, journalists and scientists involved in science reporting. Cresswell (1998), while agreeing telephone interviews are


5

Ashwell Table 1. Interviewee experience. Interviewee type

Average time in position

Shortest time in position

Longest time in position

Science communication advisors (n = 10) Science journalists (n = 6) Scientists (n = 9)

5 years

7 months

18 years part and full-time

17.5 years 18 years

3.5 years 3 years

26 years 31 years

acceptable in certain circumstances, argues they are qualitatively different to face-to-face interviews because interviewees’ non-verbal communication cannot be observed. However, recent studies have shown no significant difference between data obtained from telephone interviews or face-to-face interviews (Novick, 2008; Sturges and Hanrahan, 2004). Interviewees were asked for perceptions about three particular areas of the science communication process: how science was reported in New Zealand, how press releases or PR material was used in that reporting and how they found their interactions with the other groups. In all, 15 interviews were conducted face-to-face. All interviews were conducted in accordance with the Massey University Code of Ethical Conduct. Participants were 10 science communication/PR advisors (hereinafter called communication advisors), six science/environment journalists and nine scientists. Six of the 10 science communication advisors worked for six of the eight CRIs. Of the other 3 communication advisors, one worked for a New Zealand university, another for an independent medical research organisation, and the final interviewee was from the New Zealand Science Media Centre. Organisational websites were used to identify potential interviewees who were contacted by phone or email to arrange an interview. Of the six science/environment journalists selected, three worked for three of the four large metropolitan dailies The Press, The Dominion Post and The Otago Daily Times. Of the other three, one worked for the Waikato Times, the largest regional daily newspaper, another for the Sunday Star Times a national Sunday newspaper and the last worked for TV3. The newspapers represented by these journalists have a combined circulation of 402,799 (New Zealand Audit Bureau of Circulation Inc., 2011). The average audience for TV3’s nightly 6:00 p.m. news programme where the selected journalist appears is 380,000 (Williams, 2012). Eight of the nine scientists interviewed represented four of the eight CRIs, and the ninth scientist worked for a New Zealand university. Scientists were identified by asking the communication manager of each CRI and the university for the names of potential participants. Each manager provided a list of prospective interviewees who were contacted by phone and/or email. All scientists contacted agreed to an interview. The relative experience of interviewees is presented in Table 1. The interviews, ranging from 16 to 90 minutes, were transcribed and analysed using a crosscase analysis, where participants’ answers to interview questions were grouped together (Patton, 2002). Using a ‘grounded’ approach (Miles and Huberman, 1994) and following Owen’s (1984) criteria of recurrence, repetition and forcefulness, a number of consistent themes were identified. In the following section when interviewees are quoted, CA denotes communication advisors, J, journalists and SC, scientists.

3. Findings Science reporting Because of concerns about media coverage of science by policy makers, scientists and others, scientists and communication advisors were asked for their opinions on how science was reported in New Zealand. In answer scientists responded that science reporting was poor, while communication


6


advisors said their organisations were generally reported well. Journalists discussed the techniques they used to try and ensure that science was reported accurately. As noted, most scientists said science reporting was poor although this depended on the media outlet. Five scientists argued that science was reported well by Radio New Zealand or the now discontinued channel TVNZ7. Another four stated the science reporter from The Press did produce good science stories. The Press journalist had specialised in science reporting for a number of years and was himself a chief reporter for the paper. The scientists’ opinions about the standard of science reporting are best summed up in the following four comments: In general pretty rubbish although there are a few exceptions. Radio New Zealand does a really good job and I think TVNZ 7 have been doing a really good job. I think commercial radio and television do a really bad job and newspapers concentrate on the weird and wonderful. I think the big gap is that science that really matters to everyday people; for example, the state of our rivers, is abysmally reported. (SC1) From different sources it’s very different. Radio New Zealand seems to go into very real depth with long interviews that allow people to explain science more fully. Whereas, you often see in print media and their media websites very short articles which do not cover science wholly accurately. (SC6) What is there is good. But considering the amount of science and scientific enquiry going on … there is not enough. (SC9) There are one or two journalists at The New Zealand Herald, Dominion Post and the guy at the Press who have quite a good background in science and are up with the play on a lot of issues. Often however, when newspaper journalists phone me, they tend to sound very young and not at all knowledgeable about what they are calling about. So I get the impression that science, certainly environmental reporting, is not held in particularly high regard by the print media. (SC5)

In contrast, communication advisors mainly spoke about how their organisations were reported, rather than science journalism in general. Most believed their organisations were reported well. A typical comment was ‘Generally we have very good neutral to positive coverage’ (CA7). Again the journalist from The Press was specifically mentioned as a positive example of a knowledgeable and capable journalist by two of the communication advisors. Despite this, seven communication advisors did report having problems at various times with journalists and one reported, ‘There are some major issues. We have had some fairly shocking reporting’ (CA1). The CRI this communicator worked for had recently laid a complaint with the Broadcasting Standards Authority about a current affairs programme concerning the organisation. Another CRI communication advisor noted an occasion when a reporter broke an embargo, causing the institute’s overseas collaborators’ displeasure. While communication advisors spoke mainly about coverage of their organisations, six made more general comments about science journalism. In particular, they spoke about the high turnover and shrinking number of science journalists in newsrooms. One argued there was an overemphasis on the environment in science news: It’s almost universally the case that somebody has a round entitled environment/science. So a lot of what an environment/science journalist seems to be doing is running their own show on their green pages. So you have to find stories that have sustainability angles and are about green sorts of issues. I don’t think all science fits in that category. (CA3)

This communication advisor argued this focus meant other science organisations, with no sustainability or green angle, found it more difficult to get science coverage.


7

Ashwell

Journalists were not asked directly how science was reported but were instead asked what made a good science story. However, it is important to note one journalist, without prompting, did speak directly about science coverage stating, ‘I think basically the standard of journalism in New Zealand, including science journalism, is reasonably good’ (J5). Other journalists explained measures they used to maintain these standards by ensuring the accuracy of their stories. For example, I will always check things if I am not sure and on occasions I have sent the whole story to a scientist and asked, ‘Can you check to make sure I have got this right?’. (J1)

Five journalists said they phoned scientists to check the accuracy of a story with one saying, ‘I am fastidious in my science stories, I will ring them back and check facts and make sure they understand I am writing for a daily newspaper and not New Scientist’ (J2). The latter comment illustrates journalists’ attempts to manage expectations of scientists by explaining the constraints under which they report science. One journalist suggested he moderated scientists’ expectations by ‘always being upfront about the space I have to write in and what you can explain’ (J4). Another said, ‘I try to communicate during an interview, especially if it is a complex or involved piece of research, that I am not going to have more than a couple of hundred words’ (J3). The television journalist said she hoped that when a scientist saw the story ‘they are prepared and are not expecting the full five or six minute interview to be on screen. So I suppose I sort of lower their expectations to start with’ (J6). These comments may explain why five scientists said they preferred live radio interviews because, as one stated, ‘Journalists cannot misconstrue words because it’s live, so they present it just as you say it’ (SC2). However, the tenor of scientists’ comments about the standard of science reporting indicated these strategies to manage expectations might be ineffective. As noted, one scientist perceived that newspaper journalists ‘concentrate on the weird and wonderful’ (SC1). To an extent, when asked what constituted a good science story, journalists supported this viewpoint. One stated, ‘It’s got to have a sexy sort of thing about it … because there would be no point in me writing a story about some exciting new calculus algorithm that’s been developed because no-one would be interested in that …’ (J1). Another said ‘it’s got to have a colorful hook to it. … for me it’s got to be something quirky, unusual, out of the ordinary …’ (J2). However, the same journalist also said a good science story would be one that affects people’s daily lives. Another journalist agreed, saying good science stories were those ‘people can visualise or understand not necessarily in simple terms but how it might affect them or change their lives’ (J3). So while journalists were always looking for new angles by which to report science, these were not just quirky or weird.

Restructuring When discussing how science was reported by New Zealand media, both communication advisors and scientists brought up issues of restructuring and increased pressures on journalists. These comments were unsolicited with no specific questions being asked about restructuring. Before reporting these comments, it is useful to note that all the major metropolitan dailies contacted for this research had dedicated science or science/environment journalists. However, this may not be the case for smaller provincial daily newspapers, although the regional daily selected for this research did have a permanent science/environment journalist. In contrast, when first approached, representatives from both television networks said they did not have a science correspondent. However, both networks later produced names of journalists who sometimes specialised in reporting science.


8


Only one journalist mentioned any increased pressure caused by cutbacks. She said, ‘time constraints and staffing issues mean you are not out there as much as you would like to be, visiting universities and research institutes and talking to people directly’ (J3). Other journalists did not mention increased pressures or lack of resources. Indeed, one appeared to argue the opposite when talking about getting sources for stories: ‘There’s rarely an excuse not to try and actually ring someone and spend a minute or two on the phone with them to get a couple of extra comments’ (J1), suggesting this journalist did not consider himself time poor. Nevertheless, when discussing their reliance on media releases, journalists did reveal current work pressures, (see below). In contrast to journalists, communication advisors argued restructuring in newsrooms had increased pressures on journalists resulting in poorer coverage. One advisor stated, ‘There are no journalists left, they have been stripped. So there is little in-depth reporting in New Zealand any more and very little analysis’ (CA1). One scientist also commented on the ‘very few dedicated science journalists in New Zealand’, saying science reporting appeared to be ‘given to the most junior person in the organisation’ (SC5). One communication advisor noted a high turnover rate among science journalists in New Zealand. When called by a journalist she did not know, she assumed they had no background knowledge of the organisation and therefore, would ‘remind them about the website … and other basic stuff’ (CA1). According to other interviewees, this high turnover makes it difficult for communication advisors to develop relationships with journalists; one argued, ‘You get a good relationship going with someone, some trust, some rapport, but you know quite soon you will have to be dealing with a new person’ (CA7). The first communication advisor to mention this lack of continuity with journalists saw both sides: ‘An advantage if you are trying to bury something, because people don’t remember what someone did six months ago. It is a disadvantage because you are not getting decent reporting’ (CA1). Another communication advisor argued this high turnover was due to the science beat being unattractive and generally journalists wanted to become business or political reporters, for more autonomy. Furthermore, she believed science reporters were disadvantaged due to the shifts they work which obliged them to be ‘constantly handing stories to others’ (CA3). Five journalists, who reported they are often involved in reporting other issues as well as science, confirmed this. One noted he had ‘several rounds including science, energy, and environment’ (J1). Despite these observations, all the communication advisors and most scientists could name a number of journalists who as one scientist puts it, ‘are pretty up with the play on a lot of areas of science, or at least articulate and intelligent in the way they ask questions …’ (SC5). The reporting by these journalists was considered to be of a good standard.

Information subsidy and public relations As noted, some writers suggest PR material acts as an information subsidy for journalists under increased pressure from restructuring and expectations of writing in a multi-platform environment (Gopfert, 2007). Therefore, journalists and communication advisors were asked about the use of press releases. The communication advisors all agreed science journalists from larger newspapers use press releases as a starting point from which to investigate and write their own stories, whereas smaller newspapers and trade magazines were more inclined to use releases with no or little alteration. For example, one journalist said, ‘Regional newspapers and specialist publications use them all the time’ (J4). A communication advisor reiterated this point saying ‘a lot of our media releases that get picked up by smaller newspapers just get printed verbatim so we can’t complain about that’ (C4). As illustrated, the verbatim use of press releases was seen as positive by three of the communication advisors in terms of getting their organisational message out to the public. However, while


9

Ashwell

admitting he got a ‘kick out’ of seeing his press releases reported verbatim, one communication advisor considered it lazy journalism to repeat a press release without contacting the scientist concerned or at least putting some journalistic analysis into the final story (CA5). Two journalists agreed smaller papers often use press releases verbatim, and they too believed this was lazy. Five journalists reinforced the communication advisors’ comments stating press releases were only a beginning point for their own stories. One argued sometimes communication advisors would prepare an entire story ‘but I won’t run that. I’ll look for my own colourful, interesting and quirky left-field angle on it’ (J2). Another said ‘I would never just write a story from a press release and put my name on it, … there’s rarely an excuse not to ring someone and just get a couple of extra comments’ (J1). Finally, one stated, ‘There are times when you do stories that have come from press releases but my story would then be based on one-on-one interviews with the people in that press release’ (J3). However, journalists did admit to using parts of press releases. One journalist stated, ‘I would admit to cutting and pasting the odd paragraph here and there from a press release but only in the situation where I can’t explain it better …’ (J2). Another agreed, saying he would use material provided as ‘they put it succinctly’ (J1). Another, while admitting to using parts of press releases, argued the media were ‘not a photocopying industry’ (J5). While all journalists argued they would prefer to interview sources directly one described press releases as Incredibly valuable because you know staff on newspapers are growing smaller and smaller. We are covering more and more ourselves. If you can get a story tip from someone outside and you can follow it up and they give you a little bit to work with straight away then it’s going to make your job easier. (J2)

Another journalist argued lack of time and staffing shortages could result in journalists using more PR material in their stories. However, she added journalists had ‘a responsibility … to try and counteract this’ (J3). These comments do reveal restructuring and staffing decreases have affected the way journalists use PR material. These comments illustrate press releases are beneficial particularly when journalists become pushed for time. The journalists interviewed said using large amounts of press release material is more common in smaller newsrooms. However, they reported only using press releases as starting points for their own stories, or at most, they said they would only use small parts of press releases. The television journalist also reported using press releases this way, saying that verbatim use of press releases was actively discouraged. However, further probing revealed that in some situations (and in at least three cases) journalists will use press releases in a near verbatim manner. For example, one journalist said, ‘If all I have done is reword a press release for a three paragraph down pager, I just say, “no by-line please this is not really my work, all I have done is tidy it up a bit”’ (J2). A second said, ‘If it is a minor thing we will just process it and put it in the system but often at a much briefer length than originally offered. But it is important to know it’s got some credibility’ (J5). Another said, If it was something that came late in a press release and you couldn’t get hold of anyone, then you might use more of it because needs must. But good practice means you would not put your by-line on it claim that you came up with it. (J1)

Journalists were asked if they felt PR materials are used more because of pressures experienced by journalists through restructuring and lack of time. The journalists recognised the amount of PR material they received has substantially increased and ‘the PR industry seems to have become a lot


10


more aggressive in recent years’ (J1). This journalist had filled in for the chief reporter for the first time in a year and was surprised about the number of phones calls from ‘PR agencies pushing stories’ (J1). Awareness of increasing attempts by PR agencies to push stories seemed to make journalists more discerning about the origins of press releases and more reliant on their regular sources. For example, one journalist said, I know my sources and am confident their press releases are good. If a press release comes from someone I haven’t dealt with before I’ll ask how long have they been with the organisation? Who have they replaced? What is their role? But a lot of these science organisations have got people who have been in these communication roles for quite some time and I’ve built up good rapport with them. You know who they are. So when an email pops up in your box you know it is reliable. (J2)

Another argued he had been a journalist for over 20 years and knew which source was credible. He also noted some organisations were so notorious for their less than credible news releases that ‘you almost joke that the only real thing in the press release is the last sentence’ (J5). One journalist said he was biased in his approach to using news releases stating if ‘I get a news release from a CRI I actually think that’s interesting there’s probably something in it … its normally the genesis of a good story’ (J1). Other organisations were not treated in the same way. These comments indicate that journalists were careful in their use of news releases with certain organisations more trusted than others, suggesting their story ideas were more likely to get published. While journalists found press releases to be a valuable resource, three reported some dissatisfaction with organisations issuing them. One frustration was the frequent unavailability of those listed as contact persons on the release. One journalist found this particularly annoying: ‘Something like 25-30% of the people listed as contacts are terminally unavailable, overseas, clinically or otherwise dead or totally unaware of the press release’ (J5). A related problem was the slow response time of communication teams to journalists’ requests for further information. One journalist said, What always frustrates us is we have 14 reporters in our newsroom and yet you’ll often ring up government departments, CRIs or councils with communications staff not far off that number and yet they won’t manage to get back to you for days. … (J1)

The television journalist supported this, arguing communication people in science organisations did not understand the urgency of media deadlines and the demand for a new story, ‘Especially if it has been or about to be in a newspaper, we are not going to do it the next day. I don’t think they fully appreciate its news not current affairs’ (J6). Related to this complaint was the demand by some organisations for journalists to email questions to the organisation rather than making scientists available for interview. Another journalist argued this was not satisfactory: I find it very restricting because the organisation tends to think this is it, that’s all you want to know when you put it in an email. I also feel I can’t interview someone directly and it’s very annoying. The worst scenario I have had is a communications person who at the hospital interviews the victims and then makes an audiotape of the interview available for you to pick quotes out of which I find reprehensible. (J4)

These issues, combined with time constraints and increased demands, may undermine the ability of journalists to properly investigate science stories.


11

Ashwell

4. Discussion The results indicate both communication advisors and scientists believe in general science reporting by the New Zealand media is poor, especially in the case of commercial radio and television. The reason for the latter could be the very small amounts of time given to stories as noted by the television journalist interviewed in this research. However, scientists argued the non-commercial media outlets of Radio New Zealand and the now defunct TVNZ7 produced the highest quality science news. Additionally, a number of people in both groups recognised the more dedicated newspaper science journalists, especially the Press science journalist, did produce good science coverage. These results are comparable with those of Massarani et al. (2005) who found good science journalism produced by journalists who ‘seriously dedicated themselves to the coverage of scientific and technological issues’ (p. 6). Yet, the closure of TVNZ7 and further downsizing in newspaper newsrooms may result in Radio New Zealand becoming the only surviving source of science journalism considered good by scientists and science communication advisors. Edelson (1979) once described science reporting as a ‘ghetto of journalism’ [where] ‘most of the coverage is done by people other than science reporters’ (p. 13). This view is supported by the findings of this study with communication advisors and scientists concerned both with the calibre and high turnover of journalists reporting science. One communication advisor, an ex-journalist, suggested this high turnover was the result of the science beat being unpopular with journalists who prefer secure rounds over which they can have more control (e.g. politics). This reluctance, if indeed it exists, may be due to New Zealand’s small science sector, which produces limited numbers of scientific discoveries deemed newsworthy, restricting journalists’ opportunities to investigate and report local science, resulting in considerable reproduction of international science news for local audiences. If this is the case, it may explain why, in New Zealand, the science beat is seen as less attractive. However, those journalists interviewed did not argue the science beat was unattractive or that limited numbers of local science stories were issues. Instead, science reporting was their passion, and many had been doing it for a number of years. Furthermore, while these journalists concentrated on science, they were expected to report in many other areas, illustrating the position may not be as autonomous as other beats like politics. Therefore, the claim the science beat is unattractive to New Zealand journalists is one for further investigation. As noted, no previous comprehensive study of science journalism has been conducted in New Zealand making it difficult to judge whether science journalism in this country has followed international trends of decline or stagnation (Brumfiel, 2009; Williams and Clifford, 2009). While communication advisors suggested cutbacks were having a negative effect on reporting, only one journalist mentioned time pressure as an issue. While most journalists interviewed did not specifically mention restructuring as an issue, other parts of the results do suggest the restructuring and cutbacks reported by Myllylahti (2011) are detrimentally impacting the ability of science journalists to properly investigate stories. For example, journalists not only considered press releases invaluable for story generation, they used some parts verbatim and others were simply edited and published with no by-line. These results are similar to those of Lewis et al. (2008) who found the pressures affecting British journalists meant they were increasingly reliant on PR material. However, while Lewis et al. (2008) believed the use of PR material had negatively affected the quality of science journalism in the United Kingdom, participants in this study did not suggest this was the case for science reported by New Zealand metropolitan dailies. Rather, some communication advisors and scientists interviewed believed science journalists working for the metropolitan dailies, in particular The Press, were reporting science well. However, most journalists and communication advisors interviewed argued that smaller newspapers were more likely to report PR material in a verbatim manner. This is may be due to greater


12


staff cuts in smaller papers. Interviewees in this study were not drawn from smaller newspapers, and so whether or not this is the case is an area for further investigation. While the television journalist used press releases as a starting point these were not used verbatim due to the visual nature of the medium, where it would be inappropriate for journalists to simply read out a press release. It is unsurprising therefore those producers actively discouraged their use. However, it is clear journalists did use parts of press releases and occasionally others they would simply edit and publish verbatim. Yet, these actions cannot simply be blamed on pressures the journalists were experiencing. While journalists admitted press releases did ease time pressures on occasion, they argued press releases were mainly used as starting points for stories, or parts of a press release would be used to increase the accuracy of their reporting. Given the many complaints of inaccuracies in science reporting, this could be described as a positive move on the part of journalists and may explain the positive recognition they received from scientists and communication advisors alike. Furthermore, all journalists interviewed argued press releases were for the most part starting points from which they would contact people and write their own stories. As one noted, even though some press releases gave the complete story, he would go and look for his own quirky angle on the issue and then write his story accordingly. This illustrates that while journalists did use press releases, they still exercised a measure of control on how they would be used. However, it was noted, press releases did offer some relief from the pressures caused through downsizing and increased workloads. These latter comments suggest even in the larger and better-resourced New Zealand metropolitan dailies, journalists were obliged to use press release material more often. These results seem to mirror those of Lewis et al. (2008). The results of this study suggest smaller and under-resourced newspapers may be failing their Fourth Estate role in terms of science reporting; this is not the case for the metropolitan science journalists interviewed: they appear, for the most part, to actively resist the temptation to use press release material verbatim. They were also discerning as to where the press releases had originated. Yet, this appeared to lead to known institutional sources having a better chance of having their stories reported. However, journalists did not always have good relationships with PR professionals. They noted frustration with certain aspects of PR practice that caused problems in meeting story deadlines. These comments support the findings of Hollings et al. (2007) suggesting New Zealand journalists have a love–hate relationship with PR professionals, seeing them as necessary yet, at times, difficult to work with. This uneasy relationship, combined with journalists’ power to choose how they utilise press releases, may act as a safeguard to prevent journalists becoming too close to PR professionals and less likely to simply accept and print PR material.

5. Conclusion In line with previous international studies a few dedicated journalists working for certain larger media outlets produced the quality science journalism identified by participants. Small newspapers were considered to merely reproduce press release material. Whether this is true is an area for further research. Past research argues increasing pressures on science journalists are leading to an erosion of journalistic independence through their increasing use of press release and PR material. The results of this study indicated that while metropolitan newspaper journalists used press release material to varying degrees, they still retain a measure of control on how they use this material. However, how much press release material is used versus the use reported warrants further investigation. Another factor working against journalists becoming too reliant on press releases and PR material is the frustration journalists feel towards certain PR practices, especially the need to email inquiries or the seeming constant unavailability of people listed on press releases.


13

Ashwell

However, this journalistic independence may be under threat. As already noted in the introduction, New Zealand newspapers, as in other Western countries, are facing declining readership and circulation resulting in continued restructuring and downsizing (Ahmed, 2013; Myllylahti, 2012). Continuing declines in staff, time and resources could lead even these very dedicated science journalists to use more and more press release material in order to meet deadlines. In terms of television, there are no longer any public broadcast channels left since the removal of government funding for TVNZ7. The scientists interviewed saw this as the strongest source of quality science journalism on Free-To-Air television. With its closure, the only public broadcaster still producing quality science journalism is the poorly funded Radio New Zealand. While these developments paint a bleak picture for science journalism in New Zealand, they also provide a window on how increasing pressures both in New Zealand and internationally are working against journalistic independence and threaten their role as the Fourth Estate in both scientific and other matters. How, and if, journalists can retain this role under the increasing pressures they face is an area for continued research. Funding This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

References Access4.eu (2013) Access4eu: NZ – Supporting EU access to New Zealand Research Programmes. Available at: http://www.access4.eu/newzealand/683.php (accessed 12 February 2013). Ahmed S (2013) Year-on-year newspaper circulation and readership drop across the board. StopPress NZ: Marketing, Advertising and Media Intelligence, 24 May. Available at: http://www.stoppress.co.nz/ blog/2013/05/year-year-newspaper-circulations-drop-across-board-abc (accessed 29 July 2013). Bauer MW and Gregory J (2007) From journalism to corporate communication in post-war Britain. In: Bauer MW and Bucchi M (eds) Journalism, Science and Society: Science Communication Between News and Public Relations. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 33–52. Brumfiel G (2009) Science journalism: Supplanting the old media? Nature 458: 274–277. Bucchi M (2002) Science and the Media: Alternative Routes in Scientific Communication. New York, NY: Routledge Studies in Science Technology and Society. Chyi HS, Lewis SC and Zheng N (2012) A matter of life and death?: Examining how newspapers covered the newspaper ‘crisis’. Journalism Studies 13(3): 305–324. Cresswell JW (1998) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Dubber A (2005) The digitalisation of radio in New Zealand. In: Neill K and Shanahan MW (eds) The Great New Zealand Radio Experiment. Southbank, VIC, Australia: Thomson Dunmore Press, pp. 67–88. Edelson E (1979) The President’s letter. Newsletter of the National Association of Science Writers 28(4): 13. Gopfert W (2007) The strength of PR and the weakness of science journalism. In: Bauer MW and Bucchi M (eds) Journalism, Science and Society: Science Communication Between News and Public Relations. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 215–226. Hall S, Critcher C, Jefferson T, Clarke J and Roberts B (1978) Policing the Crisis: Mugging, the State, and Law and Order. London: MacMillan Education. Hollings J (2014) NZ journalists: Mostly happy and proud of their work despite new pressures (Press release). Available at: http://www.massey.ac.nz/massey/learning/colleges/college-business/school-of-communication-journalism-and-marketing/news/staff-in-the-media/staff-in-the-media_home.cfm Hollings J, Lealand G, Samson A and Tilley E (2007) The big NZ journalism survey: Underpaid, undertrained, under-resourced, unsure about the future – But still idealistic. Pacific Journalism Review 13(2): 175–197. Irwin A and Wynne B (eds) (1996) Misunderstanding Science?: The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


14


Lewis J, Williams A and Franklin B (2008) A compromised fourth estate? UK news journalism, public relations and news sources. Journalism Studies 9(1): 1–20. Massarani L, Buys B, Amorim LH and Veneu F (2005) Science journalism in Latin America: A case study of seven newspapers in the region. Journal of Science Communication 4(3): 1–8. Miles MB and Huberman AM (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Source Book, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (2014) Crown Research Institutes. Available at: http:// www.msi.govt.nz/get-connected/crown-research-institutes (accessed 23 October 2014). Myllylahti M (2011) The New Zealand media ownership report 2011. Auckland, New Zealand: Aotearoa Centre for Journalism, Media and Democracy. Available at: http://blog.labour.org.nz/wp-content/ uploads/2011/09/JMAD-Interim-Report-WHMH-edit2-Final.pdf (accessed 12 February 2013). Myllylahti M (2012) The New Zealand media ownership report 2012. Auckland, New Zealand: Aotearoa Centre for Journalism, Media and Democracy. Available at: http://www.academia.edu/2180317/JMAD_ New_Zealand_Media_Ownership_Report_2012 (accessed 18 September 2014). New Zealand Audit Bureau of Circulation Inc. (2011) Newspaper audit result. Available at: http://newspaper. abc.org.nz/audit.html?mode=embargo&npa_admin=1&org=npa&publicationtype=19&publicationid=2 24&memberid=756&type=27 (accessed 12 February 2013). Nielsen RK and Levy DAL (2010) The changing business of journalism and its implications for democracy. In: Levy DAL and Nielsen RK (eds) The Changing Business of Journalism and Its Implications for Democracy. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, pp. 3–16. Norris P (2010) A race to the bottom. New Zealand Listener, 13 March, pp. 26–29. Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Magazines. Novick G (2008) Is there a bias against telephone interviews in qualitative research? Research in Nursing & Health 31: 391–398. Owen FO (1984) Interpretive themes in relational communication. Quarterly Journal of Speech 70: 274–287. Patton MQ (2002) Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Peters HP (1995) The interaction of journalists and scientific experts: Co-operation and conflict between two professional cultures. Media, Culture & Society 17: 31–48. Rosenberg B (2008) News Media Ownership in New Zealand. Christchurch, New Zealand: Campaign Against Foreign Control of Aotearoa. Rubin HJ and Rubin IS (2005) Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Russell C (2010) Covering controversial science: Improving reporting on science and public policy. In: Kennedy D and Overholser G (eds) Science and the Media. Cambridge, MA: American Academy of Arts and Sciences, pp. 13–43. Science Media Centre New Zealand (2012) Budget 2012 and science: Expert reaction. Available at: http:// www.sciencemediacentre.co.nz/2012/05/24/budget-2012-and-science-expert-reaction/ (accessed 12 February 2013). Shanahan MW and Duignan G (2005) The impact of deregulation on the evolution of New Zealand commercial radio. In: Neill K and Shanahan MW (eds) The Great New Zealand Radio Experiment. Southbank, VIC, Australia: Thomson Dunmore Press, pp. 17–46. Siles I and Boczkowski PJ (2012) Making sense of the newspaper crisis: A critical assessment of existing research and an agenda for future work. New Media & Society 14(8): 1375–1394. Sturges JE and Hanrahan KJ (2004) Comparing telephone and face-to-face qualitative interviewing: A research note. Qualitative Research 4: 107–118. UK Science and the Media Expert Group (2010) Science and the media: Securing the future. Available at: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/tna/+/http:/www.bis.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/ Science-and-the-Media-Securing-Future.pdf/ (accessed 12 February 2013). Väliverronen E (1993) Science and the media: Changing relations. Science Studies 6(2): 23–34. Verhoeven P (2010) Sound-bite science: On the brevity of science and scientific experts in Western European television news. Science Communication 32(3): 330–355.


15

Ashwell

Williams A and Clifford S (2009) Mapping the field: Specialist science news journalism in the UK national media. Available at: http://cf.ac.uk/jomec/resources/Mapping_Science_Journalism_Final_ Report_2003-11-09.pdf (accessed 12 February 2013). Williams D (2012) TV news ratings war: Is the first casualty truth? The National Business Review, 9 July. Available at: http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/tv-news-ratings-war-hots-dw-p-123021 (accessed 12 February 2013).

Author biography Douglas James Ashwell is a senior lecturer in the School of Communication, Journalism and Marketing, Massey University, New Zealand. His research interests include science debates and their reporting by the mass media and examining where and why the public gains information about science.


What's science? Where's science? Science journalism in German print media.

Science training for European journalists.

Hype from journalists and scientists.

An explosion of alternatives: considering the future of science journalism.

Careers in Virology: Science Writing and Journalism.

The Cosmopolitanization of Science: Experience from Chinese Stem Cell Scientists.

PETA undermines science and scientists.

Build the Future of Science Communication in Developing Countries through Systematic Training of Young Scientists.

Automatic jargon identifier for scientists engaging with the public and science communication educators.

Science journalists' perceptions and attitudes to pseudoscience in Spain.

The cultural side of science communication.

Challenges of Translational Science.

Public communication of science 2.0: Is the communication of science via the "new media" online a genuine transformation or old wine in new bottles?

Science and the military. Soldier-scientists join counterinsurgency in Afghanistan.

Challenges in the structural science of materials.

U.S. science policy. Antarctic scientists continue to reel from shutdown.

Science communication: Narratively speaking.

Science communication: Power of community.

What does the UK public want from academic science communication?

'Indirect' challenges from science to clinical practice.

Alternatives to PFASs: perspectives on the science.

The first Russian seminar on science communication.

Perspectives of science in iran.

Reciprocal Evolution of Opiate Science from Medical and Cultural Perspectives.