More than half of Americans get information about health and science from television, 22% from newspapers, 12% from the Internet, 8% from radio, and 3% from magazines (5). Studies show that the public is interested in news about health and science: 35% of Americans surveyed in 2009 said they enjoy keeping up with science news “a lot” and an additional 41% said they enjoy keeping up with it “some” (6).

In another survey, 95% of Americans said they were “very interested” or “moderately interested” in news of medical discoveries and 92% said they were “very interested” or “moderately interested” in scientific discoveries—higher than the percentages who said they are “very interested” or “moderately interested” in the economy, agriculture, local schools, military and defense policy, or international and foreign policy (5).

Public health news has all the ingredients for compelling stories, according to Maryn McKenna, a former public health reporter at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

Despite solid public interest in news of health and science, public understanding of complex health and scientific topics is quite low. In fact, surveys repeatedly show that ignorance, superstition, and irrational thinking often prevail over knowledge (1). When US adults were quizzed in 2009, respondents correctly answered an average of eight of the 12 questions, or 65%; only 10% got all 12 questions right (6). Among the findings: 46% of respondents did not know that antibacterial antibiotics will not kill viruses.

Eighty-five percent of US scientists surveyed in 2009 said it was a major problem that the public did not know much about science (6). Lack of public understanding about health and science can help foster a society in which “science is often misrepresented and arguments about values are often presented as if they are legitimate scientific disputes” (1). Other arguments supporting the need for increased scientific literacy are being able to make better personal choices in everyday life, being encouraged to follow and participate in policy debates, and being more likely to support scientific and medical research (8):

There has been considerable debate over the intellectual divide of science and the humanities into “two cultures,” which was proposed in 1959 by C. P. Snow, an English physicist, civil servant, and novelist. Among its manifestations is a perceived gap between “scientists who don’t speak English and reporters who don’t speak science,” which has kept the two professions “worlds apart” (10). Others contend that the gulf between scientists and journalists is neither as wide nor as unbridgeable as some suggest. As Nature, the British science magazine, editorialized:

Still, there is an “enormous scope for mutual misunderstanding and suspicion” between journalists and scientists (8). Part of the reason is that the professions “demand two completely different standards of evidence” (10). Language use is another major source of tension: “What is for a scientist being precise is for a journalist splitting hairs. Necessary scientific qualifications translate as uncertainty or the hedging of bets in the media” (8). As Kathy Sawyer, a former science reporter for the Washington Post, put it:

The vast majority of scientists rarely talk with the news media. Forty-five percent of US scientists surveyed in 2009 said they never talk with reporters, 31% said they did so rarely, and only 3% said they did so often (6). A survey of more than 1,600 scientists in Britain by the Wellcome Trust found that only 29% had talked with the news media in the previous year (12).

Yet neither profession can accomplish the task of communicating with the public without the other:

Scientists view journalists as “imprecise, mercurial and possibly dangerous” (10). Scientists complain that reporters don’t understand the basics of scientific methods, including the proper interpretation of statistics, probabilities, and risk. As a result, the news media oversimplify complex issues (10).

US scientists have negative views about news coverage of science (6). Seventy-six percent said they believe it is a major problem that the news does not distinguish between well-founded findings and those that are not, and 48% said oversimplification is a major problem. Only 15% of US scientists rated television coverage of science news as excellent or good, while 83% said it was fair to poor. In contrast, 36% of the US scientists rated newspaper coverage of science as excellent or good, while 63% rated it as fair or poor (6). In Britain, only 6% of scientists surveyed said they trusted journalists at national newspapers to provide information on scientific facts, and 11% were confident of journalists’ ability to discuss the social and ethical implications of science (12).

Journalists see scientists as “narrowly focused, selfabsorbed, cold-eyed and arrogant” (10). Dan Fagin, a former environmental reporter for Newsday, put it this way:

British scientists surveyed by the Wellcome Trust acknowledged that the public sees them as doing poorly in public relations (12).

Reporters contend that scientists don’t appear to grasp that news is a perishable commodity that must be made relevant to readers and viewers. Journalists also complain that scientists are too wrapped up in esoteric jargon and are unable—or unwilling—to explain their work simply and cogently (10).

Even journalists acknowledge the imperfections of today’s health and science reporting: it tends to be quickly produced, brief, superficial, and easy for the audience to digest (15). Coverage is heavy on lifestyle and fitness
stories, profiles of desperate cases and “rescue medicine,” and “disease-of-the-month” features. There is an increased reliance on news releases and fewer investigative pieces. Andrew Holtz, a former health reporter at CNN, contends that “much local TV health and medical news coverage looks like the media equivalent of a 99-cent drive-thru menu: quick, cheap, but ultimately unnourishing” (16).

Part of the problem stems from journalists’ uncertainty about their fluctuating role in society: should they be cheerleaders, interpreters, watchdogs, critics, or some combination? One science journalist describes the professional challenge this way:

In addition, reporters tend to cover health and science as a series of disconnected events, dangers, or break-throughs:

Reporters believe more interaction and engagement is needed with scientists and public health professionals. But they contend that the onus has been placed squarely on themselves: While journalists are frequent visitors to hospitals, research labs, and offices of government agencies, they say it is rare to see a scientist in the newsroom (13).

The news media increasingly depend on experts for three main reasons: to offer facts, to increase credibility, and to provide objectivity (19). Most often, experts are used to provide and verify facts and background information (20). A study of The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and Washington Post found that nearly twice as many experts were quoted in 1990 as in 1978 (21). Research on Danish newspapers also found that the number of experts has increased dramatically over the last 40 years (22). Reporters increasingly include more experts to make stories more interesting and relevant by highlighting conflict and tension:

Several other factors have encouraged greater use of experts, including increased media competition. Reporters have also compensated for low levels of public trust in journalism by using experts to augment their own credibility (22). Another factor is the growing complexity of the news; 60% of local television health reporters surveyed said they must frequently find a health expert to explain complicated information because of the technical nature of medical news (23).

Reporters see themselves as conduits to the public. “As they see it, the job they are doing is to stand in for their audience, asking the questions that the general public wants answered” (8). Working with the media to provide important information to the public thus helps provide a public service.

Another reason to talk with reporters is that it can establish or reinforce your expertise and raise your profile. Being quoted in the media may contribute to funding opportunities, career advancement, and greater prestige. Examples of successful communication with the public are looked upon favorably in an era of increased competition for government and private funding. Thirty-seven percent of US scientists surveyed in 2009 said it was either very important or important for career advancement to have their research covered by the news media (6).

The institution, organization, or agency for which you work also benefits from media coverage because of increasing pressure to elevate its prestige, establish trust and credibility, attract funding, and preserve its viability (22). Being mentioned in news stories can thus have significant practical value.

Reporters are typically intelligent and inquisitive: “Journalists are no less professional than the scientists they deal with; all but a few want to report accurately and fairly” (8). The vast majority of reporters are college graduates, but their degrees tend to be in the liberal arts. Many reporters focused on subjects such as English and history and avoided mathematics and science. Reporters are likely to be knowledgeable about a variety of topics, but their knowledge tends to be a mile wide and an inch deep. This is especially the case with general-assignment reporters, so called because they are assigned to cover whatever stories the editor deems newsworthy that day. General-assignment reporters may cover a city hall meeting one day and report on sewer problems or a factory shutdown the next. This broad-but-shallow knowledge of many reporters is in stark contrast to public health professionals and epidemiologists, who are experts in a narrow field or subfield.

While most reporters are generalists, others are specialists assigned to cover a specific “beat,” in which they are responsible for identifying and developing news in that subject area. Beat reporters have more specialized knowledge than general-assignment reporters and some receive specialized professional training. Reporting on public health requires a particular set of skills that differ from those of other journalists, including a basic familiarity with biology, lab science, and clinical medicine; the ability to decipher budgets and politics; and a lack of fear of math (7). A handful of US reporters who cover health or science news have medical or doctoral degrees.

How do you assess a reporter’s knowledge of a technical topic? How do you communicate without talking down to them or oversimplifying? If a reporter does not understand what you are saying, he or she will have no chance of translating the information and or communicating it accurately to their audiences. “How much do you already know about…?” or “Would like me to bring you up to speed on…?”are ways in which you can politely assess the extent of the reporter’s knowledge at the beginning of the interview and offer to fill in any gaps. Reporters will appreciate this even if they claim to be the highly knowledgeable about the topic.

Reporters are skeptical, curious, and have a “seen-it-allbefore” attitude. They are hungry for great stories, especially stories no other reporter has (called scoops or exclusives). Reporters are trained to follow a set of organizational routines that guide their work. As part of the newsgathering process, reporters are supposed to rely on credible sources and accurate information and to provide balance in their stories by including the viewpoints of both sides (or all sides). Reporters are driven by deadlines. By the time they contact you, they will probably have their story almost written. They may have a specific spot in the story in mind where they would like to insert a quote or two from you. While this may seem unnatural to you, it is an efficient way for reporters to work (13).

Reporters first have to “sell” their editor on the merits of the story in the hope of getting prominent placement, such as the front page of the newspaper or the lead story on a television or radio newscast:

Reporters then try to “sell” the story to their audience through vibrant storytelling, human interest, compelling writing, colorful language, and relevant examples. Depending on the nature of the story, the goal may be to get the audience to pay attention, become informed, take action, become outraged, or feel reassured.

Reporters face a number of constraints that make their job more challenging. The first is time. Reporters are busy and overworked. Deadlines curb the amount of research reporters can do and the number of sources they can contact while limiting the time available for double-checking facts. Space is another restraint. Increasingly, there is inadequate space and air time to tell complex stories. Glen Nowak, director of the division of media relations at the CDC, said scientists and physicians erroneously believe that they “should be providing all the nuances and caveats that would be found in a journal article” in a news story and “use as much space and time as it takes to get the information out there properly.” But he notes that this isn’t a realistic expectation in journalism (24).

Reporters must also compete with their colleagues within their own media organization for prime space or position for their stories, which can sometimes lead to sensationalism and hype. And copy editors, who write the headlines, can exacerbate the situation by highlighting the most controversial or sensational aspect of the story.

Complexity is another constraint journalists face. Reporters seek to provide balance by using a number of experts on both or all sides of an argument (8,13). But instead of clarifying complex issues, providing multiple contrasting viewpoints in stories can muddle things further. Reporters sometimes do not evaluate the quality of, or weight of evidence behind, competing claims, or are incapable of doing so (25). In these instances, stories may give the impression that all of the experts are equal and leave it up to the audience to decide which to believe:

Of course, the audience is no better equipped to evaluate the validity of competing claims than the reporter.

Reporters share a desire with their audience for things to be black or white, not shades of gray. “Grayness” is difficult to handle in news stories, and reporters often pursue a quest for definitive answers even when none can exist. As a result, reporters would like epidemiologists and public health officials to communicate in ways they have been trained not to communicate: no careful qualifiers, no litany of exceptions, no hedging. Reporters strive to categorize things as safe or unsafe, people as heroes or villains, and issues as either a “Cause for Big Concern” or “Not to Worry.” A reporter’s dilemma is: will the information in my story lull the public into a false sense of security or needlessly alarm them?

Reporters also face ideological constraints. Old, familiar risks are not as newsworthy as new, exotic ones (25). An example is the seasonal flu, which kills an estimated 36,000 Americans a year (27) but garners hardly any news coverage, while the H1N1 flu has received extensive coverage though the death toll to date has been substantially lower (28). Every year before the beginning of flu season, Glen Nowak of the CDC says he faces the challenge of getting the news media to report on the need for people to get flu shots. While he gets some stories every year, Nowak said coverage “won’t continue unless there’s some new development and some new angle, some new idea, some new research, something new. At the end of the day, the first three letters of news are n-e-w” (24).

Controversy almost always makes better news than consensus. Questions about who is making the decisions, whether the decision makers can be trusted, and whether the public has a say can also add an element of uncertainty and suspicion to stories. In addition, old stereotypes are often perpetuated in the news media: government officials lack credibility, nongovernment organizations are always altruistic and have no agendas of their own, and corporations are interested only in profit. For all these reasons, the public may find it challenging to sort out important public health risks from inconsequential ones based on the amount and tone of media coverage.

What do reporters want from you? What they say they want is what you are well qualified to provide information, explanation, putting risks or a situation in context, future implications, and opinion. The following examples show how public health professionals and epidemiologists have been used in recent news stories: