Science relations

TrV-N No. 82 published several articles in which issues of relationships between scientists, journalists and press services of scientific organizations were discussed. We are publishing one of the responses to the discussion, posted on the SORAN.info website.

First, in LiveJournal, and then in the Troitsky Variant newspaper, a serious discussion broke out about whether scientific institutes need press services or whether it would be more productive to contact scientists directly.

Firstly, I can hardly imagine a scientist who would be happy to communicate with journalists. Their reputation in the scientific ranks is somewhat tarnished: quite often one can hear: “These journalists have written again.” Factual errors in texts, quotes taken out of context and incorrect interpretation of what was said are, unfortunately, quite common.

In addition, if scientists begin to communicate directly with journalists, it is unclear at what time they will be engaged in their direct activity - science.

Secondly, a conversation with a scientist is not always “more interesting and entertaining” than the text prepared by the press service. To describe in vivid colors “how electrons fly,” you often have to not only listen to a scientist, but also scour the Internet in search of an explanation of how mesons and leptons, for example, differ. And offer all this to a journalist who probably does not have time to clarify these questions.

Thirdly, yes, indeed, journalists have to rewrite and redo the release. But, in my opinion, the release is not sent to journalists so that they can put it on a website or publish it in a newspaper under their own name. The release offers an informational occasion. You can call a scientist and clarify the details, you can make news or an extended information note. And the responsibilities of the press service do not include preparing materials for each media outlet separately. Of course, there should be personification in the selection of topics that are offered to publications and in the writing of texts. But often it is necessary to sacrifice textual diversity in favor of efficiency, and some average version appears in the media.

Fourthly, the accusation that the press service corrupts and manipulates journalists looks very strange. The press service suggests a topic. Each journalist decides for himself whether to work with this topic or not; no one forces him at gunpoint to write, for example, that the Institute of Nuclear Physics has its own collider.

Yes, it is possible that the press service does not always work promptly, including when organizing the opportunity to obtain a comment from a specialist or when agreeing on a text. But here I would like to clarify one thing. It is not clear who inspired the journalists that newsmakers and commentators should immediately quit everything and work only with them. Anyone who often works with the media knows that material is often needed urgently, and easily makes contact. But those who do not have experience communicating with representatives of the media may have no idea about the time given to prepare the material.

Pulling the blanket over oneself does not, in my opinion, benefit either press services, journalists, or scientists. Perhaps I overly idealize people’s ability to dialogue, but it seems to me that everything can be agreed upon: additional information, speed of work, and topics that will be of interest to the media. But for this we need to negotiate. And criticize the work of the press service, if there are any complaints about it, not in LJ or a newspaper, but directly, so that you can work with this criticism and change for effective cooperation, or explain to journalists for what reasons that are not obvious to them or no other change is possible. Guys let's be friends!

Yulia Pozdnyakova,
specialist at the Center for Public Relations
SB RAS (acting editor-in-chief of the COPAH.Info portal) www.copah.info/articles/editors/science-relations