"We Don't Want To Be Your Friend"

Yes, these words came out of the mouths of journalists and were directed at us coral reef scientists. Fighting words? Nope, just a statement of fact of the journalist relationship. But still, not exactly the first words you want to hear in a session exploring relationship building. But I didn't really take it personally. I saw it more as a crystal clear articulation of the role of the media and the need to eliminate any impression of collusion.

But that blunt pronouncement was just one of many interesting moments during the panel discussion, Can This Relationship Be Saved? Why Journalists and Scientists Just Don't Communicate, the brainchild of SeaWeb/Compass on Tuesday night at the 11th International Coral Reef Symposium. The session pulled together a panel of distinguished science journalists from a variety of US and UK media outlets and put them head-to-head with some of the most media savvy coral reef/ocean science gurus in attendance. I wish I had a full list of names of the journalists, but I missed the introductions. On the scientist's side there were some legends indeed: Nancy Knowlton, Bob Steneck, Daniel Pauly were just a few of the heavyweights.

Things started out with some back and forth pleasantries of what journalists and scientists like about their counterparts. But I have to admit that at the end of a long day of absorbing information at sessions, I wasn't there to listen to a love fest. I wanted to get right down to business and hear what's not working, get some suggestions for what can be done to improve ocean science communication, and then someone (PLEASE) put a beer in my hand.

I didn't have to wait too long for some stone throwing to begin. Scientists complaints? You could probably guess them: misquoting, journalists already have a story or agenda in mind, dumbing down the science, journalists want sensational stories, journalists want quotes right now. You could probably also guess the journalist gripes: jargon-filled interviews, too much detail, scientists already have a story/agenda in mind, overly process-oriented, scientists are hard to get in touch with, scientists can't tell stories, scientists won't let journalists do their jobs, scientists don't see media relations as part of the scientific process.

Certainly all valid points and there's truth to issues on both sides. One alarming consensus on the part of the journalists was the admission that since they are part of an industry whose business is to sell papers, giving people what they want must come first. And if online news has done anything, it has allowed us to see what people (or at least online people) want to read. As such, no matter how cool our science is or how important our messages may be, at the end of the day Paris Hilton will get page one and coral reefs will (maybe) get a sidebar in the lifestyles section. When some audience asked if perhaps it might be the job of journalists to try to raise the bar a bit, there was general rejection on that point by the panel of journalists. "We try, we can't, and really not our job," was the common refrain.

I don't really believe that this is not part of a journalists responsibility. Maybe in the most basic, stripped-down sense of what journalism's expected role has been, as objective conveyors of information, I can buy into that somewhat. But the point was raised that journalists are certainly not doing their job well when they continue to waste paper and ink giving credibility to flat-out kooks such as climate change denialists when covering the larger issue of climate change. It only continues to instill confusion in the public perception that scientists are "undecided" as to whether climate change is a real threat.

I didn't hear a good answer from the journalists on that one. If anything, I heard something that sounded an awful lot like "presenting two sides of any story is important." Well okay, but can you wonder why some scientists disengage from media contacts?

But the take home from the entire evening was not that media is bad, scientists are good. It was that scientists indeed need to do a better job of communicating to the public. And since we are busy with our own scientific work most of the time, that means developing relationships with the media. It means being willing to talk to reporters when the phone rings. It means recognizing that we need to practice our message. Nancy Knowlton had a great line about taking every opportunity we can find to tell our "story." Eventually, we reach a point where our rap doesn't sound rehearsed, canned, or staged, but sounds natural and understandable to any audience. And that's the key.

But what about the sensationalism/Paris Hilton obsessed media and their unwillingness to raise the bar? An interesting dialogue may have germinated at this meeting as a number of us began talking after the event that if the media is unwilling to raise the bar and start appealing to a readership with some intelligence, perhaps the onus is upon us to find avenues to those readers. They certainly are out there. But if they have turned away from conventional media for just this reason, maybe we can get to them in other ways.