Matt Shipman is a public information officer at North Carolina State University, where he writes about everything from forensic entomology to computer malware. He previously worked as a reporter and editor in the Washington, D.C. area for Inside EPA, Water Policy Report and Risk Policy Report, where he covered the nexus of science, politics and policy. He blogs about NC State research at The Abstract, and you can follow him on Twitter where he is @ShipLives.
Make sure you check the other posts in the series, Writing About Science, When You’re Not A Scientist and Social Media: Taking Science To The People.
Whether you’re a scientist or a science reporter, at some point you’ll probably have to deal with a public information officer (PIO). A good PIO, or flack, can make your job easier. A bad PIO can make you want to pull your hair out. So, what makes a good science PIO?
PIOs have been the subject of some discussion recently in the science community. It started earlier this month, during the ScienceOnline2012 conference at North Carolina State University in Raleigh (where I work). During discussions about the relationship between scientists and reporters, it came to light that many PIOs who write news releases about research findings do not run those releases by the relevant researchers to ensure their accuracy. This blew the minds of some reporters, and at least one flack (me).
In the days following the conference, the revelation that PIOs are not vetting news releases led to several prominent blog posts and related conversations through social media. Even science writers who were former PIOs wanted to know what was going on.
To advance the conversation, I want to lay out some guidelines for what I think scientists, science writers and PIOs should expect from each other.
Researchers, you should expect a good PIO to give you an opportunity to review any news releases about your research. I am a flack at a large university. I write about everything from forensic anthropology to chemical engineering. It would be foolish of me to presume I could write about such a variety of topics without making a mistake. Even PIOs who focus on specific research areas make mistakes, as humans are wont to do.
As a result, I always vet my release copy with the relevant researchers. In fact, everyone in my office does. Sometimes that means we have to significantly re-write releases, and sometimes it means we go through several iterations before everyone is happy. We are, after all, writing for a lay audience. So be it. If we botch something out of carelessness, it reflects poorly on the researchers, the research and the institution. From a selfish perspective, it also hurts our reputations with researchers and reporters. We can’t afford that.
What do PIOs need from researchers? Time. Ideally, researchers will tell a PIO about forthcoming papers or conference presentations at least a week or two in advance. This gives us the opportunity to pull together a good release and issue it in a timely way. A six-week-old paper is brand new in academic terms – it hasn’t even had time to penetrate the intellectual marketplace – but if you tell most reporters that a news item is six weeks old, their eyes will glaze over and you will have trouble waking them up. This may not be true for some science beat writers, but most science news stories these days are written by general assignment reporters, and they like their news to be new.
Researchers should also remember that a news release is not an abstract. It is not being written for an audience of your peers. News releases should be written in language that is accessible to a non-expert audience. And, when reviewing a draft release, please respond to your PIO as quickly as possible. If you don’t get around to reviewing a release for a few weeks, odds are good the release will never go out – it’s no longer timely.
In addition, researchers should know that, at some point, they may have to actually talk to a reporter. A good PIO will make sure the researcher is aware of this ahead of time, and will check to see who on the research team is most comfortable serving as a spokesperson. It’s usually the lead author, but that is not always the case. If you’re a researcher, and you do not want to talk to the press, tell your PIO before the release goes out. A news release is not a news story. It’s a summary that reporters can use to determine whether they want to write a news story. If the researcher won’t answer the phone, there’s no point in issuing the release in the first place.
What should reporters expect from a good PIO? Honesty. Don’t say something is the cure for cancer, unless it is actually the cure for cancer. Science is an iterative process, and even baby steps forward can be exciting and important. Exaggerating research findings is a surefire way to annoy reporters (and researchers).
What else should a good PIO do? Be responsive. If a reporter calls you, he or she is probably on deadline. Respond to media requests quickly. And if you can’t get the reporter what he or she wants, explain that as soon as possible so the reporter can begin figuring out how to move forward.
PIOs should also know who they’re pitching. If you pitch a story about beetles to a writer who covers astrophysics, you’re wasting everyone’s time. That said, every PIO makes an off-target pitch from time to time. If that happens, reporters, please tell the PIO you don’t care about that subject – but also tell the PIO what areas you do cover. If the PIO is any good, you will stop getting irrelevant pitches – and may even get a heads up about something you’re actually interested in.
Why do I care what people at other institutions do? One reason is because it is already difficult to get journalists and researchers to take PIOs seriously. We don’t need irresponsible behavior contributing to the problem. Another reason is that I care about science, and about communicating ideas (and context) accurately. It’s why I’m in this business (it sure isn’t for the money).
PIOs, and their employers, need to know that it is not okay to leave scientists out of the loop when we’re promoting their work. It undermines our credibility. It tells researchers we don’t care about their concerns. And it increases the likelihood that the very work we are trying to highlight will be misrepresented.
Report this comment
You’ve laid out here the steps that everyone in that loop should follow to ensure that communication to and from all parties stays accurate. It’s a good set of guidelines. Someone should do a session on this somewhere. 😉
Report this comment
I think there may well be a session on this at the UK conference of science journalists– in London on June 25th this year.
We’re also taking suggestions for Science Online London 2012 on the wiki.
Report this comment
Glad to hear they’ll be tackling this at Scio London and the UK Conference of Science Journalists. I think discussion of these issues in multiple forums (social media, conferences, etc.) is essential. If we focus on the steps we can take to improve science communication, rather than kvetching about who is at fault for science communication failures, we will be moving in the right direction.
Report this comment
Excellent points, Matt.
The only thing I disagree with is regarding when researchers should contact their institution’s PIO to let them know about forthcoming papers etc. Rather than a week or two in advance, I encourage people to let us know a month or two in advance, for two main reasons:
(1) PIOs often wear many hats, have multiple duties and get LOTS of requests to help publicize studies, so a week or two’s notice may not be enough. I know some journal’s have quite fast submission-to-publication turnaround times these days, but give a PIO a heads-up as early as possible: ideally, a month or two out.
(2) Providing as much lead time as possible allows PIOs and researchers to put their heads together to brainstorm the best ways to publicize the research: e.g., cat-herding awesome visuals for a video or slideshow … exploring creative multimedia story telling possibilities … thinking about potential wider issues and/or news “pegs” that we can leverage off to help explain the context of the research.
Bottom line, tho, you’ve laid out excellent “best-practice” principles. Regards, Patric
Report this comment
Patric — I agree completely. That’s why I say “at least” one or two weeks notice. The more lead time a PIO has, the more options he or she has in terms of how to promote the work. Also — worth noting — it gives the PIO more time to work on the release with the researcher(s) to ensure it is both accurate and couched in terms that non-experts can understand.
Report this comment
Hi, Matt,
Excellent post! I, too, was shocked to hear at SciOnline 2012 that some PIOs do not check their releases with sources. That’s a sure way to run your institution’s credibility with media, as well as the public.
Also, you might be interested in my guide, “Working with Public Information Officers,” which is online at http://www.workingwithpios.com .
Cheers,
Dennis
Report this comment
I agree with your proposal, Matt. Do you think the future will see a team of specialized PIOs working to maximize the social media amplification of any kind of content that comes out of the University? Is there still a place for ‘media relations,’ or would you say there is too much overlap with PIO work?
Report this comment
Hey Adrian,
I think we will see social media expertise become increasingly important for PIOs, and that many P.R. shops (for universities and otherwise) will have in-house social media “experts” on staff to handle the various platforms and outreach campaigns. That said, I think there is definitely still a place for media relations — we may simply have to redefine the media they are working with. Social media can help you reach a broad audience. But if you want to reach a specific audience, such as a university’s regional community, it’s still hard to beat a local news broadcast — to say nothing of the footprint you get from national media coverage. I don’t think we’re at a point where we can afford to drop any of our media outreach efforts — mainstream or otherwise.
That said, “PIO” and “media relations” are synonymous at NC State (where I work). I think that’s a good thing. It makes coordination easier when everyone is familiar with the strengths and limitations of various outlets — and the effort needed to take advantage of those outlets.
Does that make sense?
Report this comment
Matt, thank you for outlining these best practices. I am amazed that there are PIOS out there who don’t allow faculty to verify the science in their stories. This is definitely a conversation that needs to be had throughout the PIO community. I really appreciate you taking the time to share these details.