Friday 17 September 2010

More musings on the Science Festival

I had a blast at the British Science Festival (and no, that wasn’t a chemistry joke).

I spent my mornings in and out of press conferences, then deciding which were worth covering for the festival news. The clue’s in the title - yep, it has to be new. And while there’s lots of cool science here, not all of it’s new. Like the knowledge that texting whilst you walk is dangerous or that we have fewer friends at the beginning and end of our lives than in the middle. Which isn’t new, or that cool really.

I covered a couple of psychology stories, and found them hard to write. It might be true what they say about being a better news journalist when you’re lay in that area, like the majority of your readers. Hence the piece I wrote about animal-human hybrids being a dream to write.

All this goes against the view that the best science journalism is written by experts. Of course, non-specialist reporters need to work much harder at accuracy (although it boggles my head to imagine writing about something I didn’t understand), but I think that specialists risk being too precious and out of touch with what the public can really understand from a 400 word article. Which is exactly what I did in a piece on children’s false memories. Who’da thought that the whole world doesn’t know what semantic priming is?

One solution to this lay/expert argument would be to have specialist sub-eds. That way, they can be as hawk-eyed as we need when it comes to accuracy and faithful reporting, but at root, the story comes from a place similar to the one it’s destined for.

Two brains ducks questions

At about 3pm this afternoon a press officer came to my desk and said that David Willetts would be dropping in later and of course I’d want to talk to him, no?

Yes.

Cue much excitement (from me, not from the rest of the press) about interviewing the science and universities minister. In actuality, interview turned out to be too grand a word, it was more like I sat next to him and asked him a question during a press briefing, but STILL. I was getting up close and personal with our governmental science dude. The one that’s threatening me and all of my colleagues with A Very Hard Time on Very Little Money after the Comprehensive Spending Review in a few weeks.

So I faffed around in a demented flurry for a while thinking of what to ask him about. Since it was the day that the World University Rankings were published by the Times Higher, and the UK had come second to US universities, that seemed like a good place to start.

So I trudged into a tiny room along with about ten other journalists, feeling a bit like a class of schoolkids (me because of my inordinate excitement and them because they act like giddy, gobby kids from time to time). After questions about Vince Cable’s recent gaffe on research assessment and ‘mediocre’ research, homeopathy and the role of NICE, I managed to get my question in.

To resounding blandness.

I asked The Rt Hon (right on?) DW if he was worried that with the impending cuts to university funding, the UK risks slipping further down the world rankings. He acknowledged increased competition from Asia, said that we must collaborate with them, and remains committed and optimistic about the long-term future of British Higher Education.

Yawn.

I didn’t even get a news piece out of it. There was nothing to say.

As a colleague at the Higher said to me, I don’t know why we’re obsessed with speaking to politicians. We’d get better stories out of quizzing loose canon academics.

PS. Check this article and transcript by Alok Jha for more noncommittal noises from the same briefing.


Wednesday 15 September 2010

Festival News

In between lots of story-chasing and lots more event-freeloading, I wrote this piece on MEG imaging.

Tuesday 14 September 2010

Festival Time


Today is the first day of the British Science Festival at Aston University. All of the media fellows are here, along with science writers from all of the major papers, and lots of others whose wit, charm and gravitas I am yet to discover :)

It’s also the day on which I’ve experienced my first (closely followed by my second and third) press conference. This is half an hour with the speakers who will be giving a talk later in the Festival. They talk for a bit, then it’s Q&A with the journalists. The best division of time I’ve seen was 5 mins presentation, then 25 mins of Q&A when the journalists get to ask exactly what they want to know, whether this is from premeditated plan for a piece, or an on-the-fly prod-it-and-see-what-happens approach (see, THEY’re allowed to do it..). After the psycholinguistic conference I went to last week where presentations lasted for 15 mins and questions for 5, I’m wondering if the press format would be a worthwhile shift for us academics. It keeps everyone on the ball, you get instant feedback on what is and isn’t interesting/comprehensible/persuasive and everyone’s free to move on after 30 mins. Short, sweet and straight to the point. In the evening, we discuss the day's highlights in various semi-structured options, always near a bar. Another good model for academia.

The wall-to-wall science leaves the Times Higher and me (as Times Higher apprentice) a little peripheral, so I asked the British Science Association if I could write the news for them. Chance to work with another mentor and gives me a little more purpose than just drifting around filling my head with science with nowhere for it to go. So that’s what I did.

I filed a piece on a next-generation MEG scanner in development here at Aston. Impressive stuff. A child-friendly machine with a nice child-sized helmet and a system of electromagnetic coils which will let the child move around during the scan, which is pretty revolutionary for MEG. I remember how hard it was when I was MEG scanned. Ended up getting told off for twitching and then force-fed chocolate to keep me awake. They even want to make this one rocket-shaped for maximum imaging funtimes, though the over-literal autistic kids that they plan to use it with might have something to say about being sent to space..

Off to the final of So You Want to be a Scientist shortly, then a round-up of today’s events and then to the pub for more schmoozing and boozing. It’s true what they say.

I shared a desk with Pallab Ghosh off of Radio 4, and a press conference with lots of familiar names and voices from the media. Also met the Naked Scientists, the founder of BlueSci, and an ex-Times Higher reporter and spouse-of-fellow-psycholinguist (small world). Still haven’t seen Johnny Ball though.

Sunday 12 September 2010

More stories


Two pieces in this week's the Times Higher! What's more than exciting is that I've got a whole page. Page 20 that is, but still a whole page. Not so sure about the image (again), and it might have been nicer without the implied death-fixation of my first contributor, but hey, I guess that’s what they call The Hook. Research Intelligence regular on archiving practices I worked on in my first week, ta-dah!

Friday 10 September 2010

Leaving town

Last Friday was my last day at the Times Higher offices (although the media fellowship continues at the British Science Festival next week – where the fun and games really start, apparently).

I seem to have made an okay impression on those at the Higher (at least judging from the emails that are still landing in my inbox asking me to write this or check that). So how about the dents, sorry, impressions left on me?

A few personal reflections on my time as a journalists’ apprentice:

1. I’m now MUCH more comfortable with the phone than I was before. Making my first few calls was a big deal for me – I missed the contextual clues from face to face interaction and its space for pauses that the phone lacks. I also missed the permanence of email and its way of forcing clarity. However, blower is king in the media, and my telephone manner is in much leaner shape now because of it.

2. The immediacy of short projects was great. Look - feedback the same day as I submitted something! (cf. months of waiting for academic reviewers to respond).

3. Surprisingly, I’m also now a fan of open plan offices. I could never love the hullaballoo of a sales office but the gentle buzz of the editorial office was stimulating. Quiet enough so’s you can still write, but also energising from other discussions and ideas going on around you. Need an expert on research councils? Don’t even phone, just ask around the office!

4. I loved the balance of teamwork and individualism. The weekly news meeting was a real highlight, where everyone pitched their ideas for the forthcoming edition – seeing how our work fitted together, and more immediate feedback.

But it’s not all one big love-in, of course...

I’m now way more wary of what is and isn’t on record. And what isn’t specified is definitely on-record.

I learned a pretty spiky lesson on using personal contacts as well. Don't even go there. They were my default choice at first since they’re quick and easy to contact, obliging and supply candid quotes, but the energy spent on checking their quotes and ensuring that you’re not going to jeopardise your relationship with them is disproportionate. On my last day I’d lined up three colleagues to speak to about remote working in academia but having seen how common it is for contributors to backtrack on their quotes, I didn't even want to start down that road. It’s a whole different game with strangers where I certainly cared less about any negative reaction they might have, but the fact is I don’t have the thick hide needed to print things that could have severe repercussions to people who’d contributed in good faith.

So remember kids, always speak to strangers.

I also missed the commitment to larger scale projects - the flip side of immediate feedback in the fact that you write something and - woosh - it's gone, never to be improved, deepened, matured and polished. I guess this is inevitable in two short weeks, and concurrent longer features would probably hit this button, but when you're used to gradually refining (no, I won't say perfecting..) projects in academia over months and years, this way of working just shouts slap, dash, and so long.

Science in the media: My tuppenceworth.

Working at an educational publication, I’m relatively far from the eye of the science vs. journalism storm, but seeing the way that my colleagues at the Higher are asked to turn their skill to a range of research specialisms gives me some idea of the reasons behind the allegations of sloppiness and illogicality thrown at the hacks.

My current conclusion is that it is the nature of the genre; the minute format, the high-speed research, the obsession with personal anecdotes which renders quite a bit of reported science terrible.

A fellow fellow has written on biomarkers for the Guardian, to critical reaction from a biochemist who swears that the writer completely missed the point. This is not due to lack of scientific knowledge as far as I can tell – the writer is a specialist registrar.

This is not to excuse the journos. They have to be clearer about the intentions behind what they write. If a basic graph is printed that isn’t peer reviewed and at best indicative of a trend, then this should be flagged up loud and clear (perhaps these would come in handy). No journalistic piece can ever be conclusive – it’s produced by one person in a few hours tops. And readers should be reminded of that.

I once saw journalism described as the "first rough draft of history". First rough drafts are not always accurate. They give the big picture. But news isn't news if it's not new, so it's impossible to run everything by specialists and to ensure reliability throughout. Tentativeness must be expressed.

The same goes for other fields: see tabloid stories on house prices, immigration, Europe, etc, all equally misleading and ignorant, and arguably equally damaging.

Wednesday 1 September 2010

Tomorrow's news today


Two bylines and two news in briefs in this week's issue. How very exciting.

One research report placed next to an unrelated picture of a toilet. Not so great. I suspect this is not an accident, considering the angst-related headline.

Also online at:


returning the favour

Throughout this Freaky Fridayesque role reversal, I’ve been wondering how things would go if the journalists who have been teaching me their trade were to spend a few weeks in a university department.

To be fair, the reporters on the Times Higher already regularly visit campuses around the country. The UK is divided between them, so that each reporter is responsible for an area (e.g. Scotland & Wales) and any stories that emerge from universities within it. They visit academics, field zealous invites to openings of new buildings, and basically get acquainted with researchers and management at each institution. This is in addition to their duties on government policy, features, university rankings and keeping an eye on play (foul or otherwise) within the sector.

Anyhow, I digress.

I have come to the conclusion that the British Science Association or some other body must develop a life-swap scheme for hacks to work with scientists in their institutions. We all know that hosting a French exchange partner is infinitely more comfortable than going to stay with Sylvie and her parents in urban Strasbourg and joining in with their weird ways.

If press people spent a few weeks in carefully chosen labs and departments, they could see the painstaking attention to detail that researchers pay by default. The weeks that go into planning studies and the controls put in place to ensure that we’re measuring exactly the thing under study. The further weeks spent analysing the data and the conservatism inherent in interpreting it. And then the reporting of only what has been found, with a tentative foray into its implications and the reluctance to boast of What This Means (ok, except when it comes to writing the grant proposals).

They would see that the peer review process is more than just ‘showing your work to your mates’ (I’m still keeping the faith that that comment was tongue-in-cheek). They would see the ethical controls and contextualisation and confidentiality and the grand scale of decent research and that one or two voices alone do not tell a story.

Thursday 26 August 2010

Fair exchange?

Of all the media fellows, my placement is distinctly non-scientific. Whilst the other fellows are writing about biomarkers and arguing about Darwin, I’m ringing profs up about learning and teaching, academic misconduct or postgraduate funding. This is fine, it suits me well, I’m comfortable reporting on all of these topics and I’ve got something to say. If asked. It's not the journo's job to opine, so I've heard.

However, the scheme is run by the British Science Association, for reasons of improving understanding between scientists and the media – necessarily so, as Zoe Corbyn reports in today’s THE. But whilst the academy and the media do have their spats, there’s not the same pressure for empathy that there is when public health, climate change or natural disaster are involved.

I guess the Times Higher wants to expand its links with academics and institutions, and by having one of its readership guest for a couple of weeks, they get some feedback on how the magazine is received, but can that really be it?

Two weeks free labour? Someone to train for no long-term gain? Supplier of contacts or a woman on the ground? I’m not yet sure why the THE buy into the scheme.

I’m enjoying it and learning lots, but my placement just seems slightly besides the Association’s aims. I’ll keep you posted in case of enlightenment.

Comment is free

The Times Higher’s comments section is open access. You can just leave a message right there using whatever name you like. Unsurprisingly, this system will not last due to online crazies, posters having arguments with themselves / patting themselves on the back, and the antics of general irritants. That and the ubiquitous spambots, peddling Uggboots on the site each night.

But one of the nice things about free comment is the speed and volume of discussion you get. Working here also gives me the pleasure of seeing live comments about comments. The staff respond to regular supporters like old friends (which I’m sure they are – one of my calls was greeted today by a professor offering ‘anything for the Times Higher’), but also get a bit antsy when academics leave criticisms about patchy articles, unadorned graphs and uncited research. Although people here know much more than us about HE policy and have an impressive knack of conjuring up names and numbers of previously unreachable managers and politicians, they are still high-speed hacks, with an eye on the big picture. And when dealing with academics brought up on fine detail, it’s no surprise that people get upset now and again.

Wednesday 25 August 2010

Think, call, write, repeat.

Over the last few days I’ve fallen into a regular rhythm of coming up with stories (or having them suggested to me), researching the issue online, contacting a couple of people who can explain things and provide quotes, then consolidating all this into short and sweet news pieces.

I then file my copy the news editor, who makes minor changes and tells me it’s worked well, and then it’s gone. Gone forth to the hinterland of the subs, who do something mysterious to it. Then it may or may not end up in the magazine.

So that’s it. The process seems remarkably straightforward. I say this quietly since I’ll probably fall flat on my face over the next few days as I have no doubt underestimated what really happens.

I’ve filed 3 pieces in 4 days which seems a pretty pedestrian pace, although apparently I have a lot on my plate. I’m hoping to learn a bit more about the typical workload when I go for lunch with one of the reporters tomorrow.

I guess I’m viewing all this through the comparative lens of my time at BlueSci, where copy was edited, then second edited, and then proofread. It took ages and incurred many a heated row on logic, clarity and Oxford commas. I’m eternally grateful to BlueSci for providing a training ground in all aspects of magazine publishing, but also a little bit sad that it took away my magazine virginity and I’m sitting here at the Times Higher a bit less bushy-tailed than I might have been.

So yep, if truth be told I’ve been a bit bored. Not so much with the stuff I’m doing, but with the prospect of repeating this cycle for the next fortnight. Grasshopper wants to be a tiger, and is maybe a teensy bit jealous of her friends at the dailies or in broadcasting.

Tomorrow I’ll have a scout around some of the agencies such as the Science Media Centre to see if there are any press briefings going on. This will a) show me what a press briefing is ahead of the Science Festival where apparently I will be spending many hours attending such things and b) get me out of the office and fulfilling my preconceived fantasy of being a superbusy hack zipping around London on the trail of some breaking story.

In other news, I have learned to use shorter paragraphs.

Saturday 21 August 2010

Day 2: Quick pitches and long interviews

I sent five pitches to John for news/opinion pieces. He liked two of them and gave me feedback on why another might not work (too similar to a recent cover story). Not bad going for a rookie.

Three separate people have today reminded me of the importance of the Hook – the newsworthy peg on which the whole story hangs and on which the reader’s attention depends. As an academic, so used to giving lengthy contextualisation of topics, it feels weird to cut straight to the chase, giving the background only if absolutely necessary. The piece I submitted yesterday came back to me with recommendations for brutal editing: the final paragraph was apparently the most interesting so the whole piece had to be reversed and rejigged.

New ideas for today are an opinion piece on attitudes to mixed-level teaching in the UK and the US. The idea came from a friend of mine, so I’ll set up an interview with her, if that’s not too weird. Paul also liked my idea for a piece on blogging academics, so I’ll be spending a lot (more) time in the blogosphere.

I was also sent a paper from a Higher Education journal on the experience of female postgraduates –an issue close to my heart. The paper didn’t really say anything new to me, so I’m creating a piece around the issues common to studying mothers and part-time students in general. Spoke to a very helpful academic in Derby this afternoon who’d researched the part-time student experience, and thank the god of technology, I could actually get some direct quotes this time thanks to a recording device which I’ve now attached to my phone. Transcribing will take a little longer than shorthand, but in the absence of the latter, it’s my only option. Crucially, it will let me actually listen to what I’m being told rather than burning holes in the notepad with illegible scrawl.

Speaking of weirdness of interviewing friends and colleagues, I spoke to an anthropologist today who I got in touch with via personal connections. She gave me lots and lots of detail about her research experiences in Africa. Fascinating stuff, if a little off-topic at times (the scope of relevance becomes much narrower when you only have 350 words to play with). As I was on my bestest most politest behaviour, I felt I couldn’t cut her off, so the interview was about 15 minutes longer than it might have been, but I got plenty of useful stuff, and the Dictaphone together with my timing notes will let me cut straight to the chase when it comes to writing the story.

The pressure barometer in the office noticeably rose as Friday drew to a close and deadlines approached. Most of the pieces are filed to the editor today, meaning that many of the permanent staff had long evenings ahead. The perk of being the new girl..

Day 1: Joining Up

Swooping glass doors, three gliding lifts and a well-stocked kitchen. I have gone up in the world.

The Times Higher editorial team shares its vast office with the Times Educational Supplement staff (confusingly, neither of which are Murdoch-affiliated), and is made up of a number of staff reporters. Forgive the vagueness, the precise number seems to keep changing, though I think that’s just me trying to get my bearings. Friendly bunch, forgot their names as soon as I was told them. Thank God for the staff lists at the front of the magazine.

I spent the first part of the day looking through today’s issue, and brainstormed potential ideas which would fit with the THE’s remit and style. I’d read the magazine lots before, but the structure was a lot more meaningful now I could put faces to names and desk islands to sections. All the writing happens in one area, then subediting and production in a different part of the office near to a notice board which houses the growing page layout as print deadline approaches on Tuesdays. Press day is Thursday, meaning that anything that happens on a Wednesday, like the Comprehensive Spending Review due in October, has to wait until the following week. There was a quiet buzz in the office – not quite the Thick of It, but certainly more interactive than my PhD room.

Throughout the day I picked up valuable tips on the THE:

  1. The international angle is always a good one.
  2. The THE’s North American equivalent takes itself very seriously but can afford to with a team of 40 staff.
  3. I should be careful what I wish for in terms of the pacey workload I’m seeking
  4. Tea is free-flowing.
  5. Cutting copy down takes almost as long as writing the thing in the first place (sounds familiar).
  6. Not knowing what you’re writing about is a common if not the default state to be in.

I was introduced to Paul, the Science and Research reporter, and to the Research Intelligence section of the magazine. As a researcher, this was a good place to start, and Paul had a few ideas for me to get started on: a piece on archiving in anthropology as a follow-up to a recent article in Anthropology Today; a new collaboration between UK and Indian Universities heralded by the passing of a bill in the Indian Parliament allowing UK universities to set up annexes there, and a rather dull and complicated report on the direction of support for researchers after Roberts funding comes to an end next April. After reading the material, I emailed academics to set up phone interviews, and read some more, and worked on my own ideas for pieces. Paul encouraged me to pitch any ideas to the editor and deputy editor.

The final of the three assigned pieces took up most of my afternoon. I somehow blagged my way through a phone interview with a Research Policy Manager in Loughborough on the Roberts issue, lubricated by a glass of champagne to celebrate the TES’s rise in circulation figures (applause!). Then bemoaning my lack of shorthand (which wiggled at me from everyone else's notebooks), I pieced material from the interview together into a brief news story. Paul emphasised that if there wasn’t a story that jumped out, don’t be scared of canning it, but I wanted to have a stab, so I squeezed out 200 slow stubborn words. We’ll see what happens to that tomorrow. A very tricky first piece.

In more engaging news, I have arranged to talk to an Oxford anthropologist (and friend’s mum) tomorrow about multimedia archiving, which should add another voice to the author of the piece in AT. When India wakes up I’m also hoping to set up an exchange with one of the collaborators on the UK/India project.

First impressions are of a pretty relaxed approach to journalism. Principled, experienced and professional for sure, but perhaps due to the weekly news cycle, there was no shouting for copy or heads on the line. Yet.