It's fun to report on sex research.
You write funny budget lines. Your newsroom colleagues eavesdrop when they overhear your phone interviews. And your story gets extra attention in the news meeting.
Most journalists don't cover sex research on a regular basis. Few do it well. With newsroom humor being what it is, it's easy to see how stories about sex research could become a vortex of bad puns and silly jokes.
|
RELATED RESOURCES |
Examples of sex research reporting:
This Boston Globe magazine article from August 2005 about why people are gay generated a lot of comment.
There have been many stories done on the facts and myths behind women's sexual dysfunction. Here are two, one from The Washington Post
and one from The Seattle Times.
Resources:
|
But spend a day with sex researchers -- people who've devoted their entire lives to this work -- and you feel a little, well, juvenile.
At the invitation of
The Kinsey Institute at Indiana University, eight journalists and eight sex researchers got together last June. All of the researchers had been the subjects of news stories. All of the journalists had covered sex research. I was the moderator.
What do journalists and sex researchers have in common? Both are naturally curious. They like asking questions and sorting through the answers.
Where do we diverge? Sex research, like all science, is a "slow plodding process," said
Lisa Diamond, a researcher for the University of Utah's Department of Psychology, who attended the gathering. "It's often mind-numbingly dull." True developments happen slowly over long periods of time.
Journalists, on the other hand, are mostly interested in the new -- new studies, new ways of understanding and interpreting information, new outcomes. When a study produces surprising results, journalists will say, "Wow, look at this." Sex researchers will say, "Whoa, can that be right?" Then they'll want to replicate the study over and over. And that could take 20 years. In the meantime, journalists have already written the headline that makes the results seem as if they are a proven fact.
"Sex is interesting," said Sunny Gold, an editor at
Glamour magazine. "People want to read about it and they don't always want to hear all the background."
Still, because sexual science is a political lightning rod, many researchers are leery of shallow reporting that might overstate findings or get the facts wrong.
A big concern for researchers is funding. Even good reporting of a study could have a negative impact on the money. Bad reporting is dangerous. Politicians often seize upon news stories that distort or oversimplify sex research as a rallying point. "
This is what's wrong with our universities today," they say.
For their part, the journalists taking part in last June's meeting pledged to cover attempts to politicize the science. The sex researchers pointed out the subtleties that can make things worse for their funding prospects.
The journalists said they were most frustrated with researchers who didn't understand the terms of engagement or the need for speed. Researchers often want to see copies of the story ahead of time, a practice not unheard-of in science reporting, but certainly not the norm in other journalism. Researchers want questions in writing -- in advance -- and the opportunity to vet their quotes. The journalists in the room politely declined to cede their independence, but agreed they do more to assuage nervous researchers.
Hearing jokes does not make researchers more confident in a journalist's ability. Sex researchers are unified in their weariness of journalists' humor.
"If you're working in sex research, all the jokes get made rather quickly," Diamond said. "It's not so funny the 20th time. Everyone thinks they are making a joke for the first time."
On top of that, sex researchers have had to fight for legitimacy among other scientists. Bad humor undermines the authority of their work. On the other hand, defensive researchers often have a hard time translating their work.
At the end of the meeting, we came up with a list of tips for journalists and researchers. It's a starting point.
Tips for Journalists:
- Check your humor. Sex research lends itself to sniggers and snorts. But sex researchers are social scientists, not fodder for late-night talk shows. They've heard all the jokes before and for the most part they're over them.
- Do your homework. Read the study synopsis; understand the implications and issues before the interview. Researchers agree that it is much more pleasant to be interviewed by a knowledgeable reporter who asks informed questions.
- Use statistics responsibly. Ask the researcher, "Is it accurate to say...?" If you've never covered scientific research, seek out coaching from someone who has.
- Review the rules of engagement with sources and researchers. Make sure you agree on terms like "off the record," "background" and "deep background."
- Be honest. Tell the researcher what direction you expect your article to take. If that changes, give the researcher and other sources a heads-up.
- Understand the political nature of sex research. Researchers are often very wary of commenting on hot-button issues.
- Use terms like pathology, disease and criminology in accurate context.
- Know which magazines and journals are legitimate and peer-reviewed. Avoid reporting on research that has not been peer-reviewed.
- Take stock of your own biases. Sex is a value-laden topic for all of us. Be aware how your own experiences and opinions affect your work.
- Headlines and teases often over-simplify or make puns of sex research. Shepherd your story through the production process to ensure accuracy and avoid sensationalism.
Tips for Sex Researchers:
- Understand that journalists are generalists. Be patient and open to explaining your work in laymen's terms.
- Ask questions to assess how much the journalist knows and where the article might be headed.
- Allow for enough time. Most phone interviews run 20 to 40 minutes.
- Prepare yourself ahead of time. Jot down the three most important points you want to convey about your work.
- Recognize that the language and tone of the article will be different from those of a scholarly journal. Although you may be able to influence a reporter to take a certain approach, you cannot dictate.
- Know that you are always "on the record," unless you ask to go "off the record" and the reporter grants that request.
- Don't speculate outside your area of expertise. Put the brakes on if a reporter tries to steer you outside your comfort area.
- Describe the limitations of your research. Ask the reporter to be sure to include a line in his story.
- Tell the reporter what worries you. Ask if it would be possible for the reporter to do a quick fact check. Then make yourself easy to find and give the reporter a phone number where you are likely to answer.
- If the reporter is clearly biased or manipulating the interview to provoke sensational statements, point it out. If it continues, end the interview.
- Sometimes journalists are only interested in a very small portion of your research. If you think the journalist's interests are too obscure or off-topic as it relates to your research, say so.
- If there is an error in fact or context, request a correction.
