J460 Science Writing » WORKSHOP BLOGS

Conversation Beats Comedy: NASW’s “happy hour”

Megan Meyer — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 22:37:54 +0000

On Saturday evening, presumably to unburden writers who had endured a long day of workshops, the NASW scheduled a comedic speaker during Happy Hour.

Everyone gathered outside the lecture room on the patio, sipping wine and mingling. I found a seat close to the speaker and waited for crowd to file in. But it seemed as though everyone, save a handful of us, was reluctant to leave the buoyant, chattering mass churning on the patio. People stayed for about 15 minutes of the one-hour long talk. Then, to the speaker’s chagrin, most got up and left, more interested in socializing than in comedy.

Perhaps this was an indicator of why people fly across the country to participate in the NASW conference: It is not so much about the entertainment or the open bar as it is about networking, assembling each year to touch base with old colleagues and forge new paths by fattening their computer address books. Even those of us from IU made important contacts with science writers willing to give us advice, consider us for internships, and introduce us to some of the most prominent people in the field.

–Megan Meyer

Session 3B: What’s Science Got to Do With It? Thinking Outside the Lab

Patrick Mundy — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 20:55:02 +0000

It was nearly 5 pm at the Cabana Hotel in Palo Alto, and I was a healthy mix of exhausted and excited. I had just attended "Thinking Outside the Lab," a workshop session on communicating science to the public, my last session of the day and certainly the most enjoyable, if only for bolstering my faith in science communication.

I heartily agreed with the session’s moderator, science writer K.C. Cole, about a very dangerous psychological disease—what Cole smilingly referred to as a “hardening of the categories." In organizing the session, Cole hoped to get her audience to soften its categories with respect to science and come to appreciate that science may not be so separate from everyday life as we often think. The panelists she assembled did much to accomplish that goal.

Paul Preuss, a science writer from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, bridges the gap between science and non-science by writing science fiction. Much of his professional writing has examined historical and archaeological research, and he said that a major motivation for the particular stories he has pursued has been to get outside the lab and travel.

Jennifer Ouellette, a blogger and writer, came to science writing from a background in English, but her love for science was palpable. Her most recent aim has been to convince people that there is a science to the series Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I’d like to take a look at her book, Physics of the Buffyverse, to see how she pulls it off. She good-naturedly noted in her talk some of the scorn she’d received from scientists and non-scientists alike, but made a case that most of what she writes about is based on sound science. For instance, the Buffy magic system is based on scientific principles like thermodynamics and conservation of energy. Ouellette manages to see science in unexpected places, recounting a satisfying moment when she realized that falling rocks on the side of the road were an example of self-organized criticality. She also has written what some have described as a physics-based tour de force called Black Bodies and Quantum Cats: Tales from the Annals of Physics.

Prof. Leslie-Pelecky, professor of physics at the University of Texas at Dallas, played the part of the pragmatist. Her message was something of a mission statement: Americans are losing interest in science; the ivory tower of academia has lost touch with the layperson; we have to win them back by targeting their interests instead of imposing our own. When I use “we” I’m referring to those of us who are science enthusiasts already, which illustrates just how persistent the division is. Like most scientists, I tend to believe the average person should be interested in what I study (and much frustration was expressed by the two physics professors, Frank and Leslie-Pelecky, on that point, too). Nevertheless, Leslie-Pelecky argues, let’s get real—most Americans don’t need to know about quantum mechanics, game theory, or special relativity, and they know it. Leslie-Pelecky’s tactic is interesting. She teaches physics by showing the physical principles involved in NASCAR race-car driving. She makes a very astute observation, too: While university populations are hardly representative of Americans as a group, NASCAR demographic mirrors them (not to mention there are a lot of NASCAR fans out there). Dr. Leslie-Pelecky’s idea, then, is to show the layperson how cool physics is by showing them the complex inner workings of something they already love.

Adam Frank, professor of astrophysics, the last science writer to speak and perhaps my favorite of the conference, works his day job as a professor of astrophysics at the University Rochester. His forthcoming book, The Constant Fire, examines the age-old debates between scientific and religious magisteria, and attempts to reconcile spiritual experiences with scientific ones (with special emphasis on “experience”). Frank’s philosophy particularly resonates with me. He speaks with affable enthusiasm, seeming to implicitly demand of his colleagues, “Just what about an astronomer’s wonder toward the stars isn’t a genuinely spiritual experience?” And while I imagine some scientists might have fundamental issues with Frank’s congeniality toward the idea of taking the sacred more seriously, I have to give him kudos for his optimism: The pursuit of science can be invigorating and awe-inspiring. Dr. Frank went on to assert (both in his talk and the Q & A) that it is partly the role of science to question claims about the world from scientologists, Christians, and Buddhists alike, but that surely we ought to all agree that the universe is a pretty wonderful and mysterious place.

During the Q & A, each speaker had something to say about the difficulties of teaching science—that it is unreasonable to expect everyone to be interested in string theory or fluid dynamics, amd that it’s vital to base any good explanation on a good understanding of what the person you’re talking to already knows about your subject.

Questions also came up about how to argue science with fundamentally religious people. Although all the panelists endorsed listening carefully to the other’s case, religious or not, Ouellette conceded that sometimes you “just can’t get through to those people” and that certain people’s beliefs are, for instance, “so tied up into a literal interpretation of the Bible that they just won’t listen.” And naturally a great deal of what you can expect to communicate about science has to do with the backgrounds and expectations of the people you’re speaking with.

More than anything, though, the session reminded me just how much science is about looking at the world in a particular way. And any good science writer, like any good scientist, has to be alive to how the world works. Of course, having done a good deal of laboratory research myself, I confess the work of science is by no means all wonder and excitement. If anything, this session made me realize how much I envy full-time science writers the luxury of piecing together the bigger, more fantastic picture. But here’s hoping I can prevent a hardening of the categories for myself, at least.

–Patrick Mundy

* * *

Extras!

Most of the panelists have written books related to science outside the lab. These include:

Adam Frank’s forthcoming book, The Constant Fire. In this book, Frank spells out the intimate relationship between his spirituality and his work as an astrophysicist, tackling the science-religion debate from an entirely new angle. By his account, religion is not in direct opposition to science, but is actually an integral part of it. The book will be released January of 2009 and lists for $24.95.

The Physics of NASCAR by Diandra Leslie-Pelecky

Black Bodies and Quantum Cats: Tales of Pure Genius and Mad Science by Jennifer Ouellette

Black Bodies and Quantum Cats: Tales from the Annals of Physics by Jennifer Ouellette

The Physics of Buffyverse by Jennifer Ouellette

–Jennifer Akst

I was totally taken by the last speaker, Adam Frank. He is a theoretical/computational astrophysicist at the University of Rochester and author of a forthcoming book, The Constant Fire: Beyond the Science and Religion Debate due to be released in January of 2009. The book discusses the ongoing debate between science and religion, describing them both as pursuits of “the true and the real” and both as "sacred." I think he’s on to something that could bring the minds of science and religion to a new level of understanding. His website is constantfire.com and the book is available to order at Amazon.com.

–Martina Samm

Session A3: Science Writing for Kids: Skills and Markets

Leigh Krietsch Boerner — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 19:15:53 +0000

“Imagine an appointment as a train,” my mom told me when I was a kid. “If you’re late, will it still be there? No. You’ve missed the train.”

"Science Writing for Kids: Skills and Markets"—I totally missed that train. I was conducting an interview just before the session began, and lost track of time. I dashed in about ten minutes late. Fortunately, I was able to get a seat up front pretty easily.

A bespectacled woman was describing the publications she works for. She was Patricia Janes, the executive editor of Science World and Superscience magazines. These are publications used in the science classroom to supplement the curriculum. As Janes described her magazines, how they target grades six through ten and three through six, respectively, I let my eyes wander around the room. The place was pretty empty.

Catherine Hughes, editor of National Geographic Kids magazine, spoke next. She told about the circulation of her magazine, and how they survey a team of 500 kids on the content. She noted that writers need to have a very tight focus in their articles, to hang on to kids’ short attention spans.

The next speaker was Andy Boyles, science editor for Boyds Mills Press and Highlights for Children magazine. I don’t know about you, but I loved Highlights as a kid. And I really liked Boyles. He stood up to speak, and gestured and raised his voice and sounded genuinely excited to be there. He made it sound fun to write for kids. He told about a little girl that had written a letter to them, about how she seen a cotton-tail rabbit in her backyard. She had read a Highlights story about it, and was so excited to see what she had just read about that she had to write in.

“We want kids to make a connection with nature,” Boyles said.

He went on to say that Highlights was not looking for encyclopedic stories about science, but ones that were very “story-like." Narrative is very important, he said.

Emily Sohn, the next speaker, agreed.Sohn is a freelance science writer and a regular contributor to Science News for Kids. She has been all over the world doing this, traveling to places such as Cuba, Turkey, and the Peruvian Amazon.

Science writing for kids forces you to think simply, she said. She mentioned that she thought her writing in general had improved through writing for kids, that it forced her to start asking more basic questions.

Sohn said she tries to impart four basic tenets in her kids’ articles. They are:

• Science is fun
• Science is everywhere
• Science is new
• Science is adventure

Kids like it when the writer becomes a character in the story, she said, because it’s easier for them to identify that way. She also suggested that thinking in a sensory way is a great way for kids to connect.

Sohn added that good writing for kids makes use of short words, short sentences, and short paragraphs. Make things as simple as possible, but don’t dumb down.

And I totally agree. I don’t have any experience writing about science for kids, but I do have a bunch in teaching science to kids. For three summers, I was a counselor at an organic gardening camp for kids. We gardened, yes, but we also spent a lot of time exploring nature. Part of my job was to come up with and teach lesson plans every afternoon.

Mostly I dealt with 9-12 year olds, but my last year there I taught the little ones, the 5-7 year olds. And you know what? Not one of them was dumb. Quite the opposite, really. But kids are not just tiny adults. They laugh a lot more. And they pick up on things a lot faster. What they lack are life experience and attention spans. So I had to make everything fun and quick, with a big wow factor.

I really don’t think science writing for kids would be any different. And from what I learned at this session, I think I might be right. Science writing for kids sounds like a grand adventure, one that maybe I’d like to try.

–Leigh Krietsch Boerner

***

Extras!

Before I went to this session, I had thought science writing for kids would be one of the easier areas of science writing to break into. Turns out that is not the case. Editors of children’s media expect strong pitches just as editors do for adult media. So I paid careful attention to the pitches the panelists would be most open to.

One that really stuck out was “Gross Out” for Science World. The editors have a lot of difficulty finding things to write about for this particular column, so welcome pitches from freelancers. One “Gross Out” piece that I read was “Hang Nail,” a piece about a woman who had grown her nails to 33 inches. The piece was not only about the “gross factor.” The writer also wrote about nutrition and healthy nails and hygiene, underlying factors that contribute to long nails.

–Maegen Ionoff

Session 3D: Why Good Reporters and Institutions Get It Wrong

Alex Farris — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 19:15:06 +0000

My first session, “Freaks, Geeks, and Deadlines,” was interesting because its three panelists and one moderator could hardly agree on anything. Indeed, they probably wouldn’t be able to decide as a group whether or not Taco Bell was authentic Mexican food! All their disagreements made for a very interesting talk that easily engaged my attention.

But when I walked into the third session, “Why Good Reporters and Institutions Get It Wrong,” I saw only one panelist and one moderator up front. This is not going to be the same, I thought, They’re going to talk, and I’m going to be put to sleep. How many different opinions can come from two public information officers? It turns out that I was thinking one-dimensionally. I neglected to realize that the audience might have something to say. And boy, did they!

Alex Farris

Ohio State’s Earle Holland

The public information officers (PIOs) did a good job of presenting specific “crisis situations” that they had dealt with at their respective universities, but members of the audience were incisive — and relentless — in their questions. Most significantly, there was a long back-and-forth between Ohio State University’s Earle Holland and the audience over his institution’s handling of a recent doctoral defense dispute involving intelligent design.

The Intelligent Design Incident

A doctoral student (who doubled as a high school teacher) was preparing a defense of his thesis regarding changes in student attitudes as they “are taught the scientific data both supporting and challenging macro-evolution.” One member of the committee for the doctoral defense removed herself after seeing the thesis question and noticing an underlying bias toward intelligent design. The three other members took issue with the candidate’s use of his own high school students as subjects and asserted that there was no scientific data “challenging macro-evolution.” The defense was postponed due to the first issue, and an inquiry was initiated to examine the second.

The combination brought about condemnation from the Discovery Institute and other proponents of intelligent design, who claimed that the university was, in Holland’s words, “standing in the way of this student’s academic freedom and freedom of expression.” The university couldn’t defend itself as much as it wanted to, Holland said, because of government regulations that prevented it from disclosing much of their students’ records.

Was It Really About Intelligent Design?

What the university could talk about, however, was the doctoral process, which Holland wanted reporters covering the issue to see. If they had dug deeper than the press releases from the Discovery Institute, he said, they would have seen that there were multiple problems with the doctoral committee. For example, two of the set of three members were supposed to come from the department of science education; however, none of the three came from that department, and any challenges to the thesis coming from such a panel would be less substantial than if two science educators had sat on the committee. Also, the committee chair had been sanctioned twice and banned from work with human subjects. According to Holland, no journalists asked to see the faculty members’ records when they were unable to examine the student’s records.

Alex Farris

An audience member asks Holland a question.

The journalists in attendance, while not livid, were certainly animated about what they perceived as Holland’s poor handling of the situation, especially regarding the faculty members’ records. They contended that Holland should have led the journalists to those records directly so that he could help them know what they needed to know.

Holland responded with a point I had not thought of but which was really quite logical: “If you’re not a good enough reporter to understand that you better damn well know what the beat is that you’re covering and the system, then I feel no obligation to tell you which questions there are to ask.” He was willing to answer any question that came up, but he didn’t feel that he should do the reporters’ jobs and provide them with good questions.

My Reaction

To me, this showed the constant and near-universal tension between journalists and PR representatives. On the one hand, public information officers must provide the public with full information regarding any critical situation; on the other hand, journalists must push to find that information and not rely on people who don’t have that investigative call in their job description.

–Alex Farris

For more information about the doctoral dispute, please read Inside HigherEd’s analysis.

Question: Whose side (PR or journalism) do you identify with more? In general? In this particular case?

***
Extra!

As I’ve learned through attending this meeting, scientists are people. They do not just do far-off research removed from any social contact. They have human passions, they make human mistakes, and they develop human loyalties.

The last one showed itself most explicitly in this session.

Earle Holland works at Ohio State University; A’ndrea Elyse Messer works at Penn State. That wouldn’t normally be a problem, except that this day, Ohio State was playing Penn State in football. Holland began the discussion with a tongue-in-cheek declaration that there will be no talk of football; A’ndrea playfully objected.

Quick question: Whom do you like better, Ohio State or Penn State? Try to focus on their academics and research, but if you absolutely can’t, go ahead — talk football.

–Alex Farris

Session 3C: The Digital Science Writer: Deciding on Laptops and Demystifying Multimedia

Jeffrey Maitland — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 19:15:06 +0000

Well, I found my seat in the Cyprus room, which wasn’t too hard since the room was only a quarter of the way full. I found that interesting, since I thought that this would be an extremely beneficial session, especially for those who are still timid about the technological advances in journalism. As a self-proclaimed multimedia nerd, I was very excited about this session, which promised to cover multimedia on the web, laptops for journalists, and podcasting.

The three speakers were:

-Peggy Peck, the executive editor of MedPage Today
-Michelle Thatcher, CNET’s senior associate editor for laptops
-Jerry Monti, the technology trainer for the Knight Digital Media Cente

Multimedia on the web. Peck explained the importance of having a uniform appearance for a website that includes multimedia with each story. To establish a professional appearance, she said it is very important to make sure everyone who shoots video or takes audio uses the same equipment. Now I realize this may seem elementary, but it really made sense, as all cameras take video in different ways, and so will look different, lowering the professionalism a great deal. Peck also stressed the necessity of getting familiar with different multimedia techniques and equipment. MedPage Today, for one, puts out about 15 stories a day, half of which are accompanied by some sort of multimedia file (audio or video interview).

Laptops for Journalists. Thatcher was up next. I was excited about hearing her speak for I’d been looking for a laptop for quite some time, and I wanted help in choosing my next big investment. Thatcher talked about two most common types of laptops in great detail:

Net Books
Ultraportable Laptops

She presented the pros and cons of each of these systems, along with suggested models of each type. She goes even more in depth in the blog she wrote after the conference, which can be viewed here. But I’ve gone ahead and made a table below that lists the pros and cons of each type of laptop she discussed, along with a link to information about each. Thatcher offered her email for any journalist looking for help picking a laptop. She also talked about general buying guidelines for purchasing a new laptop:

Once a processor has 2.0GHz, money is best spent on upping RAM.
Integrated Intel graphics will be sufficient for most journalists, unless you are working on video.
Get some hands-on time with the laptop you are thinking about purchasing before you buy one, or at least pick a company that has a generous return policy, in case it’s not what you’re looking for.

Category	Pros	Cons	Suggested Models
Net Book	-Featherweight -Inexpensive -Lengthy battery life	-Small screen -Weaker performance than regular laptops -No disk drive -Small keyboard	Dell Inspiron Mini 9 MSI Wind U100 Asus Eee PC 901
Ultraportable Laptops	-Lightweight -Full laptop features -Decent performance -Lengthy battery life	-Tend to be expensive -May lack disk drive -Screen may be too small for all day use	Lenovo Thinkpad X200 Lenovo Thinkpad X301 Fujitsu LifeBook P8020 Sony VAIO TT190 (Does not recommend the Mac Air)

Podcasting for Journalists. The last speaker was Jerry Monti from Knight Digital Media Center. Monti walked us through the steps of making a podcast. A video of those steps can be found on his website here. I have always been a bit skeptical on the usefulness of podcasts, I mean, if you have an iPod or other .mp3 player, would you really listen to stories or just listen to music? Monti presented some peer-reviewed research that shows people do, in fact, listen to podcasts. He said that the survey showed that 23 percent of people under 50 have listened to a podcast, and 4 percent of people listened to a podcast yesterday!

All in all I felt that this was a great session. Although many of my colleagues went to Science Writing for Kids (which I admittedly wanted to go to), I came away thinking that this session was a hidden treasure containing a vast amount of highly relevant information.

–Jeff Maitland

* * *

Extras!

If you’re looking for a laptop, CNET.com blogger and electronic expert Michelle Thatcher can help. How much RAM, how many gigs, XP or Linux, she’ll tell you what you need. If it sounds too complicated already, don’t worry. She can also explain a thing or two about what the heck all that computer-speak means. Thatcher writes product reviews and contributes to numerous technology blogs that are designed to simplify the computer buying process. In her NASW session, she spoke to a room full of journalist hoping to give them a better idea of what computer will work for them: perhaps a super-small, light secondary netbook with a simple 1GB RAM and 1.6 GHz processor? Or maybe an ultraportable with a spacious keyboard, Core 2 Duo Processor, and 2GB of RAM? Decisions, decisions, and Thatcher knows it. Her presentation provided a quick, easy overview of well-defined tech terms and the basic do’s and don’ts of laptop buying. She was aware that all journalists are looking for things in a PC: some want an all-in-one machine that’s light enough to take anywhere but still generously configured; others want a smaller, accompanying model for the road while their main computer stays stationed in the office. She provided helpful pros and cons, realistic expectations, and even specific prices, making computer shopping for the journalist personalized, quick, easy, and—everyone’s favorite—a little less intimidating than you thought.

–Lauren Younis

Session 2B: PIO Pitch Slam: Packaging, Delivery…and Placing the Story

Jef (Jennifer) Akst — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 17:00:57 +0000

As panelists Ron Winslow, Betsy Mason, and Erika Check Hayden took their seats on stage, Lisa Rossi, director of communications and external relations at the University of Pittsburgh, introduced the session entitled ‘PIO Pitch Slam: Packaging, Delivery…and Placing the Story.’ In this session, we would be discussing how public information officers should and should not pitch their ideas to editors. “Pitching a story is part art, part science, part intuition,” she said. “We’re hoping to get some insight from our esteemed panel.”

After the introductions, the three panelists listed what they saw as the most important ‘do’s and ‘don’t’s of pitching potential story ideas to editors. Winslow is the deputy editor and writer for The Wall Street Journal. He explained that he had participated in a similar session last year, and as far as he remembered, most people survived. He briefly went through the various sections of the Journal and explained what he looked for in pitches for each. He emphasized the importance of knowing who you’re pitching to and what they’re looking for.

Mason is a science editor for Wired.com. She emphasized that your credibility is your currency with journal and newspaper editors. Also, know who you’re pitching to so that you can pitch things that are appropriate. For example, Wired.com has many articles on general science; they’re not just about technology. Finally, she promoted pitching multimedia items, such as videos taken by scientists in the course of their research. Even if there’s not a story behind it yet, many places crave multimedia packages and would eat it up immediately.
Hayden, senior reporter for Nature, boiled her ‘do’s and ‘don’t’s down to one thing — “knowing your audience.” She also recommended developing a relationship with a reporter, who could begin to trust that your pitches are credible and interesting.

About 20 minutes into the session, the pitching finally began. In this portion of the session, writers lined up at a microphone in the center of the room to pitch their stories to the panel. Or as Mason so eloquently put it, “we get slammed by pitches or we slam your pitches.”

From what I could gather, it was mostly the latter. As volunteers one-by-one stepped up to the microphone and bravely pitched their story ideas in the 1-2 minutes allotted time, the panelists, one-by-one, went down the line and said what they thought was wrong with it. Ron’s response to the very first pitch on the drastically different points of view of two scientists who studied at opposite ends of a corridor was “What’s the pitch?” Betsy agreed, “What’s the story?” Erika was kind enough to pull out a possible story: choose just one man, Harold Mooney, to profile, she said: “The unsung hero.” You can mention the other man, Paul Ehrlich, as part of the bigger story, she explained, but focusing on Mooney might make for a tighter story. Thanks, Erika, for seeing the silver lining. Otherwise, we may not have any more volunteers and the session would be over.

As the pitches continued (conference on ‘play’ in science held at Stanford next weekend, new fastest supercomputer from Oakridge National Laboratory, etc.), the panelists continued to pick on the weak points of the potential stories. But once things got rolling, the mood seemed to lighten. They even joked about how they paralleled the American Idol panelists. Erika was Janet Jackson, Betsy could be Simon Cowell, they guess, and that meant Ron was Randy Jackson. He immediately accused the most recent story ideas as being ‘pitchy,’ and drew some confused laughs from the crowd.

As the session progressed, the panelists began to focus their critiques and offer some very useful tips on how to tighten the pitches to make them more successful. A couple of the pitches even intrigued the panelists enough to comment, “we should talk about this.” In general, Ron recommended that the pitches be emailed to the editors and then followed up with a phone call in a few days. Editors did not appreciate a random phone call from someone they didn’t know, he said emphatically. Betsy agreed, admitting that she rarely returned such phone calls. And Erika again emphasized building relationships with some reporters so you can at least get your story heard.

–Jef (Jennifer) Akst

In addition to the advice they gave on stage, the detailed ‘do’s and ‘don’t’s of each panelist was available in the form of handouts in the back of the room. Those are reproduced here:

Ron Winslow, deputy editor, health and science and senior medical writer, The Wall Street Journal. In the past 18 years, he has written more than 1,100 articles describing new medical and health care research and chronicling the economic forces transforming the nation’s health care system.

Do:	Don’t:
Pitch via email with specifics in the subject line. “Interesting feature story” doesn’t cut it.	Send pitches with exclamation points in the subject line.
Call to get a heads-up several days ahead, if possible, on important breaking news.	Assume “firsts” are an automatic peg or selling point.
Think exclusivity on feature ideas, but non-spot stories still need a news peg.	Send a link to a NYT story on the subject to get me interested.
Suggest video, online or blog possibilities. I am in a multi-media world and form can enhance substance.	Read to me from a script, or call if you can’t answer the first three questions I’m going to ask.
Consider that building a relationship yields more opportunity long-term than a hit (or miss) on a specific pitch.	Pitch stories to me that are more about your organization’s mission than about the news.
Disclose sponsorship and any relevant conflict of interest issues for your researchers.

Betsy Mason, science editor, Wired.com. She spent four years as the science reporter for the Contra Costa Times. Before that, she freelanced for publications including Nature, Discover, New Scientist and Science.

Do:	Don’t:
Know the publication you are pitching to. Read it so you will be able to pitch appropriate stories and won’t end up pitching something we just covered.	Do things to erode your credibility with me. I make time for PIOs who have been straight with me, have pitched good stories, and that I can trust.
Put the news in the subject line of an email. “NEWS RELEASE: General University researchers discover breakthrough molecule” is no good. I won’t see anything after ‘researchers.’ Better would be “Molecule doubles rat lifespan: General University research.”	Lie to me! I understand the need to emphasize, de-emphasize, but don’t tell me it’s the first, biggest, best, costliest, etc. if it is not.
Give me advance notice of a paper. Don’t wait until it has been published so that I am scrambling to get the news out. Even if it is in an embargoed journal, consider a heads-up before the journal press release comes out.	Spam the whole newsroom. Spend the time to determine whose beat your news falls under.
Consider giving me an exclusive. I will be more likely to cover it and others will probably pick up on the story, perhaps more so than if they had received it in a press release.	Promote it if it’s not really news. I might not listen next time.
Get right to the point in a press release. Anecdotal or cute ledes that take too long to get to the news are a big turn-off.	Start your press release with loads of affiliation details that only matter to your institution: John Johnson, Gerald P. Underhill Memorial Professor of Biogeochemical Statistical Informatics in the Robert H. Robertson School of Earth Systems Sciences at General University was eating a peanut butter and jelly sandwich when something unexpected happened. I won’t even get to the second sentence.
Know the answer to “So what?”	Pitch me a story without knowing the facts inside and out first. As one of my colleagues put it: “If you get stumped, I get pissed, and hammers get dropped.”
	Cold call me. Send an email first. A follow-up call can help if this really is a good story for me (I get so many emails, I may have missed yours). But don’t call me again to see if I am going to cover it.

Erika Check Hayden, senior reporter, Nature. Before joining Nature’s staff in late 2001, Erika worked for Newsweek magazine, reporting on science, health and news events, including the September 11 terrorist attacks in New York.

Do:	Don’t:
Understand my interests and those of my publication, and please do send me pitches that are responsive to the needs of my publication.	Add me to an email distribution list unless I ask. I don’t have time to read the press release of the day from every university, nonprofit, independent research institute…etc. and I filter many of these releases into the trash.
Spell out in a paragraph or less what the news is, why it matters and how it fits with or changes what we previously knew about this topic.	Write vague headlines and e-mail subject lines; do tell me the news. “Joining forces against cancer” is too vague. “Higher urinary levels of commonly used chemical, BPA, linked with cardiovascular disease, diabetes” is better.
Bear in mind that offering me some kind of exclusive story will increase my interest dramatically.	Cut and paste my name into the first line of a form press release. More often than not the press release will describe some field that I don’t cover or some study that is wrong for my publication, and I will filter out emails from you and your institution in the future.
Have some kind of photo or illustration that I can use or a video that I can link to. I often write about abstract, difficult-to-illustrate molecular biology or genetics, and I tend to run out of ideas for pictures, so I’m grateful to hear yours.	Cold call me…even if we have a working relationship. I am almost always on deadline and I don’t “have a minute to chat.” If you sent me an email and I didn’t respond, I probably wasn’t interested in the story…but I am easily overwhelmed by the volume of emails I receive every day, so you can try re-sending an email to make sure it didn’t get lost.
Give me as much time as possible to prepare a story ahead of time.

Session 2A: Who’s Consuming Science, and How Do We Reach Them?

Dani Williams — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 17:00:21 +0000

This session focused on propaganda but in the very best sense of the word: How do universities and laboratories convince people to care about them? The answers were good, but they applied to a specific group of science writers, which unfortunately did not include me with my waning attention span.

Jim Barlow, the director of science and research communications at the University of Oregon, opened the session and made one point very clear: The people and institutions of the news media are no longer necessary; organizations like his can release their own information and reach their audiences without the aid of any journalist or newspaper.

At the time, Barlow’s statement bothered me, and I think now I understand why. Except for the speakers in that session, who are employed by universities and laboratories, most of the journalists I had met at this conference still work in the news media.

According to all three panelists, science news channels are disappearing. While this may be true, it seemed strange and less than helpful to condemn science news writers to the graveyard and move on. Maybe I’m being too idealistic…

String cheese?

On a brighter note, Zack Barnett, the assistant director of web communications at University of Oregon, brought up points that I both enjoyed and agree with. He talked about how, with new media, it’s possible to work on a “string cheese” budget. (Heard of a shoestring budget? This is miles below that!) The part I most enjoyed was his passion about making “a story only we could tell.” Any school can make a video about their new Dean of Education, he said. The challenge is: How can we make ours something that is especially for our audience?

The team at U. Oregon showed us some of their videos about recent big issues on campus. One about making the campus more environmentally friendly featured students and professors, and cited very specific examples of going green. It wasn’t necessarily a topic that only applied to Oregon (lots of schools are going green), but they told it in a way that was uniquely Oregon.

Some more good advice from Barnett: “You have to be willing to suck.” He said this about the string cheese budget of his public information office, but I think it’s great advice for any part of work/school/life. The staff’s first few videos were pretty bad, but they had to get past those to get feedback and change things.

Facebook=modern word-of-mouth

The final panelist, Bob Nellis, from the Mayo Clinic, is the managing editor of Mayo’s online research magazine, Discovery’s Edge. His section was more technical, but he finally said what everyone was thinking: The new media hyped in this session—YouTube, blogs, podcasts, Facebook—are all used because these organizations want to reach us, the younger generation.

Nellis also discussed the idea that new media is today’s word-of-mouth, which I think is totally true. I can’t count the number of times I’ve checked out a new book, song, restaurant, or movie because a friend mentioned it in their Facebook status. Since word-of-mouth is the way the Mayo Clinic gets most of their patients, Nellis and his colleagues are very concerned with using new media well.

On a side note, since they aren’t working on a string cheese budget, Mayo’s videos are a little prettier than Oregon’s, but the same principles applied to both.

So what did I learn?

• Even if science writing news positions become scarce, there will always be spots for science writers available at labs and schools.
• We, the generation in college and high school right now, are the target of hundreds and thousands of propagandists, eager to get our attention and interest.
• For any science writer, the best story is one only you can tell. So find that one!
• Flip video cameras are cheap and a media member’s best tool. (Seriously, I think I heard that about three dozen times, so you should probably invest.)

–Dani Williams

***

Extras!

http://researchnews.osu.edu/blog/

Earle Holland’s blog for Ohio State University was much touted at this session. For the most part, I can agree with their praise. The blog looks clean, not overly cluttered, which is a huge plus in my book. Holland’s entries are varied in their content, which keeps matters interesting.

The blog was praised for being both journalistic and attention-grabbing, and overall, I think it’s a great example of a university science blog.

–Dani Williams

Session 2D: Pitch Slam: Meet the Editors

Maegen Ionoff — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 17:00:21 +0000

As any aspiring writer knows, getting published is the hardest part of the job. Sure, you may write well and have some really great ideas, but in no way does that guarantee that your stories will get published. So what exactly can talented, creative science writers do to up their chances of gracing the glossy pages of Wired or Scientific American?

In a session titled Pitch Slam; Meet the Editors,” editors from Scientific American online, Sierra Club Magazine, Wired and The New York Times described how to present, or "pitch"
ideas to sell. Despite the different focus of each publication, the editors emphasized many of the same points:

Ensure your pitch is specific to the publication you are pitching it to. For example, Wired magazine focuses on technology and its influence on society. So, ensure that any pitch you send the editors has a “Wired angle.”

Show a working familiarity with the magazine. Or know the "furniture," as Adam Rogers, senior editor of Wired magazine, put it. The front of the book is different from the back of the book and graphics consistent with the conventions of the publication.

Indicate knowledge of your topic. Editors look for background details including what has already been said. If you are pitching to The New York Times about fibromyalgia, mention what the Times has already written in addition to knowing what others have written about your subject. This will help the editor to know how your piece will be different and original, while still contributing to the larger picture.

Convey why your story is newsworthy. Editors are bombarded with tons of emails a day and are constantly getting pitches and queries from freelancers and staff writers alike. Make your pitch stand out and present the “wow” factor upfront.

Be clear and to the point. The entire panel stressed the importance of being concise, with David Corcoran from The New York Times suggesting a limit of one page.

Edit your pitch. Bear in mind that pitching is not just a way of communicating an idea for a story. It is also a representation of your writing, and often the first impression an editor has of you. So make sure there are no grammatical errors or misinformation.

Science publications can be tough to crack. They have their own staff writers all of whom are up to date with science news just as much if not more as any freelance writer. However, it’s clear that with a well formulated pitch anyone can break into the world of science writing.

–Maegen Ionoff

* * *

Extras!

Some of the panelists mentioned specific areas they are most likely to accept freelance pitches.

For New York Times, Corcoran mentioned the section "Cases," which depends almost entirely on freelance writing. For this section, people submit personal accounts of their medical/health experiences.

For Scientific American, Top 10 lists are a big favorite. An example is “The World’s Top 10 Worst Pollution Problems” from the October 22, 2008 issue.

Session 2C: Turning the Tables: Meet the Press Critics

Stephanie Pascarella — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 17:00:12 +0000

As I sat, notebook open in lap, pen uncapped and ready to listen to a panel of science journalists describe their critiques of the press, my eyes wandered to the large window doors that led out to a patio. The sun’s rays made the conference room, with it beige walls and navy valences, seem almost laid back (or maybe it only seemed that way because we were in California). Whatever the reason, I felt truly happy to be in California, away from a forecast of 45 and rainy in Bloomington.

Suddenly a voice interrupted my reverie. “Good afternoon.” Cristine Russell, President of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing (CASW) and a freelance science writer, smiled as she introduced the first of three speakers.

Speaker #1: Charlie Petit

Charlie Petit, head tracker for Knight Science Journalism Tracker (KSJT at ksjtracker.mit.edu) approached the podium. Petit spoke loudly as he talked about blogging for KSJT. “I post about 5-7 posts a day,” he said, scrolling through the blog on a large projection screen in the left corner of the room. “I’m not a critic. I’m a describer.”

Petit reads RSS feeds, the news of major news outlets, and the posts of other sources, and then he blogs his heart out. One thing I found interesting was that he always includes the press releases in his blogs. This led to Petit’s most interesting point — that journalists too often use a press release as their story.

A good journalist, said Petit, will stray away from the “pack” of journalist reporting the same stories. The journalist, who goes the extra mile to take a different spin on a story, is really doing the job of a good journalist.

An example of following the pack was a recent story entitled, “Ancient plant has hot stinky sex." Reuters picked up this story, only changing the title to, “Primitive plant has hot stinky sex." ABC (Australia) along with a long list of other news outlets also joined the pack.

How does a journalist break away from the pack? Petit says it is simple. Everything in life, in one way or another, has to do with science. An important factor in differentiating your story from other journalist is by doing research and figuring out what aspect of a story has not been covered. What kind of journalist would we be if we took press releases and fooled the public into thinking they were our own? How would a journalist benefit from that? What good would the public obtain from it?

Put simply, journalists must be watchdogs for the public, exposing important information. They must also be bulldogs, grabbing hold of a story and digging until there is no more dirt to dig up. The more effort put into a story, the more everyone will benefit.

Speaker #2: Craig Stoltz

Craig Stoltz, reviewer for Health News Review, began his talk by logging onto his website, healthnewsreview.org. He quickly explained that the mission of the website was this: to create “better reporters to inform audiences so they can make better medical decisions.” In short, he hopes to improve reporters’ stories, so the audience can get the most out of them.

How does he do this? With a scale, of course!

To be eligible for review, a health news article should: 

• Be relevant to the management and prevention of disease and in particular should relate to claims about treatments, procedures, or tests

• Discuss an intervention that is intended for use in humans or one for which the link to human application is at least implied. 

• Make explicit or implicit claims about the efficacy of treatments, procedures or tests.

To evaluate journalists’ health stories, Stolz checks to see whether or not a story:

mentions the availability of the treatment/test/product/procedure
covers costs
engages in disease mongering
grasps and conveys the quality of the evidence
covers harms of the treatment/test/product/procedure
establishes the true novelty of the approach
frames the benefits of the treatment/test/product/procedure
relies solely or largely on a news release
offers independent sources and discloses possible conflicts of interests of sources
mentions alternative treatment/test/product/procedure options

I enjoyed hearing what Stoltz had to say about his website. Far too often journalists stray away from the important “newsworthy” information. A list of criteria for a story is a great way to keep a writer focused and, in turn, to benefit the audience.

Speaker #3: Curtis Brainard

Lastly, Curtis Brainard, staff writer for Columbia Journalism Review and ‘The Observatory’ (cjr.org) writer spoke about covering the environment. He reads RSS feeds, and bookmarks important articles and webpages which he then reads everyday.

Brainard stressed the importance of doing research and having a good understanding of what you are writing about. As journalists, getting the facts straight is part of our job. We should always check and recheck the facts.

-Stephanie Pascarella

***

Extra!

One thing Stoltz said that I found astonishing is that a lot of journalists don’t use the site. It’s mostly the public. I couldn’t help but think how great it would be if health writers actually took a look at these criteria and applied it to their writing!

–Jeff Maitland

Session 1D: Building the Freelance Business You Want

Martina Samm — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 14:30:21 +0000

I was thrilled to cover this workshop. The three-woman panel gave a great presentation on running a freelance business, covering everything from taking whatever you can get for work, to controlling, shaping and selecting articles.

Siri Carpenter is from Madison Wisconsin and a trained social psychologist. She has been freelancing about behavior science topics for seven to eight years. Her articles have appeared in Prevention, Scientific American Mind and Science Careers, an online careers resource of Science magazine. Her presentation stressed time management and organizational skills, which she said were crucial but not too exciting. Honing these skills has allowed her to focus on writing magazine articles. To organize her work, she uses Microsoft One Note. It helps her capture, create and track story ideas and the progress of development to move the story forward.

In addition, she had this advice for developing a successful freelance career:

• Have confidence in your ideas. If a story seems interesting to you, it’s probably interesting to other people.

• Find the point of your story. A story is not just a topic. “What is the hypothesis of this story?” Ask this question and be willing to change the point of the article if needed.

• Read a lot to break out of the rut of writing on the same topic. She suggests reading several different kinds of magazines with the idea of following what attracts your interest.

• Take advantage of the expertise of editors. Stay in touch to keep the article moving in the direction best suited for the magazine.

• Talk to other science writers to test out pitches and ways to approach stories.

Christie Aschwandan lives in rural western Colorado and has been a science writer for 10 years. Her articles have appeared in over 50 publications including The New York Times, the The Los Angeles Times, O magazine, and National Wildlife. This year she was the recipient of the American Society of Journalists and Authors’ Arlene Award for articles that make a difference.

She began her presentation with this advice: “The key to successful freelancing is never forget why you’re doing this….and the reason is money.” Although it sounded like a joke, she was serious. Pay attention to the business side of freelancing because you’re running a small business. This requires having a business plan. She talked mostly about income goals and contract rules. She suggests:

• Find some clients for regular work to cover basic financial needs.

• Calculate the turn-around time against the payment to avoid cash flow problems.

• Work efficiently and plan time to move toward better paying jobs.

• Read contracts because most are negotiable.

• Avoid selling the rights to the article.

• Make use of the Wordsworth database on the NASW website. It covers contracts and payment per article of individual publications.

Rabiya Tuma is a freelance medical journalist who lives in the San Francisco Bay Area. She has been writing for eight years with articles published in the Economist, Journal of the American Cancer Institute, The New York Times and Self. She suggests that your business plan should include a professional salary because it’s reasonable. Include benefits that go along with having a professional career. To do this, be honest about the time required to write an article. This includes setting appointments, research, background reading, and interviews, along with writing and revision time. When negotiating payment, the best time to ask for more money is the first time you write for a publication.

In addition:

• Be selective and specialize. Publications soon find out that your work is done well and you develop a working relationship with contacts and researchers.

• Structure articles by topics so the information can be sold to different publications. This uses the time, other than writing, more effectively.

• Get to work. Don’t procrastinate.

• Find your nitch. There are lots of different venues in the field of science writing.

During the question and advice session at the end of the workshop, the panelists offered additional advice on getting started in the business of science writing:

• Find a publication you like and build a relationship.

• Build clips for other publications.

• Do articles that build your portfolio.

• Look for what you like in a magazine.

• Market and advertise your work.

• Get the book How to Write Irresistible Query Letters by Lisa Collier Cool

Science writers who attended the workshop seemed to find the information and suggestion insightful. Running a freelance business clearly requires skills above and beyond those skills needed for reporting and writing.

–Martina Samm

***

Extra!

Building the Freelance Business You Want was all about just that — viewing yourself, a freelance writer, as a small business. The three panelists Christie Aschwandan, Siri Carpenter, and Rabiya Tuma, all gave very good information on how to do this, from writing out a budget to negotiating publication contracts.

However, what they didn’t get into was how to get yourself out there. As an aspiring science writer, how can you let your future editors easily find you and your fabulous writing samples? Most people accomplish this by maintaining their own website. Two of the panelists gave their URLs:

www.siricarpenter.com
www.christieaschwanden.com

Both have very good websites; they list resumes as well as ample writing samples. They are also well-laid out and easy to read. They’ve both made sure to include the very important contact information.

But how does one go about setting up a website? If you poked around on Christi Aschwandan’s website, you may have noticed that she also writes a blog. This is probably the easiest way to maintain a web presence. Free blogging sites are abundant; Blogger and WordPress are probably the most user-friendly.

To be a little more professional, you can set up an actual webpage. There are a number of places on the internet that can help you do this. A few notables are:

• www.thesitewizard.com
• http://netforbeginners.about.com
• www.webpage-maker.com

And don’t forget, if you’re still a student, the Internet Technology groups on campus are a great (and free!) source of information. So use them while you can.

–Leigh Krietsch Boerner