Ljiljana Đukanović Published papers, journal quality, and titles of doctoral theses. Photo: Pixabay Many journalists would agree with the statement that in journalism—especially scientific journalism—all success lies in who you talk to. Finding an adequate expert for a scientific topic who would agree to take his time and expose himself to the public is a particularly big challenge for editors and journalists. Often this process takes time; however, time spent finding a relevant interlocutor and building a relationship with him or her is time well invested. Any new scientist who is skilled and willing to share his knowledge with the public can become part of an expert base that is valuable to the entire media community. Where to find an expert and how to know if he is an expert? Academic communities are often a rich source of subject matter experts. Websites of universities (relevant faculties or institutes) are places where journalists and editors can easily and quickly find potential interlocutors for stories on scientific topics. For example, topics related to drugs or vaccines can be discussed by professors from the Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, topics related to ecology by professors from the Faculty of Natural Sciences, epidemiology by a person from the Faculty of Health Studies, etc. Today, almost all faculties and institutes have CVs of lecturers, professional associates, and other members on their websites. The information that can be found in the lecturers' CVs can be used in finding and selecting interlocutors. There are several types of information to look out for that are easy to find:
That person's narrow field of research and interest can usually be found in the title of their PhD thesis and in the titles of projects they have worked on over the years. It is important to keep in mind that people are experts in the field they deal with and that they should not consider themselves experts in fields that are not theirs and that they seem close to. For example, oncologists should not be interviewed on the topic of pandemics, nor bacteriologists on the topic of vaccines. Although the two fields seem close, for scientists the differences are huge, and it can happen that the interlocutor is not competent enough on a certain topic or even (with the best of intentions) shares the wrong information with the public.
There are additional indicators that can indicate whether a person is truly an expert in their field. First of all, it is important that this person actively publishes works, which can also be seen in the CV (in the list of published works, there should be works published in the past year or two). Awards and accolades can also be good indicators. International collaborations can also be a sign of professional and serious scientific engagement.
Journalists can also search YouTube and watch video interviews of potential interviewees and their conference presentations to gain insight into how they speak and whether they are engaged (of particular value to broadcast journalists). It should be remembered that scientists are not politicians, always ready to make statements on television. A large number of them do not like being presented in the media, and transferring and translating scientific concepts into the language of the general public is a big challenge for scientists. These may be the reasons why scientists do not want to respond to the calls of journalists. In this case, it can be useful to ask that person to suggest a colleague who might be willing to respond to the invitation. When producing longer journalistic stories on general scientific topics, it is necessary to contact and consult more than one expert. Not only does more people as a source of information add to the content and interestingness of the story, but it also ensures a diversity of opinions and a broader overview of the thinking of professionals in that particular field. What are the pitfalls to watch out for? The COVID-19 pandemic has shown that even eminent scientists, widely accepted as authorities in the field, are capable of spreading misinformation and even conspiracy theories. For example, it happened in BiH that a reference expert, most likely through negligence, gave misinformation in the media regarding the recommendation of the World Health Organization on vaccination against COVID-19. This statement was picked up by other media, and misinformation spread very quickly. Of course, it is impossible, and journalists are not expected to check every expert's statement, but it is still important to keep this in mind and react if possible. In this case, given that the information concerns a news story that comes from one of the biggest authorities on the issue of COVID-19 vaccine recommendations, the journalist could easily and quickly verify from other sources whether it is correct. Journalists must also be aware that scientists may present themselves as experts in a particular field even when they are not. In early 2020, epidemiologist and Harvard University lecturer Olog Eric Feigl-Ding tweeted a series of inaccurate and frightening information about the coronavirus, based on a non-peer-reviewed article. The tweets went viral, and Feigl-Ding was invited to national television networks, including CNN, to speak as an expert on the coronavirus. However, Dr. Feigl-Ding, while he has some training in epidemiology, has a doctorate in nutrition, not infectious disease—an important detail that reporters ignored when contacting him as a source. False balance is another problem that often occurs in the media and can have extremely negative consequences. False balance refers to the practice of journalists who, in their zeal to be fair, present each side of a debate as equally credible, even when the factual evidence is stacked on one side. For example, writing about anecdotal stories from patients can give the impression that side effects from a certain vaccine are very common. Calling into the studio one person who represents what 98% of the scientific community believes, and next to him another person who represents what 2% of the scientific community believes is also an example of a false balance. This situation gives viewers the impression that the opinion of the scientific community is divided 50%–50%, which creates additional doubt and disbelief in science and scientific facts. To avoid a false balance, it is first of all important to be informed about what the scientific consensus of the global scientific community is. For this, it is necessary to turn to different sources that are credible and represent a consensus. Even if discussing ideas that are outside the scientific consensus, it is important to always present all scientifically supported information. Gender and racial equality in science and science reporting One of the key global problems of science—and many other disciplines—is that many of the most successful and vocal experts are white men. There are many reasons for this gender and racial imbalance, and awareness of this issue is slowly awakening within the scientific community. However, journalists and editors who report on science must be also aware of this problem, because they too can, and significantly, contribute to solving this problem. Journalists should strive, whenever possible, for equal representation of genders and races, whether finding experts as sources or choosing scientific developments to report on. Scholars also notice that there is gender and racial inequality in the media, which can create additional barriers between the scientific and media communities. Examples from the world's newsrooms have shown that when journalists consciously bear the responsibility of implementing gender equality in reporting, the average of male-female sources is very quickly balanced to 50%-50%. (https://media.ba/)
English
Bosanski
