A scientist inspects test tubes containing dyes in a laboratory. (Reuters Photo).
For the past six years, I was a journalist. But
not anymore. So it was a nerve-wrecking moment when my colleague asked
me to talk in front of scientists about what I did for a living.
Why? Because, first, I didn't study journalism in university. But I did get training when I jumped into this profession. It was more like a 'learning by doing' process.
Second of all, during my time as journalist, scientists were my news sources. So it was a bit overwhelming for me to be on the other side.
My colleague, however, reassured me that the workshop would be a casual one where a bunch of journalists — both from print and multimedia — were given standard questions about how we do research, pick stories, what time we go to work, and so on.
The whole idea of the workshop was to acquaint the scientists with how the media works. The goal was to make it easier for them to communicate their works and/or researches to the media.
Unwilling to take any risk of babbling my way all through the workshop, I did research on "how to communicate to journalists" and stumbled into science communication.
To my surprise, science journalists whom I came across emphasized the same issues when they interviewed the scientists. Mostly they would say that scientists are always having a hard time to simplify their works or researches into words, and they would get caught up in explaining the methods rather than pointing out the essence of their works.
The first session of the workshop went very well. We were asked normal questions on the process of gathering news. The most discussed topic was really on how to answer questions from journalists and how to make sure the sources weren't misquoted.
My immediate answer was reflected from one of my former editor's advice in my early days of writing environmental issues: "You need to write it in a language that a high school student can understand your writing."
In the second session, the scientists were asked to prepare key messages on their researches before being interviewed by the journalists. Afterwards, we provided them feedbacks on they're doing with the interviews.
It was a short interview and we weren't prepared to interview them. But it showed that the scientists often get too caught up in the methods of their works.
Some of the scientists kicked off with a very long scientific terms, which made me cringe, while some others were just talking about the methods. Some, though, made good statements.
To my surprise, they were very much eager on the short interview and they admitted that it wasn't that easy to simplify their works into a limited amount of words.
By the end of the workshop, the scientists made jokes on how they need to practice finding alternate words for their researches with their grandmothers.
I took the jokes as a compliment and a self-reminder to practice it on my own writings.
Why? Because, first, I didn't study journalism in university. But I did get training when I jumped into this profession. It was more like a 'learning by doing' process.
Second of all, during my time as journalist, scientists were my news sources. So it was a bit overwhelming for me to be on the other side.
My colleague, however, reassured me that the workshop would be a casual one where a bunch of journalists — both from print and multimedia — were given standard questions about how we do research, pick stories, what time we go to work, and so on.
The whole idea of the workshop was to acquaint the scientists with how the media works. The goal was to make it easier for them to communicate their works and/or researches to the media.
Unwilling to take any risk of babbling my way all through the workshop, I did research on "how to communicate to journalists" and stumbled into science communication.
To my surprise, science journalists whom I came across emphasized the same issues when they interviewed the scientists. Mostly they would say that scientists are always having a hard time to simplify their works or researches into words, and they would get caught up in explaining the methods rather than pointing out the essence of their works.
The first session of the workshop went very well. We were asked normal questions on the process of gathering news. The most discussed topic was really on how to answer questions from journalists and how to make sure the sources weren't misquoted.
My immediate answer was reflected from one of my former editor's advice in my early days of writing environmental issues: "You need to write it in a language that a high school student can understand your writing."
In the second session, the scientists were asked to prepare key messages on their researches before being interviewed by the journalists. Afterwards, we provided them feedbacks on they're doing with the interviews.
It was a short interview and we weren't prepared to interview them. But it showed that the scientists often get too caught up in the methods of their works.
Some of the scientists kicked off with a very long scientific terms, which made me cringe, while some others were just talking about the methods. Some, though, made good statements.
To my surprise, they were very much eager on the short interview and they admitted that it wasn't that easy to simplify their works into a limited amount of words.
By the end of the workshop, the scientists made jokes on how they need to practice finding alternate words for their researches with their grandmothers.
I took the jokes as a compliment and a self-reminder to practice it on my own writings.
(Published at http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/talkback/how-to-communicate-to-journalists/577673)