Writing about scientific findings and data? You may not be coming through so strongly, according to a new report. But before you worry about your writing, consider the source of the insights: It’s from a computer model.

A University of Michigan report says journalists often understate the claims of scientific papers.

The authors evaluated studies and news articles using a computer model.

They say that journalists tend to downplay the certainty of study findings. For instance, instead of using a specific number in the study, they’ll use words like “roughly” with the figure—as in, instead of writing “82.73 percent,” reporters may write “nearly 83 percent.” They may write that a study’s findings “indicate” something instead of saying it’s “definitely” so.

 

Real Reporting on Science

So, what’s the deal—are we going too light when reporting on studies?

Maybe some of us do. Publications and writers differ. Some have higher scientific writing standards, and some have different audiences.

As a health writer who covers medical studies often, I contend our writing on the whole is fine just the way it is. In my experience, a journalist has to be careful when covering science. After all, that great study—as robust as the design and findings may be—is still just one study. So you can’t exactly claim that something is “definitely” so based on one study.

Also, as reporters, it’s our job to report the facts. When writing for some publications, the writer may have more leeway to explain how the study may or may not fit into the big picture of things. But for the most part, depending on the type of article you’re writing, it’s just “report on the facts clearly” instead of doling out a bunch of interpretive insights. (I definitely prefer to let the reader make up their mind on something, anyway.) Some publications don’t want you to get into too much detail or make claims. Some articles are not a deep dive solely on the latest study.

One reason they may think our language isn’t as definitive is because publications are generally careful about science reporting. The publication can get a bad rep if that new egg study says eggs are “totally bad” when they can just report the findings of one study that claims eggs are bad.

I have editors who don’t want an entire article detailing a study and instead just want to springboard it into a larger piece, so the study may only get a paragraph of coverage. Also, style guides may dissuade the reporter from using highly technical numbers. And when you’re writing for a consumer audience, you’re often told to stick to a certain reading grade level to ensure all people can understand the content.

 

Materials Matter

The authors also looked at “journal impact factor,” which is their way to measure the quality of the science. They say reporters didn’t seem to be influenced by the journal where a study originated.

They may have a point there, because health writers know that the study design and authors are just one part of what makes it strong—where it’s published is another, because certain journals have more rigorous review processes.

There are a lot of differing factors that can play into how much certainty a writer exudes in an article that features a study. One thing is for certain: Their model may give us insights on what science writing is, but ultimately, the prose best written is interpreted by humans. And as writers, we can always improve upon our craft.

 

 

Kristen Fischer is a copywriter and journalist living at the Jersey Shore. She worked as a reporter and copyeditor for Gannett before launching her full-time freelance business in 2005. Her work has been published in Parents, New Jersey Monthly, Prevention, Woman’s Day, SheKnows, and Healthline.

Reporters typically connect with a source once, get what they need, and go on their way to write a story. Sometimes you have to revise a story based on your editor’s suggestions. What happens when you don’t just need to edit, but have to ask a source for additional information? Maybe you realize you didn’t have everything you needed once you start writing the story, or your editor comes back with questions during the revision process. Either way, returning to a source for more information can be tricky.

Mostly because you want to make sure you get exactly what you need out of your second interaction.

I’ve been there — not too frequently, but it has happened to me. Sometimes the editor raises additional questions when reading your story, or they weren’t clear about what they wanted when they assigned it. Writers can equally be to blame, because sometimes we realize what we need — and don’t have — only when we start putting an article together. And sometimes, you simply forgot to ask a question or didn’t prod the source for enough details.

Whatever the case, here are some insights to help if you have to conduct a second interview with a source.

1. Define what you need. Whether your editor is requesting more information, or you are the one inquiring, it’s essential to know exactly the information you’re looking for. This may involve doing more research or more work — or combing through other interviews — to ensure you know specifically what you need. Writing out bullet points helps you pinpoint the concepts that need to be addressed.
2. Devise exact questions. As you know, the information you obtain largely depends on the types of questions you ask. If you need a yes-or-no response, ask a yes-or-no question. But if you need more, be specific in your question. Ask for a real-life example of a situation. Explain that you understand the subject but need more information about what that means or does. It can help to “bullet-point out” some concepts and have your questions prepared. While you can go back to a source for information, you want to interrupt them as little as possible. Even if they say they’re there to help, it’s your job to get what you need.
3. Consider the interview. Will you be emailing additional questions, or do you need to set up a call or meet in person? Sometimes the conversation during a live interview could lead you off track, so you’ll want to be mindful of time to ensure that your priority questions get answers.
4. Examine the answers. Be prepared to do some digesting on the spot as the source’s responses to those questions may prompt you to ask additional questions.
5. Ask for information. Not understanding something? That’s okay. It’s your job as the reporter to ensure that you do, and most people want everything to be accurate (especially what they say) and will take a moment to explain things. If you are unclear about something, the best thing to do is just ask. Keep in mind that if the source spouts off something like an acronym, you can probably figure it out within the context of the subject you’re talking about by doing a quick internet search. But if you’re really lost, ask.
6. Double check. When you have answers for all your questions on the list, check to verify everything was asked. Remember, you don’t want to have to go back and forth with a source to get more and your editor will appreciate fewer rounds of revisions.

 

Writing can be a long process, especially when the editing process requires conducting more interviews. With a little planning and finesse, you can turn around a draft from the initial interview that has everything it should.

 

Kristen Fischer is a copywriter and journalist living at the Jersey Shore. She worked as a reporter and copyeditor for Gannett before launching her full-time freelance business in 2005. Her work has been published in Parents, New Jersey Monthly, Prevention, Woman’s Day, SheKnows, and Healthline.

Like many of you, I belong to a number of writing communities online. I often see posts from fellow writers asking other writers for sources. That could be fruitful, but there are plenty of other ways to find sources. And if you’re on deadline, the last thing you want to do is wait on a community of other writers who may respond with some vague connection to a potential source.

Case in point: Recently, a writer in a forum I follow asked the other writers if they had any sources that had some pretty specific expertise. She mentioned she needed the source ASAP to meet a deadline.

I thought, Why waste valuable time? Her request was so specific. By the time others saw it, her deadline may be over. And I doubted many of them had the connection to a source with the specialized background she sought.

Though there are many ways to find sources, one of your best bets may be as simple as using Google.

 

Use Quotes, Add Titles

There are different tools you can use on Google, and my best tip is to befriend quotes. And titles.

For instance, if you’re looking for an expert that specializes in treating broken bones in children, you may want to type something like M.D. “pediatric orthopedic.” In doing that, you’re keeping targeted words together, and you’ll probably pick up a few links of doctors who have researched or specialize in working with children who have orthopedic issues.

Don’t be afraid of trying “broken bones” M.D. either, or adding a geographic location. Sometimes when I want leading medical experts, I type in a big city name—Houston, New York, Chicago, Los Angeles—because they tend to have specialists in big cities.

Of course you could go through some sort of trade association or ask the hospital PR rep who you’ve worked with before if you’re trying to find a medical source. But in finding the source directly, you can look up their expertise and then contact them directly. (Really in a pinch on time? Try the direct route by contacting the source and also hitting up his or her communications team.)

Looking for a non-expert? Why not type in a few keywords—again grouping those that imply specifics—using quotation marks? Seeking a cancer survivor to share their story about BRCA testing? Try “cancer survivor” BRCA or “my BRCA test” cancer. Sometimes, adding the word blog or blogger into a search is a great way to find a personal source.

As journalists, we have to be a little SEO-savvy to find sources, even when we are not in a huge rush. Befriending search engines can connect you to specific sources that can add valuable expertise and perspective. It’s come in handy when I’ve had to interview someone who has researched something pretty specific.

 

Search in a Cinch

Next time the clock is ticking and you’re tempted to ask your writer friends for help, you may want to rethink it. Do your friends really know a psychologist who specializes in geriatric depression, or an obstetrician who only treats high-risk patients with multiple pregnancies? Finding a specific source requires a specific search. Your colleagues may very well have these connections, but you don’t want to rest all of your time betting that they do—especially if your name is on the line.

While there’s no harm in asking around, be sure to maximize your time by hitting up a variety of avenues. And make sure one of them is Dr. Google.

 

Kristen Fischer is a copywriter and journalist living at the Jersey Shore. She worked as a reporter and copyeditor for Gannett before launching her full-time freelance business in 2005. Her work has been published in Parents, New Jersey Monthly, Prevention, Woman’s Day, SheKnows, and Healthline.