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.
Leave a Reply