NRPB Seminar - 26 March 2004

Science and the Media - Rob Edwards

Text of Rob Edwards' talk his site

Rob Edwards is an Edinburgh based freelance contributor to New Scientist but may be better known to SRP members as the Environmental Editor of the Scottish Sunday Herald. He's also written books on the nuclear industry. His presentation was essentially an update of the one he gave at the SRP meeting on Risk in Perspective in November 1998.

"Journalists" said Edwards "have obsessions". He then demonstrated his with a series of anecdotes and press cuttings highlighting nuclear cock-ups, real and perceived, from his years as a hack. But as he pointed out, "humility and deference are not qualities usually valued in journalism". To understand the media, be aware that news values are all, but these values are variable and fashion conscious. Science may rate well below sex, royalty, religion and sport but secrets and health scares will soon put it on the front page. The nature and business needs of the media pose awkward problems for scientists. The culture demands news not history, simple and not complex explanations, sound bites not lectures. When deadlines are tight, roughly right will do. Events are more important than issues, personalities more important than ideas. Bad news, conflict and criticism are the media's stock in trade. Best of all, secrets uncovered will always beat propaganda. "The public are more interested in mistakes" he asserted.

Edwards then went on to discuss the topic of the public understanding of radiation. "It's a fallacy that journalists could be unbiased" he said later. His own bias was clear in the examples used to illustrate his points. BNFL, UKAEA, MAFF, MOD and the Government all got it in the neck.  "Radiation has a major public image problem" he said. "Its debut as a weapon of mass destruction and the legacy of secrecy has distorted public debate. There are more stories in problems with nuclear power than its benefits. Scientific uncertainty and the subjectivity of radiation risks have contributed to a breakdown in communications. Comparison with background radiation is not always convincing."

How can scientists and the media better understand each other? Edwards went on to outline a strategy with which there is much to agree. More openness, honesty and better communication is required. "Things have improved over the last 30 years" he admitted. Scientists should be prepared to chat to journalists, using clearer language, particularly shorter sentences. Edwards also declared that better journalism was needed, with reporters prepared to abandon preconceived agendas and convince editors. He ended, somewhat against the spirit of the times, with a plea for more spin doctors!

Brian Gornall
12 May 2004

Note:  Any views expressed and any information provided in the report are not necessarily endorsed by the Society.