Photographer and AGU member James Balog urges scientists to “show us the cool stuff” when communicating with non-scientists. Balog, the subject of the documentary film “Chasing Ice,” premiering Jan. 23 at the 2012 Sundance Film Festival, stopped by AGU headquarters in Washington, D.C., in early January to talk about the challenges and rewards of being a scientist-communicator.

Seven years ago, photographer James Balog was struggling to fulfill an assignment for The New Yorker magazine: How to bring the story of climate change to the world. His journey from that first glacier shoot to a five-year project recording glacier change and loss is the subject of “Chasing Ice,” a documentary premiering today at the Sundance Film Festival in Park City, Utah.

Convinced there was a story in the ice but unsure of how to capture it for The New Yorker, Balog headed out to photograph a glacier in Iceland, trusting that if he committed himself to telling the story, the creative muses would make it happen–and they did. That story led to another, more involved assignment: National Geographic’s  June 2007 cover story on glaciers, “The Big Thaw.”

James Balog at Ilulissat Isfjord in Disko Bay, Greenland. © 2009 Extreme Ice Survey

Moved by what he witnessed in those assignments, Balog founded the Extreme Ice Survey (EIS), a project which uses time-lapse photography in Greenland, Alaska, the Himalayas and elsewhere to bring to audiences of every latitude the story of how glaciers around the world continue to change.

“Visual imagery is so powerful,” said EIS team-member and U.S. Geological Survey research ecologist Daniel Fagre. “People don’t even have to have any data to understand what’s going on.” Fagre helps train park interpreters at Glacier National Park in Montana. He and his park crew carry cameras to photo-document much of what they do, making their data visual instead of just numbers.

Not every scientist with a story to tell can offer obvious eye candy like EIS does, but any scientist can communicate better in any media by following one rule, said several EIS team members: Keep it simple.

“Just get to the point. It’s not to your benefit to overwhelm the audience with information,” said Jason Box of EIS and the Byrd Polar Research Center, and a geography professor at The Ohio State University in Columbus. “You have a limited time with your audience and a limited amount of information you can convey.”

Try to “think about [your story] from the point of view of the person who is very unfamiliar with what is going on” — and make it succinct, said Tad Pfeffer, a professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental Architectural Engineering at the University of Colorado in Boulder.  Being compact and direct is not something scientists may be accustomed to, but practice makes perfect, he noted.

Pfeffer, who screened “Chasing Ice” for scientific accuracy, acknowledged that walking the line between simplicity and scientific accuracy is difficult. Journalists, such as documentary filmmakers, and scientists “come at this whole business of communicating from very different perspectives,” he said. Journalists want to find a compelling story while scientists are busy thinking, “Is what we said correct? Are we saying enough? Are we open to misinterpretation or misunderstandings?”

Balog urged scientists to go a step further and make their story personal.

"Chasing Ice" director Jeff Orlowski at the Greenland Ice Sheet in June 2009. © 2010 James Balog/Extreme Ice Survey

“In the science community, guys don’t like to…talk about the dramas they had in the field – the storms, the helicopter crashes or problems, the equipment breakdowns, the headaches about trying to understand what was going on,” Balog said. “But lay people like to hear that stuff. They want to hear what’s under the hood of all this. It brings it alive. It makes it human. It makes it personal.”

Balancing the “Chasing Ice” story and its science was “one of the hardest things about making this film,” said director Jeff Orlowski, reflecting on the 5-year odyssey. Although the film is about climate change, it plays a lot like a narrative featuring Balog as the protagonist and science as a supporting character, he said.

Even before its premiere, “Chasing Ice” has made a stir at Sundance. Its five screenings sold out over two weeks ago and the film, along with five others, was selected from more than 90 films to be pre-screened by the festival’s volunteer staff.

To Balog, Sundance represents “a huge new forum for telling the story of climate change as seen through the glaciers.” It “gives us an amplification and a leverage into new audiences that we didn’t have before. I’m thrilled about it.”

By Mary Catherine Adams, AGU Public Information Specialist

Dione Rossiter, 2011 AGU Mass Media Fellow, spent her summer in the Voice of America newsroom in Washington, D. C.

After four busy summers studiously measuring the minute details of clouds, I spent my last summer as a graduate student in a newsroom, far away from the cockpit of a cloud-probing airplane. It was not just any newsroom but Voice of America’s politically charged newsroom in Washington, D. C. Almost overnight, this ­California-​­for-​­lifer was living and working amid the hustle and bustle of the nation’s capital.

As a half researcher–half science educator and wanna-be science writer, I had long dreamt about working as a science reporter for a summer. I had spent the past 5 years as a graduate student at the University of California, Santa Cruz in the Earth and Planetary Sciences Department working on my thesis research on the microphysics of summertime marine clouds.

Then, last fall, knowing I had the chance to be away from my atmospheric research for a couple of months, I applied for an American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Mass Media Science and Engineering Fellowship. AAAS runs the fellowship program, and AGU supports a fellow each summer to work as a science journalist for a media outlet somewhere in the country. This gives young Earth and space scientists the opportunity to hone their communication skills and learn what it is like to be a reporter, while at the same time giving some lucky media outlet such as NPR, CNN, or Newsweek some much needed science expertise in its newsroom, albeit for only a brief time. It was not long before I had put my thesis on hold and moved across the country to begin my ­10-week stint as a science broadcast journalist.

I gave voice to issues ranging from the dangers of binge drinking to threats to deep-sea ecosystems. I spent my days researching possible stories, interviewing scientists, writing radio scripts, and then recording, producing, and editing my stories (all skills I have yet to master). I spent my nights enjoying everything Washington has to offer in the summer.

I loved every minute of my experience.

My favorite part of the science writing process was reading about the coolest and most influential science that was being published around the world each week. Topics spanned a broad range of fields, some so different from my own I would have never been exposed to them otherwise. The most challenging part was reading my stories aloud. I sat for hours with Voice of America voice coaches repeating myself over and over again until each word was up to broadcast quality.

The most notable and unique opportunity I had was attending the ­AGU-​­sponsored congressional briefing on Capitol Hill entitled “Severe weather warning—The nation’s weather satellites…your life may depend on them.” Going to the briefing was already exciting enough, but the topic was right up my alley. As an atmospheric scientist, I am quite naturally a weather geek.

The briefing did not disappoint. The panelists were engaging and eloquent, and they included personal anecdotes from their experiences with severe weather events such as the series of tornadoes that touched down on 24 May in the Oklahoma City area. I was moved by the briefing and I wrote a story about it; it ended up being my favorite piece from the entire summer.

Back at school, surrounded by scientists and working hard on my thesis again, I have begun to reflect on my summer, which seemed to fly by way too fast. I realize I am less of a wanna-be science writer these days and more of a science enthusiast who has been successfully exposed to the art of science communication. Since I have been back in Santa Cruz I have been asked to speak in classes about my experiences over the summer, my peers are coming to me for advice and edits on their written work and presentations, I have been asked to write for an informal blog, and I have been asked to write an opinion piece for a ­well-​­established think tank. As you can see, I have begun to implement the skills I learned over the summer in my own career and to disseminate those skills to other scientists who, like me, are interested in science literacy, scientific progress, and science advocacy.

By Dione Rossiter, 2011 AGU Mass Media Fellow

This article originally ran in the Nov. 29 issue of Eos.

Improve your video-making skills! (Credit: Wikimedia Commons)

Note: This post is being re-posted from The S Factor blog, a blog dedicated to The S Factor video workshop, taking place at the 2011 AGU Fall meeting, that’s written by filmmaker and temporary consultant to AGU Dan Curl. There, three Hollywood filmmakers will share their video-making expertise, critiquing ten videos created by AGU scientists in front of a live audience. Don’t miss it! For more secrets behind successful scientific video storytelling, be sure to check back on The S Factor blog!

Excerpt from “Documentary Storytelling” (2007) by Sheila Curran Bernard:

“Who is your intended audience? Many documentaries, whether produced independently or in-house, are created with an audience in mind. It’s always possible that the film you thought would only reach your immediate geographic region will be a break-out hit, but in general, you should have some idea whom you want it to reach: age, geographic area, educational level, etc. This doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t try to also reach a wider audience, just that you’re likely to approach MTV’s audience differently, for example, than Discovery’s, or that you hope to reach public television not only in the United States but also in the United Kingdom and Germany. …Keep in mind, though, that in the end, you still want to reach people with a subject and story that grab them, hold them, and-ideally-stay with them long after the lights are back on.”

Over the next few blog posts, I will be sharing some tips to aid our up-and-coming scientist-filmmakers in planning, developing, and executing better video storytelling. Some of the tips will be theoretical in nature, while others will focus on the technical craft of filmmaking. Today, we will discuss a critical component to developing effective media: Targeting an Audience.

Television stations strive for high Nielson ratings, a measure of audience size and composition, ever seeking to attract the coveted 18-49 adult demographic. Movie studios are constantly on the hunt for scripts that can “hit all four corners”; men and women, young and old. While creating media that can reach a wide audience is paramount, it is most beneficial to a filmmaker to target a specific core audience. These are the people who will be the most receptive, most passionate, and most vocal about supporting your work.

A great example of targeting an audience with great success is a show titled The Guild. The Guild is a comedy web series that revolves around a group of extreme video gamers who attempt to lead normal lives outside of their gaming world. When the series was first created, they only had enough money to produce three episodes. The episodes were finely crafted to appeal to a core set of demographics and were an instant hit. Fans overwhelmingly supported the show, going so far as to donate funds through PayPal to complete the first season. With such profound success, Microsoft took notice and offered a deal to broadcast the series on their Xbox Live and Zune platforms for a small rental fee. Sprint got involved and allowed the series to be viewed free of charge. The show is now in its fifth season and has won numerous media awards.

As the example of The Guild illustrates, sometimes reaching a broad audience requires a gradual buildup, but the buildup must begin with a firm bedrock of loyal supporters. You should be asking yourself who your supporters are going to be from the outset of producing your media. Who do you want to watch your video? Are you producing media for fellow colleagues? Undergraduates? High schoolers? Is it a topic that directly affects men? Women? Children? Are there other media that address your topic? How did they present their findings or argument? How will your media be different than theirs? All of these questions should be answered before beginning any form of production. Knowing your audience will help you to finely hone your message and drive the direction of your story.

For more information on creating scientific media, I strongly suggest you check out Bernard’s Documentary Storytelling. It is a well-written, solid overview of every step that goes into making compelling documentary films, and can be ordered from online bookstores.

By Dan Curl, Consultant to AGU

NASA officials talk to members of the press. (Credit: NASA)

If you’re going to the upcoming AGU Fall Meeting and are interested in communicating easily and skillfully about science, here’s an event you might want to sign up for:

On the Sunday (12/4) before the scientific program begins, AGU is hosting a free, all-day training event for scientists wishing to become more adept at communicating with the press, the public, policymakers and other non-scientists. The event includes both a panel discussion about science communication and workshops where you will get to exercise your skills. Plus we’ll feed you lunch!

Space is limited and sign up ends Mon., Oct. 31, so don’t delay in letting us know of your interest. To learn more, read below and/or check out the ‘Communicating Your Science: Panel and Workshops’ website here.

Here’s a preview of what to expect:

The event starts at 10:00 a.m. on Sun., Dec. 4, with a morning panel that includes USA Today science reporter Dan Vergano, ocean scientist and book author Ellen Prager, Dan Kahan, a Yale University expert on how people’s values affect their perceptions of science, and more.

In the afternoon, attendees will have the option to go to two of four workshops. In the first workshop, Communicating with the News Media, newspaper reporters Dan Vergano of USA Today and Steve Connor of The Independent (U.K.) will give scientists tips on how to talk to reporters. The workshop will also include opportunities to do mock interviews.

Callan Bentley, a veteran science blogger and geology professor, and John Cook, creator and author of the website Skeptical Science, will lead the second workshop, called Using Social Media. Bentley and Cook will engage you in how to use social media (like blogs and Twitter) to take part in online discussions about science.

Susan Joy Hassol, the director of Climate Communication, and David Hosansky, head of media relations at UCAR/NCAR, will host the third workshop, Communicating Climate Science, where you will find out about and practice ways to more effectively convey accurate climate science to people from many walks of life.

In the fourth workshop – Delivering Your Message: Lessons from Stand-up Comedy – Brian Malow, the Science Comedian, will demonstrate how scientists can become effective storytellers by using humor and by drawing on their own strengths. Attendees will be asked to participate in an exercise on crafting messages about their research.

Free lunch will be served between the morning panel and the afternoon workshops. Training is limited to 100 scientists and sign up ends Mon., Oct. 31. To learn more about the training and to sign up, click here. AGU will let you know by Nov. 1 whether or not you are on the list of attendees.

– Mary Catherine Adams, AGU Public Information Specialist

Scientists and the public can have different definitions for the same words (Source: Physics Today)

The first day of organic chemistry, my professor warned us that we were about to start learning a new language. He wasn’t kidding, and ‘stoichiometry’** is still one of my favorite words. But the different definitions that scientists use for everyday terms can lead to confusion, and scientists should make sure they’re speaking the same language as their audiences.

On our sister blog Mountain Beltway, Callan Bentley posted this table outlining some common examples. It’s from an article by Richard C. J. Somerville and Susan Joy Hassol in Physics Today (behind a paywall).

The list illustrates just how simple it is for science to be misconstrued, and has generated lots of attention in the blogosphere – posts on Boing Boing and Bad Astronomy generated dozens of comments, and Southern Fried Science created its own list and started a Google doc for people to add other alternate science definitions.

What science translation errors have you found?

**Click here for a definition of stoichiometry, which is not only fun to say, but still comes in handy for all those times I need to convert grams per liter to ounces per gallon.

– Kate Ramsayer, AGU science writer

Journalists rated the Obama administration on transparency and access to information in a recent panel at the National Press Club. (Credit: Ed Brown, via Wikimedia Commons

Federal scientists should be more accessible to journalists, reporters said last week at a National Press Club event in Washington, D.C. The panel discussion “Access Denied: Science News and Government Transparency” addressed whether or not the Obama administration is living up to its promise to make science more transparent and accessible. And several journalists on the panel said there is still a ways to go.

Data access alone is not enough, several panelists said. Felice Freyer, journalist and director for the Association of Health Care Journalists, stressed the importance of being able to speak firsthand with a federal scientific expert. “[Press officers] need to understand the importance of a conversation,” she said.

In a survey on government access and transparency that was conducted by Columbia Journalism Review and ProPublica, the one area that the Obama administration has seen marked improvement was in the provision of data. Curtis Brainard, science editor for the Review, said at the panel that this was largely due to the Open Government Directive and sites like data.gov.

But that isn’t enough, he added. “Data doesn’t speak for itself … you want to talk to people who have collected this data, who are responsible for analyzing data, and implementing it in some way,” he said.

Reporters often are not able to have the kind of in-depth interviews they want with federal scientists, Freyer said. They can be hampered by a lack of response from the press office, or because their interview requests are sent up a long, time-consuming chain of command.
Nancy Shute, president of the National Association of Science Writers, said that this delay can impede a journalist’s ability to cover a story – even one free of controversial policy implications.

“You call a scientist, they say you have to go and get clearance through the main office,” Shute said. “Days, weeks go by, nothing happens and there goes your story.”

Media relations policies can vary between different federal agencies, several members of the panel noted. One agency that drew praise for its handling of press was the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). “I cannot say enough about USGS in terms of media callbacks and media accessibility,” said moderator Seth Borenstein, science reporter for the Associated Press.

How well agencies use social media also varies considerably. Joseph Davis, editor of the TipSheet and WatchDog news alerts from the Society of  Environmental Journalists and a member of its Freedom of Information Task Force, said that the Environmental Protection Agency was one of the agencies using social media well.

The journalists gave some tips for both press information officers and fellow journalists seeking access to federal scientists. Press officers should respond to journalists quickly, said Borenstein, and if they can’t provide information they need to give an explanation of why. When press officers do come through with what journalists request, give them some credit, added Davis. Journalists should acknowledge government transparency with positive recognition.

– Allie Wilkinson, AGU science writing intern

I’ve found that if I bring a science reporter to teach the workshop with me, these attitudes change. In follow-up surveys, workshop attendees say they now understand much better how journalists work and feel less hesitant about talking to them in the future. So I approached three top-notch science reporters who agreed to speak on-camera about their craft and how to improve collaborations between scientists and the media.

Without further introduction, here’s what these journalists had to say.

Seth Borenstein (Associated Press)

Dan Vergano (USA Today)

Alexandra Witze (Science News)

(NOTE: This is this blogger’s last post, since I’m changing jobs. You can find me on Twitter at @mjvinas)

– Maria-José Viñas, AGU science writer

I have been teaching science communication workshops for scientists for over two years, and not much from those seminars is met with more skepticism than when I say Twitter can be a great tool for science outreach, even for professional development. “Oh Twitter. Why should I waste my time with that?”, their raised eyebrows seem to say. For starters, I tell them, Twitter removes the gatekeepers (i.e., journalists) and lets you communicate your science directly to the public. It also requires less time dedication than other kinds of online outreach, such as blogging.

But rather than enumerating all the reasons to use Twitter myself, I thought I would ask the scientists following our AGU account to explain how they use Twitter in 140 characters or less.

My question was: “Why should scientists use Twitter /what should researchers use Twitter for?” Here are the answers I got:

Kea Giles, managing editor at the Geological Society of America, tweets: “Scientists can use Twitter to create/develop new collegial relationships, foster interdisciplinary research & generate ideas.” Furthermore, she points to this infographic, which represents the amazing growth of Twitter over the past five years.

Mika McKinnon, a geophysicist who also works as a science consultant for sci-fi TV shows, agrees with Giles, saying that “Twitter expands my collection of ’trusted experts’ to ask for advice/help/knowledge/collaboration.” She adds that the micro-blogging site helps her in achieving ”cross-disciplinary synergy: news & new concepts from not-my-field & occasionally share solutions for problems fixed-in-my-field.”

Many scientists-tweeps use Twitter to get input from other researchers: hydrologist and blogger Anne Jefferson says she finds it very useful “for getting quick answers & links to references from peers. (e.g., me asking volcano questions),” while sedimentologist and blogger Brian Roman thinks that the main “value of Twitter for researchers = mostly link sharing (new journal articles, science news reports, researcher/lab websites, etc),” And he also uses this tool to “ask other researchers about lab/field/computing equipment.”

Twitter is one of the fastest ways to keep up with breaking events and follow science news. Eric Fielding, a geophysicist, tweets:  “Twitter is excellent method for getting and giving info on breaking geo-events as quakes, floods, [volcanic] eruptions.” Others agree: “Twitter is fastest way to track breaking geoevents + an efficient way to keep up with/report science news, stories” (David Pyle, volcanologist); “Rapid news, collaboration, and division of labour during crises-response; ability to address misunderstandings before they spread” (Mika McKinnon, again);  “For me it is the fastest means to breaking information and the quickest way to forward that news” (Scott A. Mandia, a climate science and meteorology professor); “I follow and rebroadcast science news from a bunch of Science-Journals/Journalists” (Joseph Andersen, an atmospheric physicist); and “Twitter is useful for keeping up with current events/research more broadly than possible by journals (esp. useful for teaching)” (Anne Jefferson).

On the benefits of Twitter as an educational tool, Del Fitzsimons tweets “I’m not a scientist but I learn so much from the links and blogs that you guys provide. Twitter can be a great tool for education if used correctly.”  From Japan, geomorphologist Yuichi Hayakawa says Twitter can be used “As a supportive tool for education and outreach, as well as for touching wide variety of information on science.” Nahum Chazarra, a Spanish geology student, says: “As researcher[s] and scientist[s], we should use Twitter in order to contribute to distribute … scientific knowledge.” Zane Jobe, a sedimentologist, agrees: “For teaching (attracting people to a topic/blog), learning (follow different geo types and learn about diff things) and networking.”

Yes, networking and socializing are some of the most popular uses of Twitter among researchers: Matt Hall, a geophysicist and blogger, tweets “Facebook: social network, LinkedIn: professional network, Twitter: awesome-people-you-may-never-meet network,” to which  Cian Dawson, a geoscientist, replies “I disagree re: never meeting geotweeps: I’ve met in person at conferences & geo-tweetups — great connections!” Lockwood DeWitt, a science blogger, comments “I don’t expect I will ever meet most geotweeps [in real life], but I’ve met 3, even more engaging in person.”

Maitri Erwin, a geoscientist and blogger, says that “Twitter use increases readership & discussion, hence higher engagement with public & scientists in other disciplines.” Abby Kavner, a mineral physicist, agrees that Twitter connects and mobilizes people around science topics, and mentions as an example that “last year’s saving of California’s state rock serpentinite was definitely a Twitter-dependent victory” (more on the social media campaign on serpentinite here).

Richard Betts, a climate researcher, thinks that “climate scientists in particular should use Twitter because too much misquoting by 3rd parties with political agendas on both sides”.

A group of astronomy researchers and bloggers points to a very practical use of Twitter: “Scientists use Twitter to follow conferences they can’t get to in person, e.g., #Gal2011 #nam2011 #dotastro“.

And physicist Mary Z. Fuka seems to be using Twitter for many purposes (“Virtual watercooler, blow off steam, try out ideas, make the professional personal, brainstorm, feedback, start conversations…”), but specifically mentions one use in particular: “Funny, important, but not most significant use for me…it’s the people themselves who are precious.”

Which reminds me: if you want suggestions of great people to follow, AGU has compiled not one, but two lists of Earth, space, and ocean scientist who are already using Twitter for all the purposes mentioned above, and more.

– Maria-José Viñas, AGU science writer

“One reason I write this blog is to maintain my sanity as I finish up my PhD. In the midst of much stress, long days in lab, and long nights writing thesis chapters, I write to remind myself of why I love geology,” says Georneys blogger Evelyn Mervine. “I also write to document some of my geological adventures and to share my love of geology with others.”

Mervine runs the blog while pursuing her doctorate in marine geology and geophysics at the MIT/Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Joint Program. She decided to name her blog Georneys because the study of geology takes her “many places — physically, intellectually, and philosophically”. Some of the blog’s regular features are “Geology Word of the Week”, “Bad Geology Movies”, and “Holiday Rocks”.

In the aftermath of Japan’s Mw. 9.0 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami last 11 March, Mervine posted a series of 20 highly-popular interviews with her father, Mark Mervine, a nuclear engineer and retired United States Navy Reserve commander about the earthquake-damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. The series, which the younger Mervine is currently transcribing and compiling into an e-book, was very well-received, quadrupling Georneys’ readership. Mervine attributes the interviews’ popularity to the fact that she and her father “strove to stick to science and facts and to avoid politics” and made the information “very approachable — a father explaining nuclear power and the Fukushima crisis in plain English to his curious daughter.” The Mervines dedicated much time to interacting with their readers; they even released a special interview answering questions from a follower in Japan.

As it welcomed Georneys to the fold, the AGU Blogosphere has combined two of its staff-written blogs: Meetings, which was only active during AGU-sponsored conferences, has merged into GeoSpace. The resulting blog will continue to cover science presented at AGU conferences, with an emphasis on the Fall Meeting, but it will also offer discussion, year-round, on new findings in Earth and space sciences.

AGU wants to continue expanding its blog network: Earth and space scientists with an established science blog are welcome to contact the AGU Blogosphere’s community manager, Maria-José Viñas, at mjvinas@agu.org

— Maria-José Viñas, AGU science writer

Camera lenses and microphones are not as intimidating to me as they once were.  That may be because I learn well from my mistakes, and I’ve made many of them when dealing with the media.  I still make errors when doing interviews, but the lessons I’ve learned continue to prove beneficial as I strive to bring Earth and ocean science to a broader audience.

In a recent interview for NPR, I was asked if the research I had done into the strange reproductive strategies of marine organisms for my new book had made me contemplate human sexual relations in a different light. In preparing for book-related interviews, I had considered what zingers hosts might ask going for a laugh, but this was one question I was totally unprepared for.  I babbled something about female octopuses having eggs with varying paternities so that some might have a genetic predisposition to survive, but that humans are clearly very different animals.  Luckily, it was a taped interview and the exchange landed on the cutting room floor.  The lesson here is two-fold: be prepared for both the questions you expect and want, as well as possible bombshells and seemingly out of context puzzlers.  Secondly, don’t be afraid to redirect a question by answering something slightly different than what was asked.

Taped interviews also allow you to stop, go back, and re-answer a question. If you think you can do better, don’t be afraid to ask for a do-over.  The editing process can, however, hold other hazards that as an interviewee you should be aware of.  The use of the word “but” can be a perilous tack to take.  Years ago, when discussing the business of diving with sharks, I said in a taped interview that the experience provides people the opportunity to appreciate sharks for the remarkable non-people-eating creatures that they are, BUT, these operations may also establish a potentially harmful connection between people and food, and it disrupts the sharks natural behavior and feeding.  That “but” was an easy chopping point for the reporter, and thus I became an unwilling promoter of commercial shark diving operations.

On camera or radio, a certain amount of enthusiasm is needed to hold the viewers’ attention; overly serious and monotone are two descriptors you need to avoid.  But how much is too much, especially if the topic you are talking about has had tragic consequences?  Once while talking on-air about migrating sharks, I had a bit of fun with the hosts on how not to become shark food.  The network morning show loved the interview; however, a colleague that studies sharks was not so pleased.  He pointed out a recent incident in which a person had been seriously injured by a shark. While sometimes political correctness can go too far, in this case I believe he was right and I had been a bit too glib. On the opposite side of the spectrum, in the aftermath of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, I did numerous interviews having had collaborated with USC tsunami expert Costas Synolakis in a book explaining the science of tsunamis.  I was shocked and saddened by the unfolding catastrophe and it showed.  Looking back, my interviews were not my best, due to my demeanor, almost dour.  I have since queried meteorologists who cover hurricanes about how they stay animated while covering something that causes significant human suffering. They unanimously told me to put aside my emotions, while remaining respectful of the situation.

Here are a few more tips to consider.

Many television or radio shows have assistant producers or researchers that will interview you before the actual on-air interview.  This may be the person coming up with the relevant questions, however, they may have little time to prepare, or a weak background in the subject at hand.  Don’t be afraid to suggest additional questions.

We all make mistakes. If you see, hear, or read a misquote or subject being inaccurately described, send the media outlet or individual involved a diplomatic note with the correct information.  This can be especially productive if you have built a relationship with individual reporters or producers.  After I recently complained to a major nightly news reporter about misinformation in his story on the science of tsunamis, he altered it between their east and west coast broadcast.

And lastly, always pay attention while on hold to go air.  Once seconds before going on live radio, the host announced that the guest after me would be a conservative radio and television host and well-known climate change denialist. I should have then been prepared for what happened next.  To my dismay, climate change inappropriately came up and was vehemently decried as a conspiracy by tree-hugging socialists.

There are risks to doing interviews, but representatives of the media are our main pipeline to the mass public, an audience that as scientists we need to engage and reach more effectively.  I hope by revealing a few of my bloopers and a bit of what I’ve learned so far, it will help others to avoid some of the same stumbles.

– Ellen Prager is an author of popular science books and consultant who now focuses much of her time on bringing Earth and ocean science to the public.