Notes from the “Dark Side” of the Wall

For my entire communications career (if you can call it that, given how young I am), I’ve been on the side that reports the news. Whether through words or photos, I’ve been training for the media in the literal sense of the term, meaning that I’ve striven to be a responsible filter to help people decide what’s important enough to know about. Everyone in the world knows the problems of bias that go into such a position (which is why I said “responsible!”), but that’s the job I’ve come to learn, know and love.

This summer will be interesting, and not just because I’m going back into writing after spending a semester as a photographer. This summer I’m working for the Science Media Centre (SMC, and yes, I’m getting used to spelling it “Centre”). It’s a place that collaborates with scientists and their affiliated institutions (universities, corporations, etc) to put issues of science and health in the public eye and to make sure such issues get explained the right way. Basically, I’m working in science public relations. I can’t believe it, but I’m on the other side of communications.

I’ve heard people say, jokingly and not, that p.r. is the “dark side.” p.r. agencies have agendas, they say; whereas journalists report to what the public want and need to hear, press officers only think of the interests of their own companies & clients at the expense of the common good.

I used to think that way. I had also hoped that everyone would think this way, because that would create the impression that the media should actively enforce a complete freedom from the "dangerous influences" of corporations’ agendas represented by their p.r. firms, that is, not listen to p.r. agents at all.

I laugh in the face of that opinion now, especially when it comes to science. Sure, I still believe that the media should be free to report as they wish, but…

1) British media don’t often follow a standard of objectivity. They don’t often report to what the disparate and dissenting publics want and need to hear, but instead mainly to one certain public. This problem exists in American media, to be sure, but it’s not as blatant as in Britain, where a major national newspaper exists for each variation of persuasion (The Independent for the strongly-left, The Guardian for center-left, The Times for center, The Daily Telegraph for center-right, and The Daily Mail for strongly-right). You could argue that such blatant bias is better than hiding a slant you know is there (you could argue that in a future post, let’s say), but the point here is that British media are not totally objective and well-meaning, no matter how they dress themselves up. Thus, the claim that journalists report for the common good of all doesn’t hold much water.

2) p.r. can provide a great public service: explanation. Especially with science, the public often doesn’t understand the inner workings of a business or an industry. The same goes with journalists; sometimes they don’t have the time or can’t get the knowledgeable sources themselves to explain something like science to the public. The SMC helps them out by holding press briefings of discoveries and the state of the science, as well as putting reporters in contact with scientists willing and able to talk clearly to the media. That way, the guy who writes the newspaper or website article can easily explain the finding or issue to the public, and the public’s (or publics’) understanding of science increases. I love being able to do that, especially since people don’t understand the scientific process well enough. (Like the part about one study not proving anything because, with the flaws inherent in human knowledge and observation, no scientific idea can be “proven,” only supported. Why can’t people get that?!)

Huh. Not only am I back into writing, I’m on the other side of the media. This’ll be fun. And not just because I’m taking the Piccadilly line to work.