Introducing SciWriteLabs. Today’s installment: Kroll and Racaniello discuss the journalism/factchecking debate

Today marks the one-month anniversary of David Kroll’s blog post, “Trine Tsouderos on This Week in Virology: When do you fact-check article content with sources?” Over the next few days, I’ll be posting a series of discussions with people who have figured prominently in the ensuing debate. I will be mining reader comments for ways to shape the conversations still on tap – so please, don’t stop interacting. (For anyone coming to this topic for the first time, here’s a good beginning-of-the-episode recap of what’s happened so far.) Today’s installment features Kroll and Vincent Racaniello, a Columbia University virologist who hosts the TWiV podcast.

These will also serve to launch SciWriteLabs, a new project which I hope will be an ongoing venue for researchers, reporters, public officials, and anyone else interested in science and science writing to debate the issues of the day. More on that soon…

Without further ado, let’s get to today’s discussion.

SM: David and Vincent, you two have helped launch an incredible discussion about the appropriate ways for journalists and scientists to interact. I want to try to continue this conversation in a way that’s more focused than a free-for-all in the comments section but more fluid than a single-author blog post or newspaper column. One idea I had was to do something kind of akin to Slate‘s old “Book Club” feature. You two are coming at this from different perspectives: David, you’ve had training as a scientist, worked in industry and academia, and are these days focusing more and more on your writing; Vincent, you’re a working scientist who has been at the forefront of scientists communicating directly with the public. I don’t think either of you anticipated the reverberations from David’s original blog post. What has it been like to watch this unfurl? Has anything made you re-think/re-examine where you were coming from?

VR: I’m actually appalled and amazed by some of the reactions of science writers to Trine’s remarks on TWiV. Arrogance was one of the first words that came to my mind. One reason for this reaction is that I’ve been spoiled by the wonderful writers I’ve interacted with who take the fact-checking route. Back in 2009 I was contacted by Rebecca Skloot who was just about to finish her book, The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks. After corresponding for a few days she asked if I would check her manuscript to make sure it was scientifically accurate. After I was finished I learned from Rebecca that book writers often don’t check their facts – they don’t have the budget. But she found me and I was happy to do it. Sometime later I met Trine who as you know is also fond of fact-checking. Dave Tuller has also run some of his statements past me. But I suppose these are the exceptions, or so I would conclude from the comments on David’s blog post.

Let me go over some of the reasons given for not fact-checking science writing. One is ‘there is no time.’ It seems to me that if you keep a list of reliable scientists on hand you can always find one to help you out. Trine has asked for my help an hour before a deadline, and if I have the time I’ll do it. I understand that this is not always possible but why not try?

Another reason – ‘it’s my byline.’ This is ego shining through. See the last paragraph.

My TWiV co-host, a science writer, wrote that he doesn’t fact check because he usually get things right. How would you know? Explain to me how, after working on viruses for 30+ years, I still get virus-related things wrong. And you are telling me that you can write in all kinds of science fields and get it all right? I just don’t believe it. The fact is, all science writers are going to make a mistake, probably more often than they think. Much more often than a scientist who works in the field and thinks about it every day and understands all the nuances and implications. Don’t tell me that it doesn’t matter for what you are writing or who you are targeting – if you don’t get the facts right, you are failing.

Another writer said that journalists who write about politics don’t fact check. Well, science isn’t politics (although politicians do like to meddle in science, and are messing it up – but I diverge). Science is a fact-based field. If you don’t get the facts right, you can’t do science, and you can’t write about it. There is no debating here. If you don’t know that Bacillus anthracis is not a virus, you aren’t helping anyone (it happens far more often than you would think).

In the end, it all comes down to this – you are writing about science to educate the public. Not to make money, or win prizes, or become famous. It is to help pass on the wonderful, exciting advances about our understanding of life (and viruses) to people who are curious. If you don’t get the facts right, you are not educating the public. And if you don’t want to fact check your science writing, then write about something else for a living.

SM: You’re definitely right about books not being fact-checked. (I find it simultaneously hilarious and distressing that many magazines use books as an acceptable form of verification.) That’s a whole other topic…

I think part of the emotion — and misunderstanding — that has arisen stems from different definitions/conceptions of fact-checking. Trine is a world-class reporter — and also tough as nails. It sounds like some other writers have asked you to confirm/review/discuss things they’ve been preparing for publication not because you’re the subject of the article but because they respect your knowledge. One thing that makes people (read: journalists) nervous is when there’s a feeling that reporters should allow sources/subjects to review stories about them. For instance: Compare an imaginary feature story about you/TWiV with, say, one of Trine’s pieces on XMRV. I think it’s easier for people to understand the potential utility of checking the latter than it is the former.

It’s interesting that you alighted on the arrogance of journalists who insist they shouldn’t ever check stories. One of the things that got my dander up was the flip-side: the arrogance of scientists (as exemplified by this Guardian piece) calling for journalists to act as stenographers. (I know I’m oversimplifying here…)

DK: Before I jump in, I want to go back to Seth’s original questions since my post started this latest, robust round of discussion. I love Vincent’s This Week in Virology and while I don’t listen as often as I should, I use his material often when I teach my half of the Immunology & Virology class at North Carolina Central University.

But TWiV 149 was special because it was a video interview with a science and medical reporter I admire greatly, Trine Tsouderos – her work on the Geiers and XMRV has been superb and she’s tougher than a boiled owl.

When I heard Trine say that she often has some scientist interviewees review quotes or passages of her work, I was so surprised that I immediately fired up my PLoS blog and started writing while still listening to the rest of the interview. Why? Because I had always been told that journalists never run copy past their interview subjects regardless of whether the topic was highly technical. I tend to get interviewed quite a bit as an expert in drug action and drug safety but the only times I’ve been able to review copy was when it was being done for one of my institutions like Colorado or Duke – and I could hear in the PIOs voice that every journalist bone their body was cracking under the institutional weight of having to offer me a chance to check my quotes and background.

With regard to the reader response, I expected some but perhaps not the magnitude and scope of the discussion. That I dropped everything and started writing the post is indicative of its importance to me but that doesn’t always follow with blog traffic and comments. On the other hand, when the comments started rolling in, I felt a bit redeemed that I did indeed hit on something that interested those of you who do this for a living.

What surprised me most in the comments to that initial post was that most of these pro writers concurred with Trine that under very specific conditions, they will consult with interview subjects – and even show them copy – to assure the correct interpretation of some aspect of their piece. Maryn McKenna was awesome – she even shared with us her agreement with sources for doing such a thing. Adam Rogers offered to share what they allow at Wired. Then, there was George Johnson who upheld the journalistic tradition that nothing gets reviewed by sources. And Ed Yong, always the measured gentleman, suggested his approach to fact-checking: soliciting a researcher in the field who is unrelated to the original work. What also came out was that we need to be careful not to confuse fact-checking with copy-checking.

SM: That’s interesting – It sounds like your impression that reporters never share any information with sources before publication didn’t draw a distinction between subjects and sources. This also might seem like splitting hairs, but as a journalist, I think there’s a significant difference between my asking a source if s/he will go over something I’ve written and a source asking me to show them an article before it is published (I almost wrote “before it appears in print” – how quaint!). The latter implies approval; the former is, I think, more subject to the particulars of that interaction.

VR: It’s certainly possible that there is some miscommunication here. When I first read David’s initial blog post at PLoS, I wondered if in fact many of the writers commenting had actually listened to the TWiV episode. Because in that episode Trine made it very clear that she makes sure to get the science correct in her articles by consulting experts. It’s not a matter of writing a story about me, and then asking me if it is right. It’s about, say, writing a story on XMRV (not involving any of my work) and then asking me if the science is correct. If you don’t get this then I could see some writers bristling at the thought of having scientist check every word of their stories. That is not what this is about.

I wonder if the entire conversation would have gone differently if this had been stated up front, rather than depending on people to listen to the TWiV episode (I realize they are all long and only dedicated science geeks listen to all of it).

I can understand why writers would get ticked at being told to be stenographers. But that isn’t what Trine was saying.

These issues taken care of, I do believe there were some writers who understood what Trine was saying and still didn’t agree.

DK: Vincent, yes, I also worried that even my brief paraphrasing did not do justice to this part of the interview with Trine. I had the ulterior motive of encouraging readers to get a glimpse of the outstanding resource that is TWiV! (And this particular episode was not only for geeks!)

So, I felt it was an injustice to even write a transcript of Trine’s comments since the video was available in its full context. But I agree with you that the comment thread might have progressed differently had I introduced the topic more fully.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Creative Commons License
This work, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License.

This entry was posted in Journalism, science, SciWriteLabs and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Introducing SciWriteLabs. Today’s installment: Kroll and Racaniello discuss the journalism/factchecking debate

  1. Jill U Adams says:

    Glad you’re going to keep the conversation going, Seth.

    One thing I hope you’ll address soon is what fact-checking is and the many ways it might be accomplished. As a journalist, I check facts in the process of writing a draft, then double-check numbers and facts again during revision. I do it during interviews with sources (eg, I see the percentage increase, what were the raw numbers? -or- Would it be fair to say cancer cells break off and travel to other parts of the body instead of ‘metastasize’?), by reading journal articles, and officials’ statements. If it’s a scientific issue I’m describing, such as the findings of an epidemiological study, I’ll ask the study author about phrasings. I also rely on some good educational resources on the web to make sure the way I’m wording it and the study design match, because I’ve had scientists tell me stuff that’s not quite right.

    • Kate Benson says:

      @Jill I couldn’t have said it better.

      No I never submit copy to a source for fact checking, partly because there are so many other ways to fact check.

      I will add that publishing online makes it simpler to do direct corrections. I am old school enough to remember the days of corrections being published another day in a completely different section of the news where most readers would not see it.

  2. Alan Dove says:

    I think Vincent doesn’t understand how unusual a resource he is. In my experience, very few basic researchers are accessible and accomodating enough to do full-scale article (or book) fact checking on short notice for pieces that aren’t about them or their work. And corporate researchers simply can’t do that without involving multiple layers of PR and legal staff. No, for most science journalists on most assignments, the independent scientific fact-check isn’t very practical.

    That brings us back to letting sources check the article, which opens the whole can of worms I blogged about. And no, I didn’t say I don’t fact check because I usually get it right. I said I do fact check when it seems appropriate and necessary, and I do most of those checks by sending readbacks or short excerpts to my sources. Perhaps Vincent should have sent me a readback on his comments before letting Seth publish them here.

  3. Pingback: SciWriteLabs #2: Reuters’ Ivan Oransky and Wired’s Adam Rogers on sources v. subjects & more on the factchecking debate | The Panic Virus

  4. Interesting to start this, Seth, thanks. I would just like to say that I was in the audience as the podcast was recorded — in fact except for the ASM ICAAC staff and techies, I may have *been* the audience. So I did hear it in its entirety, though I did not take notes to refer back to. The thing that made my antennae go up was Trine saying that she sometimes shares the full story with a source, which is beyond what most of the fact-checking writers with whom I am acquainted do. As I said in the original comment string on David’s original post, I have tried this, and it went very badly, because the person in question could not divorce “checking the science” from “thinking that I deserve more of this story than I got,” and so I don’t do that any more, except in specific instances such as book chapters. (And also for stories in magazines that have fact-checkers, where the fact-checkers go back to the source, which since it involves a third party removes some of the ego-struggle from the encounter.) If Trine’s never had this happen to her, then she’s fortunate — I mean that sincerely, I wish I had not had to go through it — and I also think she’s fortunate in having found Vincent as a resource, as there are not that many scientists around who have the time and willingness, and have the communication ability and clarity, and, as Alan suggests, are free of constraints.

    • Seth Mnookin says:

      Unfortunately, Trine can’t take part in these — Trib Co. policy, it seems — but I would have loved to have talked to her more specifically about her experiences. I wonder if part of the difference in experience doesn’t also have to do with the tonal differences between a magazine feature and a newspaper investigative piece. This is something we should talk more about — and I fully plan on enlisting you to discuss this when your schedule slows down a bit…

  5. Pingback: SciWriteLabs #3: TWiV co-hosts on arrogance vs. accountability | The Panic Virus

  6. Pingback: I’ve got your missing links right here (22 October 2011) | Not Exactly Rocket Science | Appenheimer

  7. Pingback: TWiV 154: Symbiotic safecrackers

  8. Erik Vance says:

    I think that this is polishing over what was said in that initial panel. No professional in their right mind has a problem sending copy to a third party. It’s sending the full copy to any source mentioned within that is a no-no. That’s what Trine says she does. I don’t criticize her specifically, but anyone who does that needs to be able to give a very good reason why they chose to do so. Just as a political reporter would. Because scientists try to skew stories just like anyone else.

  9. Pingback: Thoughts on academic scientists giving media interviews | Take As Directed

  10. Pingback: All Atwitter II: Seth Mnookin | genomeboy

Add Comment Register



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>