Churnalism and journalistic compromise
Monday 27 October 2008 at 18:47 UTC
Anthony Cox points to a recent post by science blogger APGaylard concerning a complaint to the BBC about an alleged case of “churnalism” on the corporation’s news website. This Cox defines as “rewriting press releases rather than news reporting”.
I’m afraid there is no clear boundary between churnalism and serious news reporting, and I cannot comment in detail on BBC environment reporter Matt McGrath’s piece “Britain’s happiest places mapped”. Sometimes, rewriting a press release after attempting to extract a bit more information is the right thing to do. It all depends on the story and its perceived importance.
Journalists have a responsibility to cast a critical eye over press releases that cross their desks and land in email inboxes. But quick decisions have to be made regarding the newsworthiness of stories, and how much work a journalist can or should devote to them. Compromises (and the odd mistake) are inevitably made.
The real difficulty comes with organisations and their PRs who for whatever reason will not provide any more information than is contained in a press release. This is a common practice, and not just with government agencies and powerful private corporations. In the case of science reporting, it can often be a challenge for journalists to gather detailed information and have their questions answered following conference presentations, while following established protocols. Deadlines are often tight, and news has a limited shelf-life. PRs know this, and often exploit it.
So how does your average, hard-pressed newshound respond to this kind of spin? Spike the story? Possibly, though they might then incur the wrath of a stressed-out editor desperate for copy. Any copy. How about retaliating against the PRs responsible by reporting the story with a deliberately negative tone, or even ridicule? This is tempting, but unprofessional.
Churnalism is a bad thing, and I will not defend fellow journalists who indulge in it. In the case of alleged churnalism highlighted here, APGaylard was quite right to question McGrath about his report of what is clearly Bad Science. But the blogger then went over the top in demanding that the piece be pulled. What I would have done is suggest to the reporter that he find an expert to counter with some criticism of the research being reported. That would have taken no more than a couple of quick phone calls, and served as a warning to the PRs who spun the story.
Support 
Monday 27 October 2008 at 20:51 UTC
Thanks for taking an interest in my blog. It’s interesting to get a journalist’s perspective and I find myself agreeing with much of what you say.
However, I’d just like to make it clear that I’ve no problem with the research; in fact I say that, “I think that it’s a shame that the real story of the research … was obscured …”
I don’t think that your suggestion of getting an expert to provide a critical comment wouldn’t really have done much good either: all they could say is that there is no evidence here of a variation of happiness by place - the piece says that itself. This shows that the journalist had all the information he needed to spot that the press release was spinning this work inappropriately -assuming he understood the concept of statistical significance.
The problem here is that the central theme of the piece, as expressed in the title, is insupportable. The story that the journalist is telling is explicitly not there in the results of the research.
So, if it can’t be re-cast to tell the real story then, unfortunately, it just has to be pulled. Otherwise we have a trusted news source telling something precisely as it isn’t. This can’t be good, can it?
Tuesday 28 October 2008 at 10:19 UTC
AP - Just to make it clear, I am a research scientist turned journalist, so I’ve seen how science communication works from two of the three main perspectives involved.
I’m reluctant to comment on the details of the “happiness” research, as all I have to go on is the press release and Matt McGrath’s piece. From these it would seem that the questions being asked by the researchers are interesting, but the study is methodologically weak.
But was the real story of the research “obscured”? I would say not. Or at least not in the current version of McGrath’s text. Note that BBC website articles are subject to continual review, and there is no indication given that pieces have been revised in the light of new information, criticism, etc.
What we have in McGrath’s article is a bit of a mess, but I wouldn’t say that the writer is “telling something precisely as it isn’t”. Also, one should consider the implications of pieces being pulled. In the case of the BBC website, they would still exist in the Google cache.
In my view McGrath should have double or triple-sourced this story from the start, and not relied on quotes from those involved in the reported research. The best news reporting is about having those directly involved lay out the facts and opinions in their own words, with the journalist tying it all together in as transparent a manner as possible.
A quote from someone critical of the research would have carried far more weight than McGrath’s brief statement about the (lack of) statistical significance of the work. Multi-sourced reporting also helps show that science is a very human endeavour.
Without knowing the story behind the story, I cannot concur that McGrath is guilty of lazy reporting or indulging in churnalism. What he wrote is certainly a mess, but in the end this is one for the reporter to bury in the portfolio, not excise from the public record.
One last point: headlines and standfirsts are generally the responsibility of subeditors, and article writers have little or no influence here.