From lab to headlines: How to balance visibility with accuracy
Last Updated : 29 January 2025Striking the right balance between visibility and accuracy remains a constant challenge for researchers and media professionals alike. So, on January 29th, EUFIC, in collaboration with the SFSN, hosted a webinar that brought together experts across the information pipeline to pull from recent media examples and offer insights into how to work together for a better public understanding of food and health.
The panel discussion focused on the challenges, responsibilities, and best practices in communicating food and health. The conversation centred on two case studies: a single scientific study linking plant-based milk to depression and the recurring debate on “toxic” seed oils. The panellists discussed the links in the chain of responsibility: journalists, scientists, press officers, social media influencers, and their roles in shaping public understanding of science.
The panelists:
- Fiona Lethbridge (Senior Press Officer, UK Science Media Centre) – Emphasised the role of the press in science communication and how scientists can engage with journalists to ensure accuracy as early as the press release.
- Barbara Tiozzo Pezzoli (Risk Communication Specialist) – Spoke about how food risk is normally communicated and highlighted the need for responsibility at all levels of communication, from researchers to the media.
- Gittemarie Johansen (Sustainability speaker and influencer) – Spoke about the impact of social media and the challenges of conveying nuance in short-form content but also the benefits to tailoring and amplifying content to multiple platforms.
Key Takeaways
The Role of Scientists in Media Communication
- Journalists rely on press releases from universities or scientific journals, which often shape media narratives.
- Scientists have a responsibility to ensure their research is accurately communicated in the press releases put forward by them and their universities.
- Engaging with journalists proactively can improve accuracy in reporting.
Challenges in the Media
- Headlines vs. content: Headlines are often written by sub-editors, not journalists, and may be sensationalised for clicks.
- Press releases influence misinformation: Poorly written press releases from universities can contribute to misleading coverage.
- Single studies vs. broader evidence: News articles often rush to highlight one new study without providing broader scientific context.
- Specialised vs generalist journalists: Health and science correspondents tend to cover the issue better than generalist journalists, but some countries, such as the UK, have more of the former than others.
Misinformation and Public Perception
- Many readers only engage with headlines rather than full articles, leading to misconceptions.
- Sensationalised reporting can reinforce existing biases, especially in topics like nutrition.
- The media may be quick to recommend dietary advice from new observational studies rather than follow advice from official bodies (especially if written by generalist journalist).
Communicating Science on Social Media
- Social media platforms reward engaging and simplified content.
- There are opportunities to add long-form content (e.g., YouTube videos) to provide context and links to reputable sources.
Final Thoughts
- Scientists should engage more with journalists to improve science literacy.
- The media should involve multiple researchers when reporting on a new study and be open to experts to clear any confusion from recurring food and health trends.
- Paywalls on academic papers make direct access difficult, limiting public fact-checking.
- Social media presents both challenges and opportunities for science communication - nuance is key.
This panel highlighted the collaborative effort needed across the information pipeline: from scientists, journalists, and content creators to improve public understanding of science.
The webinar was not recorded to foster an open dialogue
Resources: