jasdooit

A GNA Special Report by Victoria Agyemang

Cape Coast, Dec 17, GNA – Often, the conflict between academics and reporters lies in the clarity of scientific information.

Researchers invest many years in collecting data, evaluating theories, and carefully examining every phrase in peer-reviewed publications, using exact, typically conservative wording filled with statistical limitations that prevent exaggerated claims.

Journalists carry a vital responsibility to communicate with the public using straightforward, unembellished, clear, and to-the-point language, frequently under time constraints.

Nevertheless, achieving clarity involves simplification, which can occasionally lead to distortions that influence the effectiveness of scientific studies.

Certainly, the divide between journalism and academia goes beyond language; it involves values, motivations, and pace. Closing this gap demands more than just interpreters—it requires connection, trust, modesty, and a mutual dedication to the welfare and benefit of the public.

Experts and scientists, following their studies, seek media coverage to reach a broader public, with the goal of influencing society and advancing progress through their discoveries.

However, because of language barriers that result in a limited or nonexistent grasp of scientific terminology, journalists frequently opt to steer clear of these topics and concentrate on stories that demand less time and work to create.

At times, the limited number of journalists willing to support the scientific effort may end up causing more damage than benefit.

Academic and research-based scientific information plays a role in shaping public discussion and driving changes in behavior, as seen during the challenging period of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Journalism, on the other hand, provides science with a platform to communicate with the public, while academia offers journalism depth and reliability; thus, neither can function effectively without the other.

However, the divide between the two critical areas often skews scientific comprehension, diminishes public confidence, and weakens the goal of science outreach.

Covering scientific topics is frequently regarded as one of the most fulfilling but difficult areas in the field of journalism.

Many reporters find their path marked by inquisitiveness, ongoing education, and the duty of simplifying intricate concepts for the average audience.

In newsrooms and on location, science journalists keep exchanging distinctive stories that highlight the thrill and challenges of reporting on the realm of scientific exploration.

For Ama Mensah, a young journalist working at a local radio station in Tamale, her initial encounter with reporting on a scientific topic was overwhelming.

Assigned to cover a vaccine trial, she found herself among scientists using complex terminology that seemed like a different language. “I kept jotting down abbreviations I didn’t grasp,” she remembers with a smile. “But it motivated me to learn more before reporting on these topics. I realized that in science journalism, being well-prepared is crucial.”

Others face comparable difficulties, Peter Yeboah, a multimedia journalist, recalls traveling to a remote area to report on a story about water contamination.

What started as a standard task soon became heartfelt when he encountered families struggling with water-related illnesses.

It ceased to be solely about chemicals and pollutants,” he stated. “but rather about the individuals.

That encounter showed me that beneath each scientific topic lies a human narrative ready to be shared.

Numerous reporters discuss the excitement involved in being the initial ones to reveal information regarding a significant scientific discovery.

But they also acknowledge the pressure to ensure accuracy is of considerable significance.

A single incorrect understanding of data can misguide the general population. “Science leaves no space for speculation,” states another journalist.

You should verify everything thoroughly, and occasionally check it again.

Editors depend on you, but even more crucially, the public has faith in you.

Availability of specialists, nevertheless, is not consistently seamless.

Certain reporters face challenges in contacting scientists who are either overburdened or reluctant to talk due to concerns about being incorrectly quoted.

Some people point out that organizations occasionally use red tape as a shield, postponing important details.

However, when scientists are open, discussions can be profoundly rewarding. “Many of my most valuable insights came from researchers who spent time clarifying concepts through straightforward comparisons,” mentioned a journalist.

It simplified my tasks and enhanced the narrative.

Professor Abena Yeboah-Banin, a Communication lecturer at the University of Ghana, urged reporters to play a more active part in clarifying scholarly research results for the broader community, especially concerning matters impacting city health, during an interview with the Ghana News Agency (GNA).

She mentioned that despite the challenges, the divide between academia and researchers hinders the true influence of crucial scientific findings on the world.

The strength of scientific research is not just in uncovering new knowledge but in spreading it. When results stay limited to academic circles and aren’t communicated in a manner that the general public can grasp, their ability to make a difference, particularly in fields such as city health, is wasted.

Professor Yeboah-Banin encouraged reporters to gain the necessary tools and abilities for successful science communication.

Science holds value only in proportion to how well it is communicated,” she stated, and therefore, “journalists should act as the intermediaries who render this information accessible to the general public.

Nevertheless, she warned against reducing scientific results to simplistic or exaggerated narratives for the sake of news coverage, emphasizing that journalists should maintain the most rigorous ethical principles, guaranteeing precision, appropriate background information, and use of confirmed data.

“Scientific reporting needs to be based on truth and accountability. Misunderstanding or incorrect portrayal can lead to greater damage than benefit,” she stressed.

In her view, Dr. Charity Binka, Executive Director of WOMEC, referred to science and health communication as a public responsibility, saying, “the media should clarify it, counter false information, and assist the public in making educated choices.”

She urged researchers to take journalists with them throughout their research process, allowing them to gain a better comprehension of the results instead of merely informing them about the findings.

Emphasizing that journalists who collaborate closely with scientists and health professionals can guarantee the public gets accurate, research-backed information.

GNA

Edited by Alice Tettey / George-Ramsey Benamba