Truthfulness and or attention

How we should work on better press releases in science

“A public information officer (man) and a scientist (woman) are writing a press release together”. Created by DALL-E, January 2024

When people talk about science communication today, it is rarely about press releases. Once the major way to disseminate research findings, press releases are not particularly popular today. In recent years, several universities have reduced the frequency of their press releases.

But I am not concerned here with quantity. I worry about the attention we give to press releases. For instance, a Google search on the German portal for science communication, wissenschaftskommunikation.de, returns 159 hits for “press release” (“Pressemitteilung”), four times as many for the search term “podcast”, eight times as many for “Instagram” and fourteen times as many for “Tiktok”.

New science communication channels, like Tiktok, are currently receiving the most attention. These platforms are perfect for science communicators who are aiming for the highly desired Public Engagement with Science. The ideal of this paradigm, which is no longer new, is a direct dialogue with the public. Interested citizens should not only understand science better (Public Understanding of Science) but also get to know the people behind the research.

That’s a wonderful goal, no question. However, it is all too easy to forget that only a small proportion of people are addressed in a direct manner. Science communication researcher Dietram A Scheufele writes:

“The majority of encounters that members of the nonscientific public have with scientific issues […] do not involve any form of direct public engagement. Instead, most citizens hear about scientific issues from various online and offline media. Their exposure to science and scientists, in other words, is not a direct one, but indirect through mass or online media.” (Scheufele 2014)

Press releases are not the only way in which new research findings and expertise gets into mass media. However, it rarely happens without them (Lehmkuhl and Promies 2020, Grochala et al 2020, Vogler and Schäfer 2020). In addition, press releases are often the basis for communication formats played out via other channels, such as social media posts. In my view, they are more important than ever.

Why? Because press releases are becoming more influential.

In 2022, US researchers examined the textual similarities between press releases and journalistic pieces on the same topic. Their findings: Up to 65% of sentences in science news articles reflected high similarity to press release material.

“A potent indication of how powerful information subsidies¹ can be. […] For science news in particular, we may be in an era of increased power of PR relative to journalism.” (Comfort et al 2022)

The authors speak of a high “permeability of science journalism to public relations”. Other researchers have come to similar conclusions (Lewis et al 2008, Sumner et al 2016, Taylor et al 2015, Vogler and Schäfer 2020).

The cause is obvious: media companies are under economic pressure and are coping with an increasing flood of information with fewer personnel (Pew Research, Schäfer 2017).

Is that a problem? Of course it is! And the worse the press release, the more of a problem it is. Science journalist Sabine Hossenfelder recently ranted on X:

“I've been doing my weekly Science News for about 4 months now. I have literally read thousands of press releases to that end. The major insight that I have taken away from this is to never, ever, trust a press release. […] the biggest problem is that they lack context. For the most part they overstate what's new and don't tell you what previous work has been done, they don't tell you the bigger context. […] Many of them are so misleadingly written you can't even blame writers for misunderstanding them.” (Sabine Hossenfelder)

Strong and uncomfortable words! Hossenfelder is not alone in her assessment. Numerous studies have come to similar conclusions, criticizing sensationalism, misrepresentation, spin, subjectivity and harmful recommendations in press releases on medical studies (Dempster et al 2022, Schwartz et al 2012, Sumner et al 2016, Yachvitz et al 2012). The PR-Watch project at TU Dortmund University also found a mixed picture in the quality of twelve examined press releases from the fields of medicine and the environment.

I also find this Substack by political scientist Roger Pielke Jr. interesting, in which he criticizes the overly simplistic narrative of a press release on climate research (be sure to read the footnotes). The press release prominently suggests that global warming is causing a (net) increase in the number of heat- and cold-related deaths in the US. Only later in the text is it explained that the temperature effect is actually negative and that demographic reasons alone are causing the calculated number of victims to rise. This “clarification” was largely ignored by the media.

The case is an example of how misleading press releases can result in misleading reporting. Communication researchers at the University of Pennsylvania put it this way:

“The intermediary press release may serve as a source of distortion in the dissemination of science to the lay public.” (Brechmann et al. 2009)

Admittedly, I have compiled particularly negative findings here, but my personal assessment is certainly less gloomy. Very often, press releases are excellently written and factually correct. But then “distortion” comes in, because the journalists put their own spin on top.

An example from my professional practice: Four years ago, we published a global meta-analysis on insect declines at my home institution, iDiv. The title of our press release: “Insects: Largest study to date confirms declines on land, but finds recoveries in freshwater. Global insect populations show highly variable local trends”. Admittedly, a somewhat lengthy headline, but it summarizes the findings correctly. Subsequent media headlines ranged from the carefree “De ondergang van de insecten was vals alarm (Insect decline was false alarm)” to the gloomy “Land Insects’ Apocalypse Could be Catastrophic for Humans, Expert Warns after New Study”.

I am sure that copy-and-pasting from our press release would have led to greater factual accuracy and quality in many reports. In this respect, the increasing permeability of science journalism to PR sources is not only a threat but also an opportunity:

“High quality press releases […] seem to make the quality of associated newspaper stories better, whereas low quality press releases might make them worse.” (Schwartz et al 2012)

Not really surprising, is it?

So, what does this mean in practice? First of all, “our” responsibility to write “good” press releases has increased. “Good” means that the criteria for good science PR are met (Leitlinien zur guten Wissenschafts-PR²). By “our”, I mean both PR employees like myself and the responsible researchers.

We are all subject to competing incentives and pressures. On the one hand, the (intrinsic) incentive to present research results as clearly, correctly and balanced as possible. On the other hand, the pressure to attract attention and to put ourselves or our employers in the limelight, for example through overselling³. Honestly acknowledging these conflicting goals (there are certainly more) is an important first step.

“There are pressures on scientists to demonstrate the ‘real-world’ impact of their work, on science communicators to generate media attention and on journalists to produce newsworthy content about science. This ‘pressure cocktail’ can result in misrepresentation of science that could lead to […] public misunderstandings and distrust in science. It is for these reasons that those producing the science, the press releases and the news must work together to communicate truthful and objective science to society.” (Dempster et al 2022)

In times of dwindling trust in the scientific system (especially in the USA but also in Germany), the goal of honest and truthful communication seems more important than ever. Both scientists and press officers need to work together in a critical and constructive manner and mutually supervise each other in order to make up for what journalists are less and less able to do (due to lack of time and resources). How this can be done in detail needs to be discussed. Here are a few suggestions:

Food for thought for communicating researchers

• Use press releases for your science communication – in cooperation with your press office.

• Familiarize yourself with the criteria for good science PR.

• Work critically and constructively with your press office. Respect the PR employee as a sparring partner with whom you can improve the scientific and journalistic quality of the press release.

• Make your expertise available to journalists in order to increase the chances of truthful reporting.

Food for thought for press officers and their bosses

• Invest in the quality of your press releases according to the criteria for good science PR.

• Set appropriate incentives in your overarching targets and their evaluation: quality instead of quantity, no trading off truthfulness for attention.

• As far as possible, take on the correcting function of a good journalist, e.g., to avoid spin and overselling. Compare key claims in the press release with those in the peer-reviewed paper.

• Invest in the ability to do this (through recruiting, training and AI tools).

The press release is still a key means of science communication. It may not be as exciting as new social media channels or innovative science communication formats, but it is more important than ever. We should nurture and develop the press release so that it can do its best for society. Let’s give it the necessary attention, care and love!

Disclaimer: As a research center’s head of communications, I am drawing on my practical experience. This may not be representative. That is why I have tried to back up my claims with research evidence. However, I am also not a science communication scientist and do not have an overview of the current state of research. Comments and objections are welcome!

---

Many thanks to Christine Coester, who helped me with the translation from German into English. The original German version has been published on the German portal for science communication, www.wissenschaftskommunikation.de.

1. “Information subsidies” refers to press releases.

2. I would be curious to learn if there is something similar in English.

3. Interestingly, Sumner et al 2014 found no effect of exaggeration on the number of media reports. However, I am skeptical – this contradicts my own observations and experience.