Lee Smolin

Today we spoke with Lee Smolin, a theoretical physicist who’s written three books and done his share of interviews. We asked him to share his experiences with the media and give us some tips from the other side of the tape recorder.

Research!

One of the most annoying things for Smolin is when the interviewer obviously hasn’t done his homework.

“One thing that’s annoying on things like live interview shows and radio and television is when you realize the person is reading from a script that’s prepared by the staff, but they haven’t actually read your book or paper. Occasionally there are people, like  Dennis Overbye who does the morning show on the BBC, that are so skilled that (they) can wing it and get away with it. But mostly it’s really apparent that they don’t know and haven’t prepared or are going by a script,” he said.

Communication

Smolin makes a real effort to communicate clearly with journalists so he won’t be misunderstood.

“I feel like it’s part of the job, a very important part of the job of being a scientist is communicating with the public. I care about communicating clearly… I think the public is not to be pandered to, not to be talked down to. That is, a lot of the public follow science. You have to find a medium, but the idea that you have to treat them like children, I think it’s not true. “

Of course, communication is a two-way street. It requires careful explanations from the scientist, but the journalist also has to know how to listen.

“A journalist is not usually trained scientifically, so you try to explain clearly. They’re different than a member of the general public, they’ve talked to a lot of scientists, if they’re good, they know how to listen to a scientist and they know if they’re being snowed. I think it’s very important to have integrity, to tell the truth, to say the strong points and the weak points and not to exaggerate any of the direction because it’s not in the interest of telling the truth and good journalists can tell when they’re being snowed,” Smolin added.

Miscommunication and poor listening skills on the part of the journalist can lead to misinformation. Smolin says he’s been misquoted many times. He tries to maintain some control by asking to review his quotes before they’re printed.

“It’s often not granted, but I always ask for them to come back with permission to quote, and to give me a veto for quotes. I have been quoted out of context. You get to know who does it and who doesn’t,” he said.

Understanding

Smolin says it’s important for journalists to understand science and be aware of how the scientific community works. Because the information can be very complex, it’s tempting for reporters to use a formulaic writing style that isn’t always accurate.

For example, Smolin is frustrated with the way journalists have been reporting on climate change.

“There’s a principle in political reporting of balance, that is, you quote from both sides. But in the case of a story like climate change… there’s not really two equal sides. There’s 95 or 99 per cent of scientists who have come to a consensus about an issue, and then there’s a few people who disagree around the edges. And that’s always the case in science… Stories that attempt to follow the political formula for quoting both sides get it wrong and get it wrong in a dangerous way because they take a few malcontents and quote them equally. This takes judgement, this takes knowing the scientific community well, and it takes having a sense of what science is and how it works,” he said.

Tips for aspiring science reporters

“Preparation is very important.”

“Understand how science works, understand the complexities and don’t walk around with a cartoon of the scientific method in your head.”

“Read the really good ones. In North America, Dennis Overbye, search, read everything he’s written. He also has a sense of humour and a sense of  humanity, but he’s razor sharp in terms of getting the science right.”