TV Scientists Train to Put On Good Show

BOSTON—A growing number of scientific organizations are training researchers to appear on television and the other media. The American Association for the Advancement of Science has offered TV workshops since 1986. The University of Wisconsin gave its first one last fall. “Scientists are being increasingly called upon to provide information to the media, said Carol Rogers, head of the AAAS Office of Communications. “But they don’t really know how the media operate.” The training scientists receive varies widely. Potential media stars at Northeastrn University, for example, are subjected to five hours of training before video cameras. Those at Johns Hopkins are grilled in advance of an appearance. At Stanford, a short briefing from the public affairs staff is deemed sufficient. Within the federal government, the National Institutes of Health offer no formal media training, but the National Aeronautics and Space Administration does. The growth in media training for scientists is part of a broader trend affecting many professions, said Dick Fischer, an associate with Executive Television Workshop in New York. Businesses that 10 years ago would say ‘No comment’ to a reporter now talk to people.” In 1972 AT&T’s Bell Laboratories began to train scientists working on “hot” technologies to speak to the media, especially business reporters. Other companies started programs to counter a perceived anti-science-and-technology feeling in the country. Dow Chemical Co. operates a “Visible Scientist’ program, and Westinghouse Electric Corp sponsored “Technology Talks” for a decade before dropping them in 1986. The accident at Three Mile Island in 1979 triggered a spate of calls from public utilities that needed scientists who could discuss nuclear power, said Susan Chamberlain of Jack Hilton Inc., a New York media training firm And growing media interest in the controversy over laboratory animals prompted the Washington-based Foundation for Biomedical Research to begin media training workshops in 1983. Some organizations train researchers to appear on television simply to report what is happening in science. The American Chemical Society began such a program in 1984, and AAAS plans to resume radio spots that were ended when it sold its monthly popular science magazine. The fact that the public ultimately finances a major portion of scientific research is another reason to go on the air, said Washington media consultant Susan Peterson. Other organizations train scientists in the hope of generating more interest among young people. “We’re not producing enough first-rate young scientists,” said Cornell astronomer Carl Sagan. “Part of the answer is to encourage youngsters at a very early age, and television is an excellent way to do that.” —Hugh McIntosh BOSTON—Most scientists are not natural television personalities. But a growing number of them are becoming familiar with that powerful medium as the public looks for answers to complex technological issues. “TV is really theater,” said Ira Flatow, an independent radio and television producer, as he directed a three-hour workshop on the subject at the recent annual meeting here of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. “So if you want to be on television, you’re going to have to be a good performer.” The workshop, entitled “So You Want to Be on TV? Scientists Face the Cameras,” offered a crash course in dealing with the electronic media. It discussed how to present your message simply and clearly, as well as the pressures that reporters face to get the story. A scientist’s TV performance is usually an interview, panelists explained. The subject has little control over whether it will be 30 seconds of live comment or 30 hours of discussion edited down into a two-minute feature. In either case, however, the interviewer wants to make the subject look good. Don’t be put off by the approach, panelists cautioned. “To the uninitiated, a phalanx of TV reporters, producers, sound men, camera peo- ple all descending on your labora- tory may appear to make the inva- sion of Grenada..... look like child’s play,” Flatow said. “They will rear- range the furniture, and move your microscopes and lab equipment, to make your office look good on tele- vision. If they’re really nice, they may even put it back together when they’re done.” TV producers want something exciting—emotion makes good television. They also like brevity. But don’t expect too much, even if the interview is lengthy. The final sequence may appear quite different from the initial discussion. “It’s a very simplistic approach to very complicated matters,” said workshop leader David Kalson, public information manager for the American Institute of Physics. “There is a tremendous argument to be made that you should not [go on TV] unless you. . . think of it as a performance.” Props are very useful in making a point, panelists advised. Models of a planet and its moons, for example, might help an astronomer demonstrate a concept. Apparatus makes an interesting background and conveys your message. Don’t forget your appearance. Your hair, the way you dress and other seemingly insignificant details can distract viewers from your words. If you’re being filmed in the studio, request makeup. Television is usually kind to your face, but it adds 10 pounds to your body. On camera, state a few points simply, clearly and briefly. Repeat the points. Then state them again, as if speaking to a 12-year-old. “It’s not that the viewer is deficient mentally,” Kalson said. “It’s that they are doing other things in their home.” Try to relax. Television picks up nervousness and, no matter how cogent your argument, makes you appear to be hiding something. Show enthusiasm, but refrain from highly exaggerated movements. “You want to avoid looking crazed,” Kalson said. The best way to stay out of trouble is to stay within your expertise. If asked about another field, say you aren’t qualified to respond. If you don’t know an answer, say so. And if you trip over the words, ask to reshoot your comments. Remember that some problems, such as a contentious panel or an obnoxious colleague, are beyond your control. Despite all the things that can go wrong, you may uncover hidden talents as a communicator. And if you’re really a glutton for punishment, said Flatow, “you may want to do it again.” McIntosh is a freelance writer in Washington, D.C.

TV Scientists Train to Put On Good Show

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of