Even when he was little, Dries De Smet was a loyal reader of De Standaard. Back then, his favorite sections were Opinion, Science, and Literature. Many years later, as a professional journalist, he worked his way up to chief editor of the newspaper’s Economics section, before joining the newly expanding science desk. While to some, that move may look like the opposite of a promotion, De Smet feels right at home in a team that puts thorough checking and rechecking front and center. What he didn’t know was that barely two months in, a pandemic would turn our world upside down. Suddenly, science news dominated the front page.
On his first love
“I always wanted to pursue a degree in journalism,” shares Dries De Smet, “but this was much against everyone’s advice. There was this common idea that it offered few career options.” In hindsight, he realizes there was some truth in that advice. “Journalistic skills are just one requirement of the job. Area expertise is equally important to get hired at a quality news outlet. To be clear, this doesn’t mean you need a university degree. You can also bring unique expertise based on experience. One way or another, however, you need some kind of differentiator.”
He ended up studying economics instead. “I pursued general economics, which has a philosophical angle to it—there is a scarcity, how do you go about distributing resources? The answers to these types of questions are never entirely value-free, and as such these classes were a great lesson on how to navigate life.”
De Smet has zero regrets about his study choice, but he never let go of his journalistic aspirations. In his second year at university, he joined the editorial board of Leuven’s student newspaper Veto. “I remember just showing up, telling them I really wanted to write, and they said: ‘Sure, go ahead.’ It certainly wasn’t part of a big master plan, but now I realize my time at Veto helped me to learn the trade—interviewing people, how to present news, etc., these are skills that you develop ‘on the job’.”
Despite a successful internship at the economics desk of his much-beloved De Standaard, De Smet felt his thirst for knowledge hadn’t been entirely quenched. He got the opportunity to do a PhD and decided to venture into academia first.
“My time as a PhD student was on the one hand very enriching: the environment was engaging, colleagues were great, the topic interesting… Still, at times, it felt like a struggle. I was eager for some shorter timelines in terms of effort and reward, and so the day I defended my thesis I sent my resume out to several news desks.”
He landed a position back at De Standaard’s economics desk. But when there was an opportunity to join the science desk, he switched topics. “I had been reporting on economics for eight years and was ready for something new. I had always been deeply interested in science and through my PhD experience had a strong affinity with the research and academic world. So when the newspaper decided to expand their team of science editors from two to four, I took the leap.”
On the job
Having worked in two different editorial departments, De Smet does recognize differences in the journalistic approach. “What makes the science editorial team unique—aside from the subject matter—is the critical perspective it brings. The bar for truth-finding is set much higher, and in a different way.”
A great example, he says, is the newspaper’s work during the COVID-19 crisis. The science editors took the lead and made sure everything was double-checked and relevant. “At that time, there were many unknowns. Some other media outlets published a lot of opinions about the pandemic, but that doesn’t necessarily benefit the reader. We had the policy of not just asking whoever was available, but we rechecked everything with other experts to combine their insights. It’s this thoroughness when we craft our stories that I enjoy and why I really feel at home in the science editorial team.”
“Just because you are thorough doesn’t mean you can’t be clear. just because you explain it clearly, doesn’t mean you should cut corners.”
When there is no global health crisis taking up all bandwidth, the choice of which topics to cover is influenced by internal ideas and outside leads. Sometimes, the team starts researching a story based on their own curiosity and questions, other times they tap into the regular circuit—i.e. press releases and the main scientific outlets. The balance between both approaches varies.
“It could start with a triggering question from a colleague or a reader. In our search for an answer, we regularly stumble upon a relevant new discovery within the field. But we obviously follow what is featured in major publications, like Nature and Science, and on repositories like EurekAlert. These outlets alert us to new papers that are still under embargo, which gives us some time to prepare a story.”
De Smet and his colleagues are very mindful not to focus solely on news releases from research institutes or academic publishers, and to not only bring science based on a new publication. “It would narrow our focus and our narrative,” he explains. “It definitely helps to have a broad network to capture ideas, questions, or leads.”
In terms of crafting the story, there can be no trade-off between accuracy and readability. “Just because you are thorough doesn’t mean you can’t be clear,” says De Smet. “And just because you explain it clearly, doesn’t mean you should cut corners. Our goal is always to do both.” This is easier said than done, though. So what’s De Smet’s advice on how to pull this off?
“Always keep in mind why you want to tell something to your reader. This means you need to focus—you can’t put seven messages in one piece. But if you know what it is you want to convey, finding the words to do so clearly and accurately becomes less difficult.”
“Being selective is even more important for online news. When you are writing for a digital reader, you can’t get away with a poetic headline and a long introduction and digression. You have to get to the point directly and be transparent about what it is you are going to explain.”
On the role of science journalism
“It’s not our job to market the message that science is great, but by writing about science, we show the power of science. What we want to avoid is putting ourselves on the barricades. We should dare to be very critical about the scientific enterprise. Frauds happen, systems are flawed, and we need to cover such transgressions as well.”
“In principle, we can write about anything; there are no taboos about what we can cover. Some items are more difficult, because they involve fundamental research that may not have immediate relevance. Such topics require more effort, from press officers, but also for the journalist. In the end, you write for a reader and you want stories that will be read.”
De Smet immediately adds that this doesn’t mean the choice of topics is based solely on reader popularity. “Like every newspaper, our editorial team sets boundaries in terms of relevance and importance.”
“What I also see happening is that scientists profile their research based on what is likely to be picked up in the press. I’m very skeptical whether that is really the way to make a meaningful impact. Ideally, it’s a win-win: by focusing on societal relevance, you might come up with better research questions, regardless of what scores in the press.”
In the end, not everything is suited for a newspaper or magazine, and a well-written press release doesn’t guarantee you’ll be heard in the press. De Smet stresses that making the news doesn’t have to be the primary goal of your outreach efforts. “Outreach is a public service, and there are many other valuable ways to share your research, beyond newspapers.”
On working with scientists
“We are heavily dependent on scientists when we write our news stories,” says De Smet. Are they generally approachable and receptive? Or is the interviewer-interviewee relation a tense one?
“Our impression is that scientists are generally approachable. They want to tell their stories, and are willing to take the time to speak to us. Of course, there are people who prefer not to, which we find unfortunate. The person who conducted the research can often explain it well, and even if not, we try our best to make it understandable.”
Any tips for how scientists could help science journalists better? “Scientists must definitely not be too accommodating,” laughs De Smet. He means that they should feel comfortable pointing out what is outside of their field of expertise. “Don’t answer off the cuff just because you want to be friendly to the journalist, that doesn’t help us. At the same time, scientists shouldn’t be too modest either. It is helpful if they share their vision about their research field, beyond their own results.”
To summarize: share the broader context but within the limits of what you know? “Yes, and feel free to express doubt. I realize we ask a lot!”
Are scientists equally demanding of journalists? In De Smet’s experience, most researchers are reasonable in their expectations. “When we quote someone, we often have them review our article before it is published. I think that’s beneficial for both parties: scientists might provide more nuance or suggestions, and we make sure our coverage is balanced and accurate. Of course, we need to guard the readability of the piece and in the end, we decide which suggestions to incorporate or not, but usually scientists are fair about it.”
“When it’s a spokesperson from a lobby organization, we generally don’t have them review our work, because we know that they have a certain agenda. With a scientist, however, we assume that—like us—they serve the public interest.”
“It’s not our job to market the message that science is great, but by writing about science, we show the power of science”
On the difference between academia and media
Looking back, does he sometimes miss academia? Or aspects of his life as a PhD student?
“One of the big differences between research and science journalism is the timelines. Scientists can work for months on something to get a result, while journalists work on a very short-term basis, which makes it impossible to be as thorough. We are fortunate that the science news desk at De Standaard works at different speeds. Sometimes, we have only a few hours to write a story, normally a day or two, and every so often we get weeks to work on something. It’s great in the academic sector that you can take your time.”
“On the other hand, what I often missed in academia is more focus on relevance. As journalists, we are very relevance-driven, the reader also demands it. In academia, normative questions—what should we do with a given piece of knowledge—aren’t always asked, and the scientific publishing format doesn’t encourage it either. Sometimes, in top articles, you do find reflections that dig a little deeper, but it’s rare.”
Finally, does De Smet have any tips on how to craft a great pitch? “Don’t forget about your enthusiasm! People often want to highlight the importance of their findings, rather than lead with ‘hey, here is something interesting.’ Sometimes the context of a piece of research is evident in and of itself, but in other cases, it is really helpful to describe why the research came about, what was the trigger?”
Proud moment
“One of the beautiful projects we worked on is ‘CurieuzeNeuzen,’ a trailblazing citizen science project focusing on air pollution in Flanders, conducted in collaboration with the University of Antwerp and De Standaard’s readers. We asked the latter to place test tubes outside their windows to collect data about emissions, primarily from cars. It was a way for the newspaper to clearly demonstrate how science works: we talked about the methods, the analytical approach, and of course how the results affected different personal situations—in other words: capturing process, output, and relevance.”
Comments