The Science Writing Inner Club: a Communication Link Between Science and the Lay Public Author(S): Sharon Dunwoody Source: Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol

The Science Writing Inner Club: A Communication Link between Science and the Lay Public Author(s): Sharon Dunwoody Source: Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 5, No. 30 (Winter, 1980), pp. 14-22 Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/689304 Accessed: 01-02-2016 17:32 UTC

REFERENCES Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article: http://www.jstor.org/stable/689304?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents

You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Sage Publications, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Science, Technology, & Human Values. http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 163.238.69.26 on Mon, 01 Feb 2016 17:32:03 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 14 STHV * Winter 1980

The Science WritingInner SHARON DUNWOODY Club: A Communication Link AssistantProfessor Between Science School of Journalism The Ohio State University and the Lay Public Columbus,Ohio 43210

Since the mid-1960's, a relativelysmall groupof affectsthe news-selectionand news-gathering specialtyreporters has playeda largepart in de- behaviorsof its members. terminingwhat theU.S. publichas learnedabout It does so mainlyby emphasizingcooperative significantscientific happenings. Nonscientists behaviors among reportersin situations that dependprimarily on printmedia fornews about should be highlycompetitive. Cooperation pro- science;' therefore,science writersemployed by vides a numberof benefitsfor members, but it major newspapersand wire serviceshave played also exactscertain costs when the larger notion of crucialroles within the last fifteenyears as trans- "responsiblescience coverage"is taken into ac- latorsof scientific information for a wide rangeof count. For example,inner club membershipen- publics. However,although the names of these hances storyaccuracy by makinga widerpool of journalistsmay be familiarto many of us, we resourcesavailable to a journalist.But coopera- know verylittle about how theydo theirjobs. tivestory selection also has thenegative effect of In an effortto find out, I studied the news- reducingvariety in science news coverageby fos- gatheringbehaviors of a sample of the top U.S. teringa homogeneousnotion of "what's news" at a mass mediascience writers at theannual meeting givenevent. of the AmericanAssociation for the Advance- ment of Science.2The study,conducted during 1976-78, consistedof threeparts: (1) face-to-face interviewswith the journalists,with questions primarilydirected to reporters'perceptions of how they select news and gatherinformation; The Genesis of the Inner Club (2) observationof the journalists as theycovered the AAAS annualmeeting; and (3) contentanalysis of Membersof this informalscience-writing net- the nearly 800 stories about the meetingthat work readilyacknowledge the bond that exists were publishedin U.S. daily newspapers.3 among them.Said one, forexample: The studyfound that the U.S. mass media science writingcommunity is dominatedby a rela- Thereis a groupof veryexperienced science tivelysmall groupof newspaper,magazine and writersin thiscountry, and we do form-gee,I hate wire servicereporters who, since the mid-1960's, to use the term-somethingof a clique. We keep have largelydetermined what the publichas read each other apprised of what's going on. . . A bond about significantscientific events. These indi- of trusthas grownup betweenus. viduals,who at any one time totalno morethan 25 or 30 journalists,form a closelyknit, informal Another similarly viewed the relationships social networkthat I call an "innerclub."4 Many among his colleagues as something akin to a of its membershave been a partof this club for "fraternity,"characterizing the club as "kind of morethan 10 years;in fact,its stabilityover time an in-group . . . we're all friends.We've worked may be unique among informalnetworks. And together for a long time and, obviously, . . . it the club is worthstudying precisely because it evolves over time."

SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, & HUMAN VALUES, VOL. 5, NO. 30, WINTER 1980 0162-2439/80/300014-09$02.50/0 ? 1980 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the President and Fellows of Harvard College

This content downloaded from 163.238.69.26 on Mon, 01 Feb 2016 17:32:03 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Dunwoody 15

Most of the members agree that the group could an individual with limited knowledge. coalesced in the 1960's when some of them were Also, when the normalreporter/source problems suddenly dubbed science writersand sent by their arose,the journalists could close ranksand collec- newspapers or wire services to cover the great tivelynegotiate a solution,a procedurethat prom- science story of the decade: the manned landings ised moresuccess thandid individualefforts. The on the moon. Many of the journalists who jour- science writershad also become close friends,so neyed to Cape Canaveral or to Houston possessed cooperativebehavior seemed a betterstrategy for little scientific expertise. They had been pulled preservingthose relationshipsthan did competi- from general reporting backgrounds, and their tive behavior.Finally, the qualityof a reporter's educations had been primarilyjournalistic. Their workwas judgedby his editorin relationto what editors knew even less about science, however; the otherreporters were producing. The reporter, so, despite their lack of experience, these new therefore,could satisfyhis editornot by "scoop- science journalists were expected to know what ing" his fellowscience writersbut by producing they were doing. This meant they were responsi- the same story each day. Cooperativebehavior ble for front-pagestories that were both substan- helped to ensurethat. tive and accurate, yet they could not expect much help from home. Consequently, they turned to one another. Away from their city rooms for weeks, they became socialized to each other ratherthan to their The Inner Club Today peers in the home newsroom.5 As one science writer noted: Innerclub memberstoday (Table 1) sharesev- At the heightof it [thespace program],they were eral characteristics.They generallyare affiliated makinga majorlaunch every three months, and you with the prestigeprint media, media that can would be down thereat the Cape fortwo-and-a-half affordto make sciencea nationalor even interna- weeks at a time.The resultwas thatit [thegroup of tional beat. Unlike most reporters,they travel science writers]became your family.There were regularly,spending days at a timeaway fromthe love affairs,there were hates and fights.. . . It became a travelingroad show with the same people cityroom. They see each otherregularly at large showingup timeand timeagain, going to the same scientificmeetings, at events such as the 1976 places and doingthe same things.There was great Vikinglandings on Mars (coveredat the JetPro- cohesiveness. pulsionCenter in California),or theLegionnaire's Disease crisis in Pennsylvania.They have been Another agreed that covering events away from workingas science writersfor a numberof years, the city room played a large part in the evolution long enough for close personalrelationships to of the group: develop. And they share an intense concernfor professionalaspects of science writing,for the We see more of each otherbecause of goingto qualityand accuracyof what theydo. these meetings,covering these stories.You're with The majorityof inner club membersin this each otherfor several days at a time,most of the day studyare male; most hold bachelor'sdegrees in and mostof the evening;you tendto go out and eat journalismor some othernon-science field, but dinner together.So you get to be verygood friends. have takengraduate courses in scienceor science You've got a common I interest,like have morein writing.As students,they common with science writersfrom had no interestin be- other papers coming than I do with reporters here on the sciencewriters, and mostworked as gen- , because we're covering eralreporters for some yearsbefore concentrating the same stories,we interviewthe same people,and on science reporting. we see each othernot just casually. So we all getto be As of 1979, the averageinner club memberin prettygood friends. this studyhad been a full-timescience writerfor 15 years.They are mostlikely to workfor a morn- The major emphasis of the club as it evolved ing metropolitannewspaper with a circulationof was on cooperation. Cooperation seemed a good 300,000 or more. The majorityprefer space, as- strategybecause by sharing expertise, the group tronomyand thehard sciences in generalto other could evaluate scientific informationbetter than areas of science and perceivethemselves to be

This content downloaded from 163.238.69.26 on Mon, 01 Feb 2016 17:32:03 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 16 STHV *Winter 1980 veryautonomous of the newsroom,with the op- tionof selecting their own storytopics at least 80 The Inner Club's Effectson News percentof the time.6In fact,they are likelyto act Gathering as science editorson theirnewspapers whether theyactually have the title or not. Editorsmay deferto theirjudgment when evaluating the qual- The inner club network has an effecton ity of science stories writtenby others. The news-makingprimarily when science journalists majorityof respondentsin this study travel at convergeon one eventor meeting.Although this least fivetimes a year,usually to scientificmeet- is not a daily(or even weekly)occurrence, it does ings. And the news criteriathey perceive them- increasethe likelihood that coverage of any scien- selves to be using are quite similar to those tificevent significant enough to attractgroups of utilized by other journalistsin other coverage journalists will be affectedby the network. areas: readerinterest, potential significance of in- Understandingthe workingsof the inner club formationto reader,newness of information,in- maynot help us to interpretthe how's and why's formationthat interestseither the journalistor of dailynewspaper science coverage;but, when a his editor,prominence of source,uniqueness of majorscientific "happening" takes place, knowl- information,proximity, and the intrinsicimpor- edge of innerclub effectscan providesome in- tance of the informationto science. sightto mass media coverageof thatevent.

TABLE 1 Names of Science JournalistsSuggested by Colleagues forInner Club Status, with Titles and Media Affiliations at Time of Study

* George Alexander Science writer Los Angeles Times Stuart Auerbach Medical/Science writer The Washington Post * JerryBishop Staffreporter The Wall Street Journal Al Blakeslee Science writer Associated Press (retired) Jane Brody Medical writer The New York Times Victor Cohn Science writer The Washington Post *Bob Cooke Science editor Boston Globe Lewis Cope Science writer The Minneapolis Tribune Donald Drake Science/Medicine writer Philadelphia Inquirer *Ed Edelson Science editor The New York News * Peter Gwynne General editor Newsweek Bill Hines Science writer Chicago Sun-Times *Don Kirkman Science writer Scripps-Howard Newspapers * Ron Kotulak Science editor Chicago Tribune *John Langone Medical/Science editor Boston Herald-American Harry Nelson Medical writer Los Angeles Times *Tom O'Toole Science editor The Washington Post * David Perlman Science editor San Francisco Chronicle David Prowitt Science correspondent Public Broadcasting System * JudyRandal Science correspondent The New York News * Joann Rodgers Medical writer Baltimore News-American *Al Rossiter Science editor United Press International * Joel Shurkin Science writer Philadelphia Inquirer Art Snider Science editor Chicago Sun-Times * Brian Sullivan Science writer Associated Press * Walter Sullivan Science editor The New York Times JohnNoble Wilford Science writer The New York Times Science writer The National Observer * Patrick Young (now free lance)

n=28 * Participantsin study(n=17)

This content downloaded from 163.238.69.26 on Mon, 01 Feb 2016 17:32:03 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Dun woody 17

The effectsare substantial.Inner club jour- made up of journalists from the prestige media, nalistsmay constituteonly a small proportionof members are not only close friendsbut also each science writerswho convergeon any scientific other's main competition. The inner club event,but theysignificantly affect news coverage member handles this contradiction by nullifying primarilybecause theywork for either the major the competitive aspects. Each journalist knows wire services(Associated Press and United Press that his editor is watching the competing news- International)or the elite printmedia, who also papers and wire services and is evaluating what he participatein wireservice operations (such as The produces in relation to what the competition pub- New York Times wire service,Scripps-Howard, lishes. If he produces something different,he may Knight-Ridderand the Los Angeles Timesl be in trouble; at the very least he will have to Washington Post service).Wire copy accounts for defend his choice. But if all competitors produce a substantialportion of the editorialdiet ofmost the same story for the day, then each editor as- newspapersin thiscountry. Thus, although only a sumes his reporterhas done a good job. As one few science journalistsbelong to the innerclub, inner club member noted: theycan greatlyinfluence what the public even- tuallywill read about an event.7 A sciencewriter will come back and say 'Hey,I've To studythe innerclub in action,I chose as a founda good one,' and ears will prickup. I'll some- timesdo the same. You sharewith "laboratory"the annual meeting of the American friendsand they share with theirfriends and it gets around.Every- Associationfor the Advancement of Science. The body'sin the same boat,trying to please editorsand meetingis one of the largestscientific gatherings get a good storydone. in the countryand annually draws more journalists than almost any other scientificoccur- 2) Collective story selection provides each re- rence;average newsroom attendance ranges from porterwith the personal reassurance that he has 300 to 600. The eventis so popularamong science found a "newsworthy" story.Just as editors gauge writers,in fact,that the National Associationof the quality of their reporters' story selections Science Writers,Inc., conductsits businessmeet- against the competition, the reporters come to ing each year at AAAS.8 Since most inner club depend on each other to validate what is news on reportersconsider it a "required"annual trip,the a given day. It is difficultto select one story and meetingprovided an ideal settingfor observation then watch one's colleagues choose another. One of innerclub interactions.9 journalist who is not an inner club member re- Various cooperative behaviors among inner marked that "everybodytends to agree on what is club membersaffected two points in the news- the important story" at a meeting and she finds makingprocess at the meeting:topic selection that "a little bit unsettling.When you go to those and informationgathering. meetings . . . there's a little bit more of that pack Topic selection. The most frequentlymen- mentality in terms of everybody pressuring tioned type of cooperation was helping one everybodyelse" to agree jointly on a major story anotherselect stories.At a meetinglike that of for the day. AAAS, muchof the practiceseems to be a matter 3) Selecting stories collectively allows the of discussingstory possibilities informally and inner club also to pool its expertise. One reporter listeningto colleaguesweigh the potential of par- may be able to warn another away from a risky ticularpress conferences or evaluate the "quota- story; a third writer may be able to suggest a bility"of particular scientists. The end resultis a differentstory possibility altogether.As one inner consensus among club membersabout what or club member noted: "I'm likely to change my who is news at a givenmoment. Such a consensus mind (about a story topic) if it's an area that I seems to providethree major benefits for partici- don't know much about and if I know some other pants: reporterknows a lot about it." 1) It allows themto "neutralize"the competi- One example from the 1978 AAAS meeting tive aspectsof the coveragesituation. Journalism sheds some light on this process. A number of is traditionallya competitivebusiness, with one inner club members attended a press conference newspaperpitted against another, one journalist at which a scientist presented findingsof a study tryingto scoop his orher colleagues. But at events of Seventh Day Adventists that indicated con- such as the AAAS meeting, the inner club sumption of red meat is linked to increased rates memberis facedwith a paradox.Since the club is of heart attacks, increased cancer rates and de-

This content downloaded from 163.238.69.26 on Mon, 01 Feb 2016 17:32:03 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 18 STHV@Winter 1980 creased life expectancy.After the press confer- reporterscan gain some controlover the inter- ence, one inner club memberwarned her col- view situationand can focuslines of questioning leagues to obtaina copy of the researchfindings as necessary.At the 1977 AAAS meeting,for beforewriting anything; she feltthe studymay example, threeinner club membersattended a not have controlledfor other confounding factors press conferenceat which a scientistdiscussed in the respondents'lifestyles and suggestedthe his attemptsto identifyinfant behaviors that journalistsmake sure the studywas a valid one mightbe usefulpredictors of Sudden Infant Death beforegoing ahead with a story.Several club Syndrome(SIDS). The threeinner club members memberstook her advice. had writtenfrequently about SIDS in othercon- Informationgathering. Althoughscience writ- texts,and when one beganquestioning the scien- ers are not eagerto talk about cooperativeinfor- tist closely about the predictivenature of his mation-gatheringbehaviors, I observedat least work,the othertwo joinedwhat became a rather fourtypes of information sharing during the 1977 heatedexchange. The journalistsargued that they AAAS meeting. did not want to writestories that might provide 1) Providing scientificinformation. Perhaps false hope to readers,and the scientistin turn most common among information-gatheringbe- arguedthat he could not generalizeany further haviorswas the tendencyof the innerclub to act fromhis data than he had alreadydone. In the as a pool ofresources for its members.Journalists end, none of the threejournalists wrote stories withscience questionswould corralone another, about the SIDS research.Both scientist and jour- searchingfor definitions, clarifications, examples nalistswere angry,but one science writeron the and analogues.At times,the roomswhere report- sidelinefelt that such intense,cooperative ques- ers typedtheir stories would be alive with ques- tioningwas justifiedin cases such as this. He tions and answers,as one reporterdepended on explained that a numberof writershave been another'sexpertise. Information was alwaysfreely "burned"by scientists claiming to have foundthe given. explanationfor SIDS. He feltthat when a jour- 2) Sharingnotes and interviews.Inner club nalist is writinga SIDS story,he is justifiedin members respect one another's journalistic pushingthe scientistto the limit,and the tech- abilities,and cooperativeinformation gathering nique of followingup on one another'squestions would sometimesextend to the actual sharingof at a pressconference is a goodway ofdoing that. interviewnotes or of the interview sessions 4) Actingas warningsystems for one another. themselves.In one instance,the science writer for Justas innerclub memberswarn each otheraway a large easternnewspaper set up an interview frompotentially risky topics or scientists,so do with an astronomer and then invited a they also flag informationthat must be inter- colleague-who happenedto workfor a compet- pretedcautiously. And if theyfeel a colleagueis ing eastern newspaper-to sit in with him. "goingbeyond the data" in drawingconclusions, Anotherjournalist recounted an instance,at an theywill take the timeto warnhim or herabout earlierAAAS meeting,when he and a fellowsci- it. An incidentthat took place at the 1977 AAAS ence writerwanted to attendfour different sym- meetingillustrates this point. One of the most posia at the same time and managedto do so by popularpress conferences at thatmeeting was on each attendingone and leavingtape recordersat new Viking data about Mars and its moon, the othertwo. "We wound up-the two of us- Phobos.During the pressconference, astronomer coveringfour separate meetings simultaneously," Carl Sagan noted that new measurementsof he said. "And we swapped notes . . . covered Phobos indicatedit was made up to some extent ourselvesthat way." ofcarbonaceous chondrites and constituted"a big 3) Supportivequestioning at pressconferences. lump oforganic matter orbiting Mars." The main Journalistsgenerally find press conferencesfrus- point of the discussion was that the data lent tratingbecause theyhave so littlecontrol over the credenceto the hypothesisthat Phobos maybe a "event"; reportersrarely work together, so ques- capturedasteroid. But one science writercame tionsare disparatewith little or no followup.This away fromthe press conferencewith the news is not the case among the inner club. The co- that "there's oil on Phobos. Phobos is a little operativenature of the groupencourages report- Saudi Arabia!" He apparentlyhad made the con- ers to take theirleads fromeach other,to ask ceptualleap fromlong-chain hydrocarbons to oil. followupquestions, to worktogether. By doing so, Several inner club memberswere visibly dis-

This content downloaded from 163.238.69.26 on Mon, 01 Feb 2016 17:32:03 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Dunwoody 19 turbedby the oil commentand talked further two negativeeffects on inner club coverageof with Sagan. One reporterthen corralledthe col- science.One is standardizationin storyselection, league who had come up with the Saudi Arabia and the otheris the emphasison some areas of statementand warned him, "Sagan just called science to the neglectof others.When the inner [anotherreporter] down on that[mentioning oil]. club attends a meetingsuch as that of AAAS, You can have long-chainhydrocarbons without it most factorsencourage a homogeneousoutput. beinganything like oil." Ultimately,the idea of Cooperativenewsgathering favors duplication; a oil on Phoboswas eitherplayed down in or even largenumber of talented writers concentrate on a eliminatedfrom inner club stories. relativelysmall numberof topics. The concentra- tion of time and effortis not intrinsicallybad- any one reportercould not possibly produce storiesabout more than a minisculepart of the meeting.However, if reportersignore topics at a Advantagesand Disadvantages science meeting,they should do so accordingto of Inner Club Membership some relevantcriteria. What readerssee or read about the event should in some way be more important,more relevantto themperhaps, than The main functionof the inner club, then, what theydon't. seems to be to turnwhat shouldbe a highlycom- It is not clear thatcooperative story selections petitivemedia situation into a cooperativeone for by the inner club are based on such criteria. its members.10Resulting cooperative strategies Membersmay definenews less by judgmentsof seem to helpinner club membersto producenews the intrinsicimportance of informationthan by more efficientlyand moreaccurately. the notion that if othershave done this story, Most inner club members come to science thenit mustin factbe important.In otherwords, meetingssaddled with deadline demands.They duplicationmay be a strategyfor satisfying inter- do nothave theluxury of taking two or threedays nal (organizational)pressures but may have little to gatherinformation for a story;in many cases meaningoutside the reportingselection process. they may be expectedto producetwo storiesa Inner club standardizationof storychoices at a day,and time is of the essence. Sharinginforma- scientificevent thus means thatlay readerswill tion is one way to cut down on the gathering be exposed to only a small portionof the event time.Being able to look at a colleague'sinterview itselfand, in addition,will be given no help in notes means you do not need to interviewthe understandingthe criteria used to selectthat small scientistyourself. Collaborative questioning in a pool of stories. pressconference may provide sufficient informa- My data indicate that these journalistsalso tion to eliminatethe need forfurther discussion tendto coverareas of science with which they are with the scientistsafter the conference.Sharing familiar.Such a situation is not a problemif informationis, thus,an efficientstrategy for news backgrounds are diverse, but homogeneous production. science interests among reporters lay the Sharingalso may increase accuracy.Because groundworkfor neglect of certain areas of science the informationthey cover is so technical,sci- by the club's majority.As Table 2 attests,there is ence writersworry about the accuracyof their a certain amount of homogeneityin reporter products.Accuracy is enhancedwhen a journalist interestswithin the club. Since many members avails him-or herselfof a pool of resources-such spent most of their early science-writingyears as the innerclub. A numberof science writers withthe space program,the physical sciences and have accumulatedexpertise in specificareas of astronomyrank high. Others have developed science and are able to providedetailed informa- interestsin specificfields such as climatologyor tion to theircolleagues. By emphasizingsharing, geology,"but areas of littleinterest to most club the club encouragesinteraction and the typeof membersare likelyto be neglected.And the fields behavior monitoringillustrated by the Phobos generatingthe least amount of interestamong incident. these respondentsare the social sciences. However,while these behaviorsprobably in- Science writers-of all journalists-shouldbe crease the accuracyof the scientificinformation equippedto reporton the social sciences; in fact, presentedto thepublic, I thinkthey also have had theyare not. Few feel theyknow enoughabout

This content downloaded from 163.238.69.26 on Mon, 01 Feb 2016 17:32:03 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 20 STHV * Winter 1980 social science researchtechniques to evaluate TABLE 2 studiesand make news decisions.The typicalre- Scientific Interests of the Inner Club Ranked sponseis to avoidsocial scienceor at least to view by Frequency of Mention lack of evaluative skills as no great barrierto writing."I'm not verywell equippedto evaluate sociology,"said one innerclub member,"but it Number of can't hurtanybody so I figureit's not goingto do Topic mentions too muchdamage if I getit a littlescrewed up." So what's news to the innerclub is not likelyto be Space 14 social science. And even when a social science Astronomy 13 storyis picked up, innerclub membershipmay Other physical sciences, not be of much help in ensuringaccuracy. None particularlygeology 12 of the innerclub membersstudied in thisproject Medicine/biology 10 professedto have any social science expertise.A Environment/energy 9 social sciences "pool of resources"simply may Anthropology/archaeology 8 not exist among these elite science writers. Technology 7 Political/social aspects of science 6 Social science/behavior 4

The Futureof the Inner Club Total numberof respondentsin study:17

The inner club will continue to influence science news coverage in the United States forsome time; members are relativelyyoung and show no intention of stepping aside. Nevertheless, I be- Many of them majored in science in college, knew lieve that the club's influence is likely to di- as students that they wanted to become science minish over time. reporters,and began theirmass media careers not Science writers appear to be shiftingemphasis as general reportersbut as science writers.Few of and resources away from coverage of discrete them were around when the manned space pro- events to coverage of complex issues, such as the gram was in full swing, and they seem to be nationwide use of solar technologies or the indus- very interested in covering political, economic, trial potential of recombinant DNA techniques. sociological and technological aspects of science. This shift may be partly adaptive; few scientific Although inner club members do not avoid such events today can rival the manned space shots for areas, the younger journalists seem to place excitement and front-pagepotential. The shift higher priorityon the integration of "pure" sci- also may signal a recognition that science's im- ence with its social ramifications. portant effectson society do not lend themselves The inner club will, of course, not disappear. to an event orientation in news stories. Such a However, as young science journalists are hired switch from event to non-event coverage of sci- and opportunities to become socialized to one ence does, however, reduce the frequency with another at scientificevents decline, the incidence which the inner club is coming together.An in- of intense cooperation among journalists that so formalnetwork that depends on personal interac- characterizes the inner club today should de- tions will be likely to suffer. crease. Such an evolution may give individual A second major reason forthe club's diminish- science writers sufficientindependence to allow ing influence is that a number of "new" jour- development of personal newsmaking strategies nalists moving up in the mass media ranks have while at the same time enabling the science writ- not become socialized to the inner club."2 Most ing community to retain enough cooperative be- simply have not been around long enough-less haviors to give members access to some of the than 10 years in most cases-but they also bring distinct advantages of peer monitoringand assis- very differentbackgrounds to the profession. tance.

This content downloaded from 163.238.69.26 on Mon, 01 Feb 2016 17:32:03 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Dunwoody 21

NOTES ofPhysics; Dorothy P. Smith,manager of the news servicefor the AmericanChemical So- ciety; and Carol Rogers,public information 1. See, for example, Hillier Krieghbaum, Sci- officerfor the AmericanAssociation for the ence, the News, and the Public (New York: Advancementof Science. The resultinglists New York UniversityPress, 1958), pp. 12-16; were thenmerged and the names rankedac- James W. Swinehart and Jack M. McLeod, cordingto the numberof mentionsthey re- "News About Science: Channels, Audiences ceived. Those science journalistsnamed by and Effects," 24 Public Opinion Quarterly threeor moreof the sevenpersons were con- (Winter 1960): 583-589; and Orest Dubas and sideredlikely candidates for this experienced Lisa Martel, Science, Mass Media and the "innercircle" of science writersthat the au- Public, vol. 2 of Media Impact (Ottawa: In- thorwished to study.Table 1 providesnames formationCanada, 1975), pp. 34-36. of all personson that finallist. The author 2. Study findingsdiscussed in this article con- then included in the sample all personson stitute a part of the author's doctoral disserta- the list who indicatedthey intended to cover tion, "Science Journalists:A Study of Factors the 1977 AAAS annual meeting,the event Affectingthe Selection of News at a Scien- aroundwhich the studywas designed.Of the tific Meeting," Indiana University, 1978. 28 names on the list, 17 ultimatelywere in- Data were collected with the aid of a grant cluded in the study. fromthe Gannett Newspaper Foundation via 4. This term originallywas used by Timothy the Indiana University Center for New Crouse to describethe social networkestab- Communications. Other components of the lishedamong national political reporters who larger study not discussed here include com- were coveringpresidential candidates during parisons of the news selection patternsof the the 1972 U.S. election.His book,The Boys on top mass media science writerswith those of the Bus (New York: BallantineBooks, 1973), journalists with much less expertise in sci- providesa numberof accounts of behaviors ence. Also included in the dissertation are that closely parallel what I observedamong analyses of the stories produced about the the science writinginner club. meeting, including comparisons between 5. Socializationacross media organizations,the newspaper and broadcast coverage, between situationdescribed here, is not common in local (Denver) and nonlocal coverage, be- journalism.Studies such as the classical one tween media that sent reportersto the meet- by Warren Breed ["Social Control in the ing and media that did not, and between wire Newsroom," 33 Social Forces (May 1955): service organizations and newspapers. 326-335] have consistentlyfound that jour- 3. Details of the study methodology are avail- nalists become socialized to peers within able fromthe author. I suspected that I would theirown newsrooms.The exceptionsto the find a small but cohesive network of experi- rule seem to be specialtyreporters, who es- enced science writersin the United States, so tablish relationshipswith similar reporters I set out to construct a sample of those very fromother news organizations.Descriptions individuals through a self-selection method. ofthis specialist phenomenon are provided by Three prominent science writers and four JeremyTunstall, Journalists at Work (Lon- public informationpersons who work forna- don: Constable,1971) and by Steve Chibnall, tional scientific institutions were asked to Law-and-Order News (London: Tavistock provide names of journalists whom theyregu- PublicationsLimited, 1977). larly encounter in major science news situa- 6. This percentagerepresents a high level of tions. Those providing names were David autonomywhen comparedto editorialper- Perlman, then science editor of the San Fran- sonnelin general.A nationalstudy of Ameri- cisco Chronicle; Ron Kotulak, science editor can journalistsby Johnstone,Slawski and forthe Chicago Tribune; Ed Edelson, science Bowman titled The News People (Urbana: editor forThe New York News; Don Phillips, Universityof Illinois Press,1976) foundthat senior project specialist for the American only 46.2% of the respondentswere able to Hospital Association; Audrey Likely, director make any of theirown storyassignments in- of public relations forthe American Institute dependentlyof theireditors. In large media

This content downloaded from 163.238.69.26 on Mon, 01 Feb 2016 17:32:03 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 22 STHV * Winter 1980

organizationswith more than 100 editorial observers who were stationed at points employees,where science writers are likely to throughoutthe press area of the meeting. be employed,the percentagedrops to 36.2. Additionally,the author has subsequently 7. Additionaldata gatheredfor this studycor- gatheredfurther observational data at both roboratedthis argument.A total of 88 mass the 1978 Washingtonand 1979 Houston media print journalists covered the 1977 meetings. AAAS meeting.Of thatgroup, 14 wereinner 10. Observation of the inner club at several club members.Although the innerclub con- AAAS meetingsindicates that the kinds of stitutedonly 16% of all reporters,the group informationsharing discussed here take place accountedfor 56% of the 772 newspaperand primarilyamong members. The informal news magazinestories published throughout networkis based on close personalties that thecountry in ensuingweeks. When coverage have developedover time and, like anyone, by the two local (Denver) newspaperswas an innerclub memberwill interactmost with eliminatedfrom the analysis,the percentage his or her friends.Members will certainly of storiesattributable to innerclub members provideinformation to non-memberswhen increased to 64% (n = 583). asked,but theywill rarelyinitiate communi- 8. It shouldbe emphasizedthat the AAAS meet- cation with journalistsoutside the network. ingwas selectedprimarily because it is a set- This means that reporterswho are new to tingthat predictably attracts the innerclub sciencewriting, who perhapsneed morehelp each year.The meetingis sufficientlydiffer- with informationthan anyone,are oftenthe ent fromother scientific meetings to make most isolated at these meetings. one cautiousabout generalizing the studyre- 11. Don Kirkmanof Scripps-Howard,for exam- sults to them, but the number of science ple, developed an interestin weatherfrom storiesgenerated by theAAAS meetingalone severalyears as a weatherobserver for both is sufficientto warrantexamination of the the U.S. Navy and the U.S. WeatherBureau. event. And subsequent discussions of the Al Rossiterof UPI majoredin geologyas an studyfindings with science writersinvolved undergraduateand even spenta yearin grad- in this research have elicited numerous uate school taking geology courses before acknowledgmentsthat behaviors observed at turningto journalism. the AAAS meetingparallel those that take 12. Among these journalists are Ira Flatow, place when the innerclub gathersto cover science reporterfor National Public Radio otherevents as well. I wouldlike to thankthe in Washington, D.C.; Cristine Russell, AAAS and particularlyArthur Herschman, science-medicinereporter for The Washing- head of the meetingsand publicationsdivi- ton Star; JonFranklin, science writerfor the sion, and Carol Rogers,public information Baltimore Evening Sun; Bob Gillette,science officer,for their cooperation with the study. writerfor the Los Angeles Times; and David 9. Data were gatheredat the 1977 AAAS meet- Salisbury,science writerfor the Christian ingin Denverthrough the use offour trained Science Monitor.

This content downloaded from 163.238.69.26 on Mon, 01 Feb 2016 17:32:03 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions