Category Archives: Writing

Five science writers share tips on how to make science stories entertaining and funny

Five science writers share tips on how to make science stories entertaining and funny

By Clara Lincolnhol

This is the 6th in a series of articles by Knight Center students who attended the recent annual conference of the National Association of Science Writers.

“Welcome to how to engage an audience,” said Kathyrn Jepson, the editor-in-chief for Symmetry Magazine and a science fiction editor.

Jepson and four other journalists spoke at a panel at the National Science Writers Conference in Chicago to share how writers can implement humor in their writing to get readers hooked on a scientific story.

Blythe Terrell, the executive editor at Science Vs., said a critical way to tell a funny science story is by getting the scientist in on a joke.

“One of the critical ways we do that is by giving scientists a space where they hopefully feel comfortable opening up and having just a little bit of fun,” Terrell said. “And that is often on our tape in our audio.”

She said they will write weird questions and see if the scientist wants to go along with them.

“It’s not like we aren’t taking the topic seriously. We are treating it with seriousness. The rest of the episode is serious, but we find space for these things and we find that really engages listeners,” Terrell said.

Kate Gammon, a comedian, and freelance journalist, said she writes a lot about crises, like the biodiversity crisis, the climate crisis and political crisis. “It felt sometimes like I was writing an obituary for nature,” Gammon said. “So I had to make jokes.” Continue reading →

NASW EDITORS

Editors are people too!

By Julia Belden

This is the 5th in a series of articles by Knight Center students who attended the recent annual conference of the National Association of Science Writers.

It’s a scenario every journalist is familiar with: You file what you think is a solid draft of a story, only to find it covered in red ink and comments upon its return from the editor’s desk.

Editing is a critical part of the writing process, yet there is frequently tension between writers and editors. At the recent National Association of Science Writers conference, a panel of editors and freelance writers took to the stage to offer their insights into this relationship.

At the heart of it all? “Do unto others.”

“Number one is treat your writers the way you wish you would be treated if you were a writer,” said Sarah Zielinski, the print editor for Science News Explores.

Attendees at the National Association of Science Writers list helpful and frustrating editor behaviors. Credit: Julia Belden

This means giving feedback with kindness and intention, the panelists continued.

Carmen Drahl, a freelance journalist and editor, cautioned editors about word choices when editing: “Never underestimate the emotional impact that a glib comment or off-the-cuff comment can have.”

The panelists recognized the inherent power imbalance between editors and writers. Freelance writers are in an especially precarious position, as money might not flow as steadily as it would in a staff writing job.

Because of this dynamic, writers might be hesitant to reach out for help when they need it, the panelists said.

Whether it’s a scheduling issue, a personal emergency or you’re simply stuck on something in a story, it’s important to communicate. Editors want to help, said the panelists. Continue reading →

FREELANCING

So you’ve landed a pitch: Science writers’ tips and tricks for freelancing

By Emilio Perez Ibarguen

This is the 4th in a series of articles by Knight Center students who attended the recent annual conference of the National Association of Science Writers.

Financial instability, long gaps between assignments and burnout are challenges many freelance journalists must deal with, whether they’re new to the business or have been writing for decades.

At the recent conference of the National Association of Science Writers in Chicago, freelancers and editors met to discuss how both sides can better understand each other, communicate effectively and, in the process, produce better journalism.

Throughout the panel, the editors and freelancers repeatedly emphasized the value of communication.

Sarah Scoles, a freelancer who has written for WIRED and The New York Times, noted that editors are often happy to give reporters more time to fact check parts of their story, as long as they’re given a heads up.

Scoles, who is also a contributing editor for Scientific American, recalled a recent day when she was asked to fact check details in three separate stories, and subsequently “had a really bad day.”

Had she just reached out to one of those editors and asked for an extra day, Scoles said, she would have saved herself the headache.

Editors and freelance journalists emphasized the benefits of communication at the recent National Association of Science Writers annual conference in Chicago. Credit: Emilio Perez Ibarguen

“Remembering that editors want to help you, since they know you’re people, is a good thing to do,” Scoles told an audience of science journalists, writers and communicators.

Shi En Kim, another freelancer whose work has appeared in National Geographic and Smithsonian Magazine, added that freelancers shouldn’t be scared to be upfront about unexpected challenges in their reporting process.

A source falling through or a specific reporting date changing isn’t the end of the world, said Kim, who goes by her last name, but it’s best to keep the person in charge of editing the final piece in the loop.

Another nugget of advice Kim offered: having a quick 15-minute call to go through questions with your editor can be far quicker, and more effective, than a prolonged email correspondence. Continue reading →

NUCLEAR WEAPONS

Nuclear weapons expert criticizes Trump “Golden Dome” plan

By Emilio Perez Ibarguen

This is the 3nd in a series of articles by Knight Center students who attended the recent annual conference of the National Association of Science Writers.

President Donald Trump has announced plans to create a network of satellites to defend the U.S. from a potential missile attack — a project he coined the “Golden Dome.”

While his administration has lauded the project as vital for protecting the nation from its enemies, particularly those armed with nuclear weapons, critics say it would be wildly expensive while not guaranteeing a comprehensive defense.

Lisbeth Gronlund, who researches nuclear weapons and policy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, holds the latter opinion.

“The Golden Dome is not so golden,” Gronlund said during a lecture on nuclear weapons at the recent National Association of Science Writers annual conference in Chicago.

Lisbeth Gronlund is researcher at the Laboratory for Nuclear Security and Policy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Credit: Emilio Perez Ibarguen

The White House’s pitch: A constellation of satellites capable of detecting and shooting down missiles that would be operational by the end of Trump’s second term and cost $175 billion.

But that price tag is inaccurate, Gronlund said.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said in May that a design built to defend against one or two missiles could cost anywhere from $831 to $161 billion, depending on the price of launching all those satellites into space.

The conservative American Enterprise Institute in September said that providing a “moderate level of protection” against aerial threats could cost up to $1 trillion.

Constructing the all-encompassing, impermeable defense the president wants, the institute stated in a research paper, could cost as much as $3.6 trillion. Continue reading →