- Stories about floods, extreme heat, food safety, water quality and disease outbreaks regularly appear in the news. Climate science has long shown that these impacts are linked to climate change — yet that connection is not always made explicit in media reporting.
- But many day-to-day news events with a climate link are reported without explaining the connection.
- Whether climate science is included often comes down to practical realities: timing, access, whether someone can help explain what the evidence shows and what it means for this specific story.
- So what actually helps journalists include climate science when stories need to be published quickly?
- Journalists Qaanitah Hunter and Estelle Ellis share tips for climate scientists who want to work closer with journalists to help break down what newsroom realities mean in practice, and how to respond in ways that don’t compromise your work.
In today’s newsletter, Tanya Pampalone tells us how to get a journalist’s attention. Sign up for our newsletter today.
Stories about floods, extreme heat, food safety, water quality and disease outbreaks regularly appear in the news. Climate science has long shown that these impacts are linked to climate change — yet that connection is not always made explicit in media reporting.
Climate and infectious disease scientists know that climate change is the cause of extreme weather patterns, among other impacts, and that changes in our climate are reshaping the conditions that allow certain diseases to spread, for example, through flooding, water contamination, heat and changing ecosystems. These links are documented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the series of Lancet Countdown reports, which provide annual assessments of climate change–related health risks.
But many day-to-day news events with a climate link are reported without explaining the connection. These stories will run with or without climate scientists. News about heat, floods, food safety, water quality or disease outbreaks moves quickly, and coverage doesn’t pause while experts become available.
Whether climate science is included often comes down to practical realities: timing, access, whether someone can help explain what the evidence shows and what it means for this specific story.
Journalists say experts can often be difficult to reach, or they wait to speak until relevant findings about a climate issue are formally published. It’s a mismatch of pace: the daily rush to deadline for journalists, while science often moves over months and years.
When that happens, stories move on, and in those gaps, misinformation can take hold.
Research shows that misinformation spreads easily and is hard to undo once it takes hold. Silence isn’t neutral in a fast-moving newsroom. If credible experts aren’t available, others step in to define the story.
Given these constraints, what actually helps journalists include climate science when stories need to be published quickly?
For Bhekisisa’s In Conversation with Journalists series, a set of online discussions with health and climate reporters supported by the Wellcome Trust, journalists Qaanitah Hunter (News24 and The Debrief Network) and Estelle Ellis (Daily Maverick) shared tips for climate scientists working with journalists to help break down what newsroom realities mean in practice, and how to respond in genuinely helpful ways without compromising your work.
* International Panel on the Information Environment (IPIE)
* Why Misinformation Must Not Be Ignored
* WHO One Health High-Level Expert Panel report
* Lancet Countdown on Health and Climate Change
#Tip 1: Be someone journalists can come back to. One correct fact is rarely enough to counter misinformation.
Journalists need trusted experts they can return to — to test claims, sense-check numbers, and add context as a story evolves. During the session, journalists Hunter and Ellis describe how their most impactful investigations were built on years of reporting the same issues and returning to the same communities and experts. That consistency made it easier to detect what was noise and what was a genuine story signal. Ellis says the best way to fight misinformation is by building trust.
“In the end, in a world that’s really post-truth, where do you find truth? In a personal connection. Exposure and exposé only come from relationships, connection.”
— Estelle Ellis
She says trust takes time and steady work, like her years of reporting for Daily Maverick on hunger in the Eastern Cape before the Human Rights Commission took action. In another story, her long relationship in the affected community, and help from scientists who tested the food, uncovered the real cause of food poisoning at spaza shops — and the long-standing trust with scientists and within the community helped to separate fact from rumour.
Ellis encourages scientists to keep working closely with journalists, because when they team up, people get information they can trust.
A common pattern
Appearing in the media only when a paper is published, then disappearing again.
A more effective approach
- Stay in touch with one or two journalists who regularly cover your field
- Be willing to offer background explanations, even when you’re not quoted
- Treat engagement as cumulative, not transactional
- Accuracy matters. But it only travels when experts are reachable and responsive
#Tip 2: News deadlines run in hours (sometimes minutes), not grant cycles. One constraint came up again and again: time.
Newsrooms work to tight publication deadlines. If an expert can’t be reached quickly, the story doesn’t pause, it moves on. Ellis says that even a few hours’ delay can mean a scientific voice is overtaken by other, sometimes inaccurate, claims already circulating. Hunter agrees and pleads with scientists to not overthink their contribution when approached for an interview.
“Be agile when an opportunity comes; don’t wait until all conditions are perfect. The moment will be lost.” — Qaanitah Hunter
Journalists aren’t necessarily looking for long scientific explanations, Ellis says. They’re looking for help making sense of what the science means for this story, and for their audience.
She points to reporting on hunger and food insecurity as an example. Stories often focus on rising food prices or empty shelves, but a scientific voice can help explain what’s driving those conditions, whether it’s drought, heat stress on crops, disrupted supply chains, or longer-term climate pressures. Context and scientific interpretation can also explain why this moment is different from previous food shocks.
What scientists often assume
That they need a finished paper or final results before engaging.
What journalists actually need
- What science knows so far
- What science doesn’t yet know
- What people are likely to misunderstand
A practical response
When a climate- or health-related story breaks, send a short message that says:
• Here’s the science angle that’s missing
• Here’s what’s established
• Here’s what’s uncertain
Even if it isn’t used immediately, you’ve shown you’re reachable — and that matters for the ongoing trust relationship between scientist and journalist, which improves the quality and trustworthiness of the information in a news article.
#Tip 3: Meet people where they already are. Pause to think how you consume news and information. Then create it in that format.
Audiences find their news across many formats, often outside traditional articles or broadcast segments. The Reuters Institute’s Digital News Report 2025 shows how dramatically the way people access news has changed over the past decade. Across 48 countries, audiences have shifted away from traditional media towards a digital environment shaped largely by social platforms and algorithms. More people now get their news on their phones than on any other device, and video has become central to how that news is consumed.
This means news is increasingly encountered in short, visual formats, often outside traditional news sites. Stories compete for attention in fast-moving feeds, where clarity, immediacy and explanation matter more than ever.
“Tell me about your work,” Hunter tells scientists, “and then record yourself on your phone doing it selfie-style!”
She says there’s no need to lose the weight of what you’re trying to communicate. Instead, she urges scientists to pay attention to their own media habits: how do you consume information? Hunter challenges you to rethink what counts as “serious communication”. If you can speak on Zoom for a broadcast interview, she argues, you can also explain your work in a short, direct cellphone video, without losing accuracy or rigour. As she puts it: “The information and its integrity are intact. It’s the format and medium that changes.”
What scientists often worry about
That short or informal formats oversimplify complex work or strip it of nuance.
What journalists are actually trying to do
Help audiences grasp the meaning of a research finding in the places they already get information.
A practical response
- Be open to recording a short, informal explanation alongside major findings
- Focus on one idea, one risk, or one misconception at a time
- Speak as if you’re explaining the issue to someone curious but not expert
You don’t need to become a content creator or communicator-for-hire. But when credible scientific voices are present in widely used formats, accurate information has a fair chance to travel as fast as misinformation.
#Tip 4: You don’t need all the answers to help. Scientists often underestimate how useful small contributions can be.
Both journalists stressed that scientists don’t need to arrive with a complete explanation or a finished study in hand. Often, what’s most useful is helping make sense of a specific part of a story that’s already unfolding.
That might mean:
- Explaining why a claim is misleading
- Clarifying what a particular statistic does — and doesn’t — show
- Flagging a risk or consequence that hasn’t yet been recognised
Ellis says some of the most valuable scientific contributions are small and timely: a clarification, a warning, or a quick sense-check, rather than a full interview that tries to cover everything.
Also, she says, this kind of contribution doesn’t always need to be on the record. You don’t have to aim to be quoted, or produce a neat soundbite. Sometimes the most helpful thing you can do is nudge a journalist in the right direction, pointing them to better data, a stronger source, or a missing angle.
“Most journalists would welcome an email from a scientist that says, ‘Hey, I see you work on this topic — want to chat?’ Then we can just have a conversation.”
— Estelle Ellis
That background help is noticed. Over time, it builds trust and makes it more likely that journalists will return to you when accuracy really matters.
#Tip 5: Transform a story from what happened, to what does it mean? Focus on what the science reveals. Ask “so what?”, to discover why the story matters.
“Before you even introduce the big picture, the ‘so what’ needs to come across very quickly.”— Qaanitah Hunter
Hunter explains that journalists (and audiences) need a clear reason to care up front, and scientists can help a great deal with that. To interest editors and readers in a science story, researchers must highlight the news value or human impact quickly, she says. In journalism, every story must answer the question “so what?”: why it matters, why now, and to whom. For scientists, learning to ask this question about their own research helps them find the part of their work that connects with people and makes it newsworthy.
“Think of journalists as like ADHD-diagnosed three-year-olds — catch their attention quickly, give them the essence,” says Hunter, “but they must also know why they should care.”
That means, when pitching research to a journalist, open the discussion with what matters most or who is affected. Use a strong human story or a vivid example to make audiences care. If you have a striking finding, explain what that means for people who are affected.
#Bonus Tip: Being in the media raises your profile. Don’t keep your science to yourself!
Like it or not, media visibility increasingly shapes how scientific work is noticed — by funders, institutions, collaborators and policymakers. Across disciplines, scientists are now actively encouraged to communicate beyond academic journals, via mainstream media, as a way of demonstrating relevance and impact.
Many researchers recognise the moment: you read a story in the news and think, this is my field — if only they’d spoken to me, or if only they knew about our work. Often, the gap isn’t a lack of interest. It’s a missed connection and a missed opportunity to have your work recognised when your field is in the spotlight.
Journalists say they tend to return to scientists who are visible, responsive and easy to reach — not just for quotes, but as people that their audiences recognise and have come to trust to help them make sense of complex issues over time. Being present in the media isn’t about self-promotion. It’s about making sure that when your area of expertise comes up, whether it’s heat, food security, water quality or disease risk, accurate science is part of the conversation (and yes, it doesn’t hurt when your institution or funder notices).
Getting to know science journalists and letting them know what you work on makes that possible. It turns one-off interactions into partnerships and helps ensure that the public hears the science from the people who know it best.
Ida Jooste is a seasoned health and science journalist. She has worked in newsrooms in Durban, Johannesburg and Nairobi, winning more than 20 national and international media awards for her work. An international trainer and speaker, she led a global COVID-19 media initiative and provides journalist mentoring in all areas of health science.
