- Scientists and journalists need each other to make sure accurate information is delivered to the public. But they work on very different timelines and in very different ways.
- Newsrooms are moving at speed, while researchers have time to deeply analyse and consider their work. Journalists are often generalists learning as they go. Scientists are deeply knowledgeable about their specific topic.
- When scientists put together their research, they are trained to lay out the background and detail first. Journalists tend to structure stories differently: what is new is in the first sentence, or very near the top.
- In a Bhekisisa webinar for the Climate Health Story Project, Newzroom Afrika’s editor-in-chief, Mapi Mhlangu, and SABC News digital audiovisual head, Angie Kapelianis, shared how scientists can make sure their explanations are clearly understood, taken seriously and remembered.
- We share eight of their tips.
In today’s newsletter, Ida Jooste introduces us to the 30-second story for scientists. Sign up for our newsletter today.
Most news stories don’t sound like health stories. But look at what’s making headlines:
Meanwhile, health risks build quietly in the background. These are harder to see without a scientific explanation.
This is where researchers come in.
Take the fuel price story. It’s not just about global politics, economics and how heavily dependent the world is on imported fossil fuels. Burning those fuels also drives climate change and worsens air pollution, which affects people’s health in ways that aren’t always easy to see, for example, how heat stress affects lung disease. Moving to local, renewable energy would cut emissions and reduce that dependence.
But what people get instead is the politics and prices story, not how it connects to climate change or what that means beyond the next price shift or the Trump administration’s latest whim.
That’s what happens when the connection with scientific expertise isn’t strong enough.
In a Bhekisisa webinar for the Climate Health Story Project, Newzroom Afrika’s editor-in-chief, Mapi Mhlangu, and SABC News digital audiovisual head, Angie Kapelianis, shared how scientists can make sure their explanations are clearly understood, taken seriously and remembered. We share eight of their tips.
1. Start with the point you want remembered
“When editors have to shorten an interview, they barely listen to the entire [original] interview; they just use the first response. So the first response must … be the key message.” — Mapi Mhlangu
In scientific writing, you are trained to build towards a conclusion by following the Imrad (introduction, methods, results and discussion) structure. You lay out the background and the detail first so that everything comes together at the very end. A scientific paper often begins with general statements about a topic’s history, but journalists traditionally use an “inverted pyramid” structure where what is new is in the first sentence, or very near the top.
Financial Times Strategies and Northwestern University’s Knight Lab’s 2026 Next Gen News 2 study, conducted across five countries to understand how young people get their news, found that on digital platforms like TikTok or YouTube, holding back the main point can keep people watching for longer.
But in a traditional broadcast interview, the rule is different: you need to say the most important thing first.
Radio and TV newsrooms still function like “24-hour factories, producing news”, says Mhlangu. Presenters are often generalists, learning about a specific issue for the first time when they interview you. Because of intense time pressure and the need to fill airtime with short clips, editors often select soundbites based on that initial impact rather than listening to your full explanation.
“You’ve got to speak in a way that someone understands immediately — they’re not going to rewind you.” — Angie Kapelianis
2. Use analogies and visual language
While people are good at catching simple facts by ear, they can struggle to make deeper connections — the “so what” of the story. Sound is fleeting, which means being too technical, or too detailed, becomes an obstacle. If a listener has to stop and figure out what you’re saying, they lose track of your message the moment they get confused.
“Scientists don’t use enough analogies and visual language to take the viewer through what they’re saying.” — Mapi Mhlangu
It helps to translate as you go, using familiar, concrete comparisons that act as mental anchors. Choosing a word people immediately recognise, for example, turning “epidemiologist” into “disease detective” ensures the message exists long enough to be processed and stick in their memory.
3. For TV interviews sit up straight, do your make-up, watch the background
Radio carries your voice. Television carries almost everything.
“On TV, everything matters: how you look, how you sit, what’s behind you.” — Mapi Mhlangu
On television, people are not only listening to your voice and what you say. They are also taking in how you look: how you sit, your body language and gestures, what you’re wearing and what’s in the background. All of these elements affect how credible and trustworthy you seem, and how well your message is understood.
It might sound superficial, but it matters, says Mhlangu.
For example, sitting upright or leaning slightly forward can make you come across as more confident and engaged. Keep that in mind, even for online interviews; a cluttered background or poor lighting can make it harder for your point to come across clearly.
Television also gives you something radio doesn’t: the ability to show what you’re talking about.
If you’re invited to contribute to a TV story, whether it’s a live interview or a recorded segment, think about what you can show viewers. For example, footage of your research, images of the impact you’re describing or scenes from the field or the lab.
These don’t just make the story more engaging. They help people understand your point more quickly and more clearly.
The aim is simple: keep the focus on your message, and use what the camera offers to help it land.
4. Ask for a pre-interview before going live
The interview doesn’t start when the mic is on. In broadcast, there is ideally a short exchange beforehand, called a pre-interview. If the journalist or studio doesn’t offer it, it’s worth asking for one.
This is your chance to understand the story you’re stepping into. What angle is the journalist working with? What has already been covered? Where does your expertise fit in?
It’s also a moment to clear up misunderstandings early, to make sure your role, and the science behind it, are being understood correctly before the recording begins. Check your gut to see if you feel the journalist understands the gist of the science in the story, Kapelianis says. Then use your insights and the time to offer context that might shape the interview, material that helps explain your work or even suggest colleagues who can speak to parts of the story outside your expertise.
You don’t always need the exact questions in advance. Many journalists prefer not to share them, because it keeps the conversation more natural and avoids rehearsed answers. What matters more is knowing the story you’re walking into.
Once recording starts, things move quickly.
“You’re often working with 30 seconds, sometimes less.” — Mapi Mhlangu
5. Look for the angle that isn’t being explained
The first version of a news story usually focuses on the “what” — the immediate event. However, as Kapelianis notes, what often gets less attention is the “why” behind the story. This is where scientific expertise can help the audience make sense of the scientific reality behind the headlines.
You don’t have to wait for a journalist to find the connection; if you see a surface-level story where the science is missing, reach out to the journalist and offer the context that matters for the longer-term impact on people’s lives.
If you aren’t sure how to frame your angle, think about the one thing about this topic that you would share with your family or friends over dinner. That natural passion and curiosity is often exactly the hook a journalist needs to move a story beyond the surface and into something deeper.
6. Use everyday language — that’s what people will understand
Science doesn’t sit outside society, and neither does the media. Who gets interviewed, who gets quoted and who gets seen as an “expert” often follow familiar patterns and the same well-known voices.
Mhlangu says newsrooms often call the same well-known scientists because they are easy to reach and have help from university press offices.
She encouraged researchers to build their confidence by getting media training. By learning how to give short, clear “sound bites”, more scientists can make sure their research is heard so that society doesn’t make mistakes based on a lack of information.
But expanding who gets heard also means changing the language we use.
“The need for science to be explained in people’s own language is critical,” says Kapelianis. Much of science communication still happens in English. But that’s not how most people in South Africa live or speak.
This creates two problems. First, scientific jargon is often too difficult to follow unless it is turned into plain, “everyday” language. Second, many people use a different language at home than the English used in research papers. When science is only available in technical English, it shuts people out of the conversation.
7. Step in when something needs correcting
Not every story gets it right. And when something is wrong, it can travel quickly. That’s where scientists can make a real difference, by stepping in to correct misinformation before it spreads further.
Mhlangu talked about a news report about water quality in the Eastern Cape.
Her newsroom referred to an old, discredited method for testing whether the water was safe to drink. After the story aired, a scientist who regularly worked with the newsroom sent a WhatsApp message to explain that the testing method they showed was no longer considered valid and explained why.
The newsroom welcomed the correction and was able to bring on a different expert to fix the error on air within two hours. Mhlangu used this example to encourage scientists to be proactive in “calling things out” to help journalists win the battle against misinformation.
Often, it just takes a short message — a clear correction and a better explanation. That matters, for the story and the newsroom.
8. Start your own podcast or explanations on social media
More scientists are also stepping in directly. During COVID, formats like the World Health Organisation’s “Science in 5” (science in five minutes) showed how short, focused videos could explain complex issues clearly and quickly.
Some scientists have started podcasts, short videos and social media to respond to misinformation and explain what’s going on. For some inspiration, have a look at:
Further reading
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.
