Volume 46, Number 1, Spring/Summer 1998

Science Writing, New Multimedia On Crash Heading

By Jane Ellen Stevens

The new medium of journalistic storytelling -- multimedia on the World Wide Web -- is still in its infancy. Multimedia storytelling someday will combine text, video, audio, graphics, and animation in an interactive medium, but its current representations are not yet a seamless amalgamation of its parts. The challenge is, no one quite knows what it's going to look like, or how it will fit into the mix of traditional media. But everyone knows it's barreling down upon us with the speed and fury of a deep impact asteroid.

At the NASW annual meeting in Philadelphia, about 250 people turned out for a half-day of workshops at the Academy of Natural Sciences to explore multimedia's latest permutations with the people who are making up the new medium as they go along. The event was organized by Jane Stevens and Carol Morton.

In the first workshop, the producers and editors of today's hottest science and technology Web sites explained how they choose and produce their stories. The presenters included Rob Fixmer, technology editor, New York Times, and former NYT CyberTimes editor; Charlene Laino, health and science editor, MSNBC.com; Randy Rieland, executive editor, Discovery Channel Online; Adam Glenn, science producer, ABCNEWS.com; Stephen Smith, editorial director, Medscape; Richard Rasmus, vice president and general manager, Comcast@Home.

Adam Glen echoed the sentiments of the panel when he said: "The skills of traditional journalism will serve science writers well in their web publishing efforts. But at the same time, there's something very new happening on the Internet, in terms of how information and stories are presented."

Generally, the panelists anticipate signifcant changes over the next few years, especially as bandwidth increases to allow readers to see video, audio and graphics without a moment's hesitation. Generally speaking, at this point in multimedia's infancy, editors and producers are choosing stories and figuring out how they should be packaged; they are hiring reporters to provide text only. However, they would like more reporters to be able to provide video, photos, audio, and to visualize the story in storyboards for computer graphics editors. Panel members showed off their sites, and discussed the types of stories they're doing, the types of stories they're not doing, the challenges of the technology, how they've evolved so far. They assessed the future of this new medium as inevitable and powerful.

In the second panel, producers, reporters and writers demonstrated some of their stories on Web sites. They talked about what being employed in multimedia means, the types of stories they do, and the job opportunities and skills needed in the new medium.

The panelists included John Keefe, former science editor, Discovery Online, and now an independent video and multimedia producer in New York City; Lisa Napoli, multimedia journalist, New York Times CyberTimes; David Tenenbaum, staff writer, The Why Files; Chris Fowler, weekend editor, New York Times Electronic Media Company; David Forman, freelance multimedia journalist; Jane Stevens, freelance multimedia journalist; and Merry Bruns, independent multimedia producer.

During the first panel, David Forman took notes and recorded the proceedings with his video camera, digital still camera. During the break, he selected stills and video, wrote a brief report on his laptop computer, and uploaded everything to his Web site. At the end of the second panel, with a real-time connection to the Web, he showed an amazed audience the story, complete with still photos, text and graphics. Unfortunately, a programming glitch wouldn't let him demo the video.

"I'd say that it's important that writers realize that writing and producing for the Internet does not mean they have to give up working in other media, nor does it mean they have to abandon their standards," said Forman, summing up his feelings about multimedia reporting. "It is simply a new medium with new rules. But the best part is that, by participating at this early stage, you get to help make up the rules.

"People should also realize that the shortcomings of today's World Wide Web -- such as the slow speeds that result in small, jerky video segments -- are obstacles that will be overcome. Learning to work in multimedia while it is still in its infancy will better prepare you for working in it when it becomes a more mainstream source of information."

John Keefe advised writers to keep in mind that the grand vision that the web will blend audio, video, text and interactivity into a wonderfully integrated storytelling experience "just hasn't come true." He advised making creative use of the technology at hand.

As an example, he cited a Discovery Channel Online story about tornadoes. "We not only took people to the plains in pursuit of twisters," he said, "but we also took advantage of the medium by zeroing in on nearly-live Nexrad Doppler radar images of tornadoes happening in real time. For a month, we set up a system that paged me whenever the National Weather Service issued a tornado warning anywhere in the U.S. I would then go to a computer and 'tune in' the radar image for that area, allowing our audience to see the action as it unfolds. At the same time, meteorology graduate students, also monitoring the images, would provide real-time commentary about what we could see on the screen. In this way, I personally watched several tornadoes form -- including the huge twister that ripped through Jarrell, Texas."

When writers pitch stories, he advised them to include their ideas on structure and navigation, and to think hard about one aspect that takes some advantage of what the Web can do -- "and force yourself to make sure this aspect is *not* a video or audio clip."

He also suggested working closely with the editor throughout the production of the story. "Insist to be included, even if by speakerphone, in design, production and coordination meetings," he said. "Even if it doesn't seem to be a "relevant" meeting for the writer, just hearing where people are coming from and what they're expecting will help avoid troubles later and make for a rich experience."

For payment, he thinks that writers should resist simple per-word fee structures. "Per-word payments are usually a rough guess as to how much time you'll need to spend on a project," he said. "But on the Web your time may be devoted to other things, such as helping someone develop software, answering audience e-mail, and collecting your own audio, photography or even video. Think about how much time this will take and how much you're worth per hour, and negotiate accordingly. Some arrangements may even include both a per-word fee for the content, and a per-hour fee for other aspects of the story."

Lisa Napoli advised people that the best thing they could do is to spend time on the medium to see what works and what doesn't. "What's important is that people think visually, marry their words with images, and to think 'outside the box' by imagining a story from different starting and ending points," she said. "It's a fine blend of television script-writing and conventional print journalism, with qualities of both. But the end result is neither."

Chris Fowler demonstrated part of an advanced multimedia design for a story about forensic entomology on which Jane Stevens and he have been working. The new elements anticipated expanded bandwidth by melding video, text, graphics, still photos, audio and interactivity on single screen pages that readers don't have to scroll through. They also incorporated the reporter as an avatar called the "Science Maven," who acts as a guide through the various parts of the story. Unfortunately, people will have to wait until The New York Times upgrades software for its Web site to see the story, because the advanced technology they used will make the whole Web site crash.

In the third panel, ably chaired by Dennis Meredith, director, office of research communications at Duke University, participants addressed the issues that arise when instititutions use their Web sites to bypass science journalists and present their message directly to their publics. Participants included David Jarmul, associate director of communications, Howard Hughes Medical Institute; David Salisbury, science writer, Stanford University; Susan Gaidos, science writer, Purdue University News Service; Brian Dunbar, manager, NASA Internet Services.

Susan Gaidos pointed out that news delivery services, such as Excite, allow people to choose the type of information they want to receive, such as news, weather, business or science, and have the information delivered to their e-mail accounts.

These services search for and collect news items from a number of pre-selected news outlets -- including newswires that were traditionally distributed only to journalists -- such as PR Newswire, Business Wire, EurekAlert!, NewsWise and Quadnet. Some carry news items from NSF and NASA.

"The use of such newswires provides a new forum for public information officers to carry news directly to the public, augmenting the media's coverage of science and research news," she said. "In addition, by taking our sites directly to the public, we can make people more aware of our institutions' research activities."

"The question that intrigues me," said David Jarmul, "is how organizations such as ours view their niche in the emerging cyber market. What is it that we have to offer surfers that they cannot find at MSNBC.com, CNN.com, and so forth? How do we create new "fits" between our sites and online news sites? We've been thinking hard at HHMI about these kinds of marketing questions -- not just how to best contact search engines, create links, and the like, but how to determine our "value added" in the marketplace and make people aware of what we're doing. If we have an interesting cyber-magazine about genetics, for instance, how do we bring it to the attention of people with genetic diseases, or to the 19 year-old geek at washingtonpost.com who's adding links to this morning's medical story?

"My own sense is that many PIOs at scientific institutions are asking similar questions. In other words, it's not enough to tell science stories in new ways on the web; we also need to learn new ways of getting those stories out to our audiences. The mass media can be a bottleneck. What I'm wondering is how we let people know about the new traffic lanes."

David Salisbury warned that science journalists should not be complacent about their role as the exclusive reporters of science news and interpreters of science to the general public.

"The rise of the World Wide Web is ending the mass media's monopoly on the direct delivery of information to the public," he said. "There are major problems with both the quantity and quality of science news that the media is currently delivering. The institutions of science -- societies, government agencies, foundations and universities -- are increasingly using the Web to communicate directly with special groups -- the scientific community, alumni, corporations, science teachers, etc. And a few, like the University of Wisconsin with its WhyFiles, are experimenting with vehicles aimed at the general public.

"Nevertheless," he continued, "universities would really prefer that the media handle the job of providing this information to the public. However, if current trends in the media coverage of science and technology continue, then these efforts are likely to expand and to compete more and more directly with the media. The top research universities are well positioned to do this. They have special access to scientists and scientific information and universities have a higher level of credibility than the media. But to become players in the new, multimedia world, scientific institutions must transcend their parochialism, make substantial investments in this form of communication, and be willing to experiment and continually redefine their operations."