Click me
Transcribed

Comparing Science Communication in Canada and the USA

Comparing Science Communication in Canada and the USA Around early 2012 Tom Spears, a reporter with the Ottawa Citizen, was working on a piece about a cooperative research project that involved the National Research Council (NRC), a Canadian governmental science organization and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), a United States' governmental science organization. In one case he went through a communication department, in the other he spoke directly to a scientist. This is a comparison of these two interactions. Timeline Canada Timeline USA March 1, 2012 information and asks for their input. COA states this 153-word Before March 1, 2012** request reply has been approved by DGCB. 9:30 a.m. ??:00 Call is made by the reporter (REP) to NASA and speaks to a NASA Call is made by the Reporter (REP) to Communications Officer A (COA) at the NRC: “I'm looking for someone to speak to this quickly - already have most of my story, I'd just like to get a feel for NRC's involve- ment in the project." COA sends first e-mail communicating this request to NRC's internal communication bureaucracy. COA assesses the REP's request to be Positive/Informative. 2:10 p.m. 2:25 p.m. DGCB States REP is on a tight deadline. scientist. COB e-mails further content for the COA to pass on to the REP. On this content, the COB comments "It has something to do with space-borne radar systems." COA e-mails REP a 146-word reply to his request. ??:15 Call finished. 9:43 a.m. 3:10 p.m. DFL questions why the response to the REP does not include the detail that NRC's work is funded by the Canadian Space Agency. DFL requests that MMN and COB ensures that the "Canadian Space Agency is acknowledged" MMN responds that this oversight was Corporate Communications' fault. 4:20 p.m. 10:06 a.m. Director General, Communications Branch (DGCB) informs her subordinate communication officers that she is “not convinced we need an interview." The e-mail finishes with the request to provide the reporter a few "lines" but requires them to be reviewed by the DGCB. Director, Flight Research Lab (DFL) forwards to Communications Officer B (COB) a 300-word report he received several days earlier from a manager at the Flight Research Laboratory. COB expresses confusion about what the REP's question is. COA and the REP agree on a 1 p.m. deadline for the REP to receive his 4:22 p.m. 10:15 a.m. COA responds that it was Corporate Communications that reworked the reply and claims to "have asked them to add more, but the answer is no?" 4:24 p.m. 10:45 a.m. 4:28 p.m. DFL instructs DGCB to follow up with the REP to ensure that the REP is aware that the NRC funding for the project came from the Canadian Space Agency. DGCB request meeting with COA. COA provides follow-up e-mail to REP to inform REP that the project was funded by the Canadian Space Agency. 11:00 a.m. information. COB rewrites text received from DFL to a 257-word reply for the REP. COA sends this reply to DFL for approval. 11:39 a.m. 4:31 p.m. 4:38 p.m. 12:03 p.m. OCOB has received authorization from DFL to release a 296-word reply. However COB mentions that DGCB has requested to review the reply before release. March 2, 2012 1:00 p.m. REP's deadline. MMN shares a link about the REP's story. 8:12 a.m. 2:02 p.m. Marketing Manager, NRC (MMN) suggest the possibility of offering an interview. MMN considers the REP a “pretty good reporter" and that we have been treated “ok by him in the past" 9:57 p.m. COA notes that NRC is mentioned in the last paragraph of the REP's article with no mention on NRC science contribution. Chief Media Relations officer (CMRO) provides the opinion that a tour to the REP of NRC's airplanes is a good idea and the best time is next 2:14 p.m. 2:03 p.m. COA e-mails directly to NRC's Vice President, Engineering and General Manager of NRC Aerospace his proposed 153-word reply to Rep's summer. Primary recipients of e-mail (To): *I E-mail Traffic at the NRC Regarding Reporter's Request E-mail sender Secondary recipients of e-mail (Cc): March 1, 2012 March 2, 2012 9:00 a.m. 10:00 a.m. 11:00 a.m. 12:00 a.m. 1:00 p.m. 2:00 p.m. 3:00 p.m. 4:00 p.m. 8:00 a.m. 9:00 a.m. 10:00 a.m. 11:00 a.m. 12:00 a.m. 1:00 p.m. 2:00 p.m. NRC's Vice President, Engineering General Manager of NRC Aerospace CCR Summer Student Corp Relations Chief Media Relations Officer* (CMRO) Director, Flight Research Lab (DFL) Marketing Manager, NRC* (MMN) Director General, Communications Branch* (DGCB) ITZL Communications Officer B* (COB) ITZ!" Communications Officer A* (COA) Reporter (REP) REP calls NRC Agreed upon deadline REP receives reply REP receives follow-up e-mail Canada/USA Comparison Satisfactory Response in hours Professional Response type Time required to respond communicators response E-mail correspondence 5hr 40 min No Voice(telephone) 15 min Yes *Professional Communicators **Specfic time unkown. Source: democracywatch.ca/wp-content/uploads/OpenGovReportJan2113.pdf Created by Mark Koeppen for Ktnexus This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 Canada License.

Comparing Science Communication in Canada and the USA

shared by ktnexus on Apr 18
3,270 views
1 shares
1 comment
Around early 2012 Tom Spears, a reporter with the Ottawa Citizen, was working on a piece about a cooperative research project that involved the National Research Council (NRC), a Canadian governmental...

Publisher


Tags

None.

Source

Unknown. Add a source

Category

Science
Did you work on this visual? Claim credit!

Get a Quote

Embed Code

For hosted site:

Click the code to copy

For wordpress.com:

Click the code to copy
Customize size