Published
2009-06-17During more than twenty years of demanding work at one of the country's largest newsrooms, Anna Larsson has developed unique expertise in her extensive journalistic coverage, from basic medical research to everyday clinical practice. For example, Larsson was quick to draw attention to the growing global problem of antibiotic-resistant bacteria and, just as quickly and accurately, to the changing conditions of the ageing population in today's society. She has also written the first Swedish book for relatives of patients with chronic diseases. The title of the book, "With a warm heart and sharpened claws", could also be a good characterization of Anna Larsson's own journalistic work in spreading knowledge about medical research and its application in health care.
What does the award mean to you?
- It is a confirmation that Eko journalism has a great value for people, that our work is objective and relevant. Personally, it is a recognition of experience and many years of work. Public service is also rewarded, which is nice because you can say that we are subject to a different policy than the commercial media.
In what ways does your work as a science journalist differ from that of your colleagues at Ekot?
- I receive more calls and emails from private individuals who have heard something or want to hear something. Sooner or later, health issues become very important to oneself or a relative, then many want to tip, tell or react. Editors and news managers have not really discovered how interested people are in health issues.
What does a typical working day look like for you?
- There is no such thing! Sometimes I start at five in the morning, sometimes from the afternoon and well into the evening. Usually we start at 8:30 with a morning meeting, where the groups of domestic, foreign and general reporters meet in editorial meetings. I fall into the latter category.
Anna is also contacted by patient associations, the pharmaceutical industry, PR agencies, authorities and universities.
- "It's a steady stream that only increases. If I don't go to a press conference or have an interview, I sit with the emails.
You meet many researchers in your work, are there similarities between how you work as professionals?
- I am a doctoral student myself. The best journalistic work, like research, comes about through a process. After a hypothesis, you find out something and do research. This usually results in a good report, but it can never be as detailed as a research report. At the same time, researchers often find it difficult to include everything. They also put the results at the end of their reports; as a reporter, the results are the first thing you talk about.
As a science journalist, could you be said to act as an interpreter between scientists and the public, albeit a critical one?
- In the lucky moments when it works, it is. When I started out as a reporter, scientists were more suspicious when dealing with the media, they were afraid they were talking to someone ignorant. Today, researchers call and tell us about their publications. It is often the case that researchers who are visible in the media find it easier to apply for funding; it has become a new lobby-like marketing activity. In my own research, I want to analyse precisely how often medical pressure groups get their messages through to the Swedish media.
Many researchers have difficulties in presenting their research in a popular and understandable way for the general public (Anna lectures on this). Do you have any brief advice for researchers who need to write popular science.
- Common sense perhaps? Start with the results and the most important. Don't write too long, people don't have time given the flood of information that exists in today's society. Make the content concrete in some way. Reflect it from a personal angle perhaps, for example, so that people can identify with a case, or write in a tone that makes the reader feel involved.
Sometimes we get the impression that almost everything we put into our bodies gives us cancer, and that what we thought yesterday gave us cancer, today prolongs life. How should the public take health alert reports?
- This is a difficult area because risk assessment is so individual. I have no standard advice. Even if the alerts are frequent, our memory is quite short. As with the alert on acrylamide in potato chips, it wasn't long before people were eating chips again. Changing your lifestyle can be uncomfortable. People know that smoking is dangerous, but still smoke. Invisible risks are harder to address and of course there are media outlets that take advantage of this in headlines.Right now, we are in the midst of the swine flu outbreak and not even scientists can say how serious the situation is. It is probably best to provide information as openly as possible. While we want to inform, speculative journalism can do more harm; we can cry wolf too early. In Sweden, we have a relatively good climate for openness, where people often dare to admit when they don't know enough. Sometimes it can be misinterpreted as someone putting a lid on things and then people suspect that they are being withheld information. So far, I think the Swedish authorities have been very open about what they know and don't know.
As a science journalist, how do you find the balance between informing people about the risks and allaying their concerns, while not creating panic?
- It's a balancing act. Once the speculation starts, how will it end? We seek answers from authorities and work with the public service media. We turn to trusted experts, but sometimes even they find it difficult to speak out.
Anna says that it is generally true for science journalists to be skeptical even when they come into contact with experts.
- Many speak for themselves without looking at the vested interests that may lie behind them. For example, scientists may have certain ties to pharmaceutical companies and it is up to journalists to try to present these factors as best they can and then let the public decide for themselves what they think of the information.
The motivation states that you have "a unique competence in your extensive journalistic coverage, from basic medical research to clinical everyday life. These qualities mean that you, in fierce competition with other news, manage to defend the place of medical journalism in Dagens Eko in an excellent way." Has good science journalism become so rare that its place must be defended in the broadcast space?
- In Ekot, the tradition has been that domestic and foreign policy news takes place. The former finance minister Kjell-Olof Feldt once said that "if what has happened, really happened, then it ends up in Ekot". Against this backdrop, it is difficult to get science news in, it is not an obvious part of the policy, so to speak. My predecessor, Gunilla Myrberg, paved the way by making science news part of the news in general, not just as a decoration at the end of the broadcast. If anything, the current flu shows how important good science journalism is.
In June 2007, ten of the country's university rectors wrote a joint debate article in Svenska Dagbladet in which they expressed their concern about a "wing-clipped editorial staff for science news" in Swedish Radio. They argued that the field of science - like economics, culture and sports news - requires specialized coverage by journalists with special skills, and therefore addressed the problem of "journalistic coverage of research and higher education increasingly ending up on the general newsrooms' tables". Has this trend been halted?
- In a society that has become more complex, it is essential that journalists are educated. The classic image of the journalist dropping in somewhere to report on something is outdated, it's almost unethical to think that you can provide a picture or analysis without the knowledge that is the basis of journalism. While a science journalist is broad in his knowledge, he cannot compete with detailed scientists.
Anna talks about how science journalism has traditionally been hampered by a mentality of looking at and admiring the progress of research, at the doctor's fancy machine or impressive new telescope. There has been a lack of analytical science journalism, a necessity that has been more entrenched in other areas of journalism.
- It is important not just to look at progress, but to critically examine it. Take science radio's review of the Nobel Foundation as an example. It echoed around the world. At the same time, there are indications from the US, for example, that science journalism is being cut back. "It's a worrying trend - people don't understand that society is so complicated that interpreters and reviewers are needed. According to Anna, there are those who say that reviewers should be left to bloggers, but that bloggers do not always have the resources to take on the task in the same way. We ask her if media coverage of science has changed in the years she has been working. - "More people want to be involved, people want to speak out. In the industry today, people look at background facts in a different way than they used to, for example, they ask who supported a study. They tell you about the side effects of the drugs, about the impact on society. We are moving in that direction, but we are not there yet.
According to the Swedish Society of Medicine, you also wrote the first Swedish book for relatives of patients with chronic diseases, Med varmt hjärta och vässade klor. How did it come to be that particular book?
- I don't know if it's the first book of its kind in Sweden, but perhaps one of the few that examines in one book the situation of relatives of people suffering from different kinds of diseases. I think most journalists want to write a book at some point in their lives. It all started with a request from a publisher. The issue of relatives did a lot, many people volunteer and tell their stories because they want to, they have a heavy job without relief. It was when my own mother became ill that I saw how miserable it could be in Swedish healthcare. And the county administrative boards' latest review of elderly care shows a continued poor rating, there is much to write about.
What was it like to change medium?
- I've always liked writing, but I have a habit from the radio to be concise, to sort out content. But if you care, just write.
When we ask Anna which report she is most proud of, she finds it hard to remember and admits that she is rarely completely satisfied. After giving it some thought, she cites a feature on Ekot about the artist Stig Olson as an example. He suffered a severe stroke at a relatively young age, without direct access to adequate care. The feature was challenging because of Olson's speech impairment, but Anna is pleased with the interview, which was interspersed with the artist's favorite music and conversations with his wife.
- The report portrayed people's ability to recover from an illness, but also how relatives do their part to help. Stig started to get better, he could start painting again [with the 'wrong' hand] and paintings he had done before and after the stroke were then exhibited at Konstfrämjandet in Karlstad. Although Stig couldn't speak much, I feel he came alive in the program and many listeners called in to share their own stories.
Thank you for your time and congratulations!
- Thank you for your time.
Anna Larsson
Anna Larsson graduated from the School of Journalism in Gothenburg. After graduating, she got a job at Länstidningen in Södertälje. She then worked at various local newspapers before starting medical school at the Karolinska Institute, which she interrupted three years later to return to journalism and a position at the Dagens Eko editorial office at Swedish Radio. Larsson has worked at Ekot since 1987. In 2001 she was awarded the Elderly Center Foundation's journalism prize and in 2003 the Swedish Association of County Councils' journalism scholarship in memory of Kurt Ward. Larsson has returned to Karolinska Institutet as a doctoral student, where her research includes the influence of medical interest groups on the media.