Fiona Hughes attended a Stempra training day for science communicators and came away with a much clearer sense of what journalists want from research stories. Getting research into the media isn’t just about the quality of the science – it’s about how clearly, quickly, and compellingly the story can be told.
Researchers are often encouraged to think about whether their work is ‘newsworthy’. But what does that mean in practice for journalists working under tight deadlines?
We heard from journalists across national newspapers and science publications. The journalists talked about how they decide which research stories to cover, and what makes them more likely to pick up a pitch.
Three quick takeaways from journalists
I wasn’t surprised to hear that strong research stories tend to share three characteristics:
1. A clear takeaway
Journalists need to understand the most interesting point, quickly. If the key finding can’t be explained simply in a headline or opening line, it becomes harder to pitch.
2. Relevance to real people
Stories that affect large numbers of people, or help explain everyday experiences, are far more likely to gain attention than highly niche findings.
3. Something genuinely new
Novelty drives media interest. Journalists are most likely to cover a breakthrough discovery, a significant step forward, or a genuinely new angle on a familiar topic.
The rest of the discussion went beyond these three basics, exploring how timing, access to researchers, visuals, and exclusives can also influence whether a story is picked up.
Why should readers care?
Journalists are always thinking about their audience. So, they need to see clearly how your research story connects to people’s lives.
Humanising research can make a big difference. Journalists often look for stories that help readers understand how findings might impact them. Case studies can help with this as they bring research to life.
In some cases, a really quirky or unexpected discovery can also spark interest – provided it is accessible to a broad audience.
Get to the point
Journalists want to understand the story immediately. The most interesting takeaway from the research should be clear in the headline or first sentence.
That doesn’t mean oversimplifying the science, but it does mean avoiding long explanations before getting to the key point. You can always give some additional context later in your pitch.
What’s new?
Novelty matters. Journalists are usually looking for something genuinely new, whether that’s a major breakthrough, a clear advance in understanding, or a fresh angle on a topic that is already attracting attention.
For specialist publications in particular, the threshold can be high. Research often needs to represent a substantial step forward rather than a small incremental finding.
Timing matters
Even strong research can miss out on coverage if it arrives at the wrong moment.
Some journalists noted that they prefer to receive research stories earlier in the week, when there is more time to plan coverage. Timing can also involve linking research to a wider news moment, such as a government announcement, a major report, or a public awareness day. However, these moments can also be crowded. If many organisations release similar stories at the same time, individual pitches risk getting lost.
Give journalists a head start
Reporters need time to read papers, speak with researchers, and prepare coverage before an embargo lifts.
You should provide the research paper directly if possible. It’s also important that researchers are available for interviews before the embargo lifts, so journalists can include quotes and context in their stories.
A knowledgeable and engaging spokesperson can make a significant difference to whether a story runs.
Show not tell
Visual material can also strengthen a research story, particularly for longer-form pieces.
Journalists may be interested in photographs, short video clips, or the opportunity to see research facilities in action. This content doesn’t need to be highly produced – simple phone footage can often be effective if it helps bring the research to life.
Older research
While breaking news is always valuable, research that was published some time ago can sometimes become newsworthy again.
A study that did not receive attention when it was first released may become relevant later if it connects to a new policy debate, a major report, or an emerging trend. The key question is whether the story feels timely and relevant now, and whether it has already been around many publications.
Long-form content and specialist publications
Some research works better as a longer feature rather than a short news piece.
There is an appetite for longer-form journalism, particularly in weekend editions or specialist publications. These stories allow journalists to explore research in greater depth and often benefit from richer storytelling, case studies, and visuals. However, they need to be pitched to the right outlet and format. Familiarise yourself with the types of publications you’d like your research to feature in.
A final takeaway
Hearing directly from journalists is a useful reminder that successful research stories often come down to a few practical factors: clarity, relevance, timing, and accessibility.
Communicators don’t need to turn every study into a headline-grabbing story. But by identifying the most interesting takeaway, explaining why the research matters to real people, and making it easy for journalists to access both the paper and the researchers behind it, they can give their work the best possible chance of reaching a wider audience.
Sometimes, the difference between a paper that quietly passes by and one that makes the news is simply whether the story is presented in a way that helps journalists see its value.
by Fiona Hughes
The opinions expressed in this post reflect the views of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the opinions or official positions of the SSA.
The SSA does not endorse or guarantee the accuracy of the information in external sources or links and accepts no responsibility.
