News is not narrative

The research sector relies on news stories to tell their story. But ironically, this can have the opposite effect

4th March 2025

I’ve said it before: the relationship between science and society is broken.

We can see this break with the erosion of trust in universities and research institutes. As I talked about in an earlier newsletter - Engagement is existential - this lack of trust in universities and other research institutions comes from their failure to effectively engage with society – public, industry and government – and communicate the real-world impact of their research.

This erosion of trust is part of a broader cultural shift, and they are not the only victims. But the erosion of trust means they are losing control of the narrative.

Instead of world-changing impact and groundbreaking innovation, this Guardian article describes the abysmal state of the public conversation: “culture wars on campus, spats about private school kids getting into Oxbridge, and a dangerously misleading row currently being whipped up over foreign students supposedly taking places from British teenagers.”

It doesn’t matter what country it is, everyone can recognise these trends. But as someone talks to hundreds of researchers and numerous universities every year, it drives me crazy that this is the dominant narrative. The current view out there is totally unbalanced.

Too much news is bad news

My agency STEM Matters works with the research sector to help them engage key audiences with their impact – building trust and profile, securing funding and generating revenue. I hear the same thing all the time: we’re already communicating our impact, just look at our news!

But folks, your news-first approach is not building your narrative.

Today, most university websites are a literal fire hose of news stories. Overwhelming and without any structure. News is used as a catchall for e.v.e.r.y.t.h.i.n.g. Impact, rankings announcements, profiles, internal announcements, awards and so forth. And too often the news pieces are simply re-published press releases.

There’s no publishing strategy, no consistent or editorial voice.

The other problem with relying on news: it’s all about the latest happening. But is your most recent news story the first impression you want your potential collaborators and funders to know? Is that what you want politicians and society to know about you?

Your audiences should be reading stories that build their trust in you, that tell a story about you – not a press release chosen for your front page by your content management system.

Communicating like it’s the 1990s

As a seasoned publisher, communication strategist and media executive with decades of experience, I can trace the problem back to its roots.

Before the Internet, press releases were the primary tool for reaching the media: the gatekeeper of public attention. The digital revolution made it possible for institutions to connect directly with their audiences. Universities took advantage of this shift: press releases evolved into news stories, which were then hosted on university websites to directly reach readers.

This misstep, which has become the default approach even now two decades on, stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of the media’s role and the perspective of publishers. The media doesn’t just share press releases. It translates them into compelling narratives that resonate with audiences.

Even worse – and I say this a lot to my clients – is that these news stories are just the thinnest slice of university impact.

Put simply, news isn’t narrative. Yet many (if not most) organisations have confused them. Combined with an un-strategic approach to sharing news, this means we have found ourselves in the current sorry state of affairs.

Say yes to less

Go to the front page of Scientific American, the New York Times or any other media site you like, there’s a strategy. Content published is thought out. No-one goes to a press release site for information. Creating well-written content focused on what the audiences want to know or consume is how you build trust in your brand. And for universities, it’s how you build trust in your research.

Behind these successes, there’s a carefully thought out publishing strategy designed around building audiences and connecting them with a compelling brand narrative.

Institutions that grasp this concept have successfully transformed themselves into effective publishers. Take Harvard — they understand the importance of this translation process and have brought it in-house. Their strategic approach is evident in everything from how they craft their stories to how their websites are designed, showcasing a deep understanding of how to engage and connect with their audience. They have a news site – but it is gazetted from the main website and clearly marked as such. Harvard has the confidence to be strategic with what they communicate on their main website.

They have the confidence to say less. You should, too.

Show us your narrative – not your news

If you want to turn the narrative about the university sector around, tell me about your impact on medical research, agriculture, AI, the economy, new industries and equally important give me context and explain those topics to me. Don’t just tell audiences what you want to say. Become that trusted source of information.

And most importantly of all: engage your audiences.

If the public doesn't know or care about you, why would people care about funding you? If important industry sectors don’t know you, why would companies want to partner with you? As I’ve said before, if you don’t create your own narrative, someone else will tell it instead – that’s how we get stereotypes like Ivory Tower academia.

I’ve seen countless clients struggle with this. Engagingly telling your own story – your narrative – is easier said than done. In later editions, I’ll share some tips for how to do this. In the meantime, why not have a look at your own website with the eyes of a visitor? Ask yourself: is that what you want them to know about your impact in the world?

And if not – what would you change?