So is this research worth pitching as a news story? Keep in mind that what each science reporter likes to write about can be idiosyncratic, so my choices might not be the choices another science reporter or you would make. Also, it bears saying — whether I pitch a story or not isn’t a judgment on whether I think the research is worthwhile, since my hope is that all research moves human knowledge forward. I’m focused on whether whatever audience I write for might be interested in reading about it.
Superhydrophobicity is a neat concept found everywhere in nature, such as bird feathers and beetle shells. Readers often like detailed explanations of how nature works, as long as its done in an interesting enough manner. Superhydrophobicity and icephobicity also have industrial applications — you don’t want ice building up on plane wings, do you? — so that helps ground this in the real world.
In the end, though, I think it’s too esoteric for a general audience to like. The research isn’t about superhydrophobicity or icephobicity, it’s about why one is not always the other. The explanation is not long enough to carry a story, or of wide enough interest — do people care whether or not a surface is both water-repellent and ice-repellent? A story might be possible if the researchers used their work to create a coating that was both superhydrophobic and supericephobic, but even then, it’ll be hard to sell to readers.
A lot of science is about exploring little mysteries and fascinating minutiae of nature, taking joy in the careful unraveling of how something works much as one would solving any puzzle. It’s difficult conveying that joy in the news sometimes — only the splashiest examples often work. It’s at least worth a reporter’s time to see if it’s possible.
Вот что значит правильно выбрать тему.