Science journalists have a vital role to play in modern society, typically acting as gatekeepers of scientific knowledge for the public. According to the sociologist Peter Conrad (1999), “Science journalism is an increasingly important wellspring of public understanding of science.” Science journalists are an interesting subset of journalists in that they depend on press releases of areas of scientific research for their stories. The broadcaster Toby Murcott (2009) says that science journalism has a “rhythm” that tracks the publication of notable science journals like Science and Nature. “As press releases describing research arrive in our inboxes they are scanned for stories, the most newsworthy picked, offered to editors and then reported.” However journalists do not simply abridge a research paper; they typically contact expert sources to add to their stories. In this role science journalists use experts for a number of reasons. An authority can explain a finding and its implications both positive and negative. Moreover, quoting an expert can add credence to a story and give balance (Conrad 1999). According to Anders Hansen (1994) “[b]ecause of the complexity of much science, science journalists are seen as being uniquely dependent on the co-operation of their sources”. He adds that it is essential that there is a “relationship of trust” between the two. But does such a relationship hold? Or are science journalists and their sources in a state of conflict?
Differences of opinion
Clearly, science journalists are journalists first and specialists second whereas scientists are obviously science focused. This difference does not necessitate conflict but it permits it. One can conceive of a number of reasons that could foster disharmony between journalists and their scientific sources.
David Dickson (2005) expounds on these purported problem areas when he bemoans the latest trends in science reporting saying, “Sadly, we are currently witnessing a worrying trend within much of the world’s media, where a traditional commitment to reporting facts is giving way … to a more colourful, but less reliable, tendency to concentrate coverage on interpretations of fact (or ‘spin’).” He contends that the main problem with journalism in this respect is more to do with inaccurate reporting of the facts than bias. Bucchi and Mazzolini (2003) state that “The media are blamed for…allocating inadequate space to scientific topics, their inaccuracy in reporting about the issues, and exaggerating the political or non-scientific significance—indulging in dramatization and sensationalism.”
Another issue is that the conclusions science draws are never final, rather there are different levels of confidence assigned to theories. But uncertainties and probabilities with assigned statistical likelihoods do not make good stories from a journalistic perspective. So-called news values are not always applicable to scientific progress. Take timeliness for instance. Rarely is a scientific discovery an instantaneous thing, instead there is a lengthy progression from initial observations to final conclusions. So journalists are actually reporting on the publication of a journal paper.
In addition to news values Dorothy Nelkin (1996) points out that the different ways journalists and scientists use language can lead to conflict. She argues that “Certain words routinely used by scientists have different meanings for lay readers. Scientists use the work “epidemic” to describe a cluster of health-related incidents greater than expected; to a lay person, an epidemic implies a rampantly spreading disease.” She also points out simplifications that a journalist will draw on. For example they “will refer to the “fat gene” rather than to the “marker that may predispose an individual to obesity”.” The reason for this different use of language is that journalists use words for “graphic appeal” in contrast to frank, specialised scientific writing.
She goes on to contend that one of the most important areas of conflict arises from the different opinions scientists and journalists have about the role of the media. Scientists see the press as means to transmit information about their research to the public in an accessible way. Science journalism, in their view should popularise science and “convey a positive image”. According to Nelkin “they are reluctant to tolerate independent analysis of the limits or flaws of science, or the relative costs or benefits of new technologies.” This, in her view, is in contrast with journalists, “who do not see themselves as trumpets for science, [with] many … beginning to suspect promotional hype.” Nevertheless I do not think that scientists are entirely wrong with their view of science journalism. There is still an element of ‘Gee Whiz’ about science stories in my view. Indeed, I think a case could be made that many reporters do act as “trumpets for science.”
There also seems to be an inherent distrust of journalists by some scientists. Medical Doctor and blogger Ben Goldacre writes of media science coverage, “It is my hypothesis that in their choice of stories, and the way they cover them, the media create a parody of science, for their own means. They then attack this parody as if they were critiquing science.” Goldacre (2005) groups science stories into three categories wacky stories, scare stories and breakthrough stories. These categories nicely align themselves to the news values of unexpectedness, negativity and threshold.
The idea that there are two sides to every story can be a dangerous one when it comes to science writing. There are some instances where the science is well-founded yet journalists will quote a minor yet vociferous opposition. It seems likely to me that the main author of the study will be irked if his research is countered by somebody who has a bone to pick or is just manifestly wrong. This is all too common in the area of climate change. This point is raised by Nelkin (1996) who writes, “The norms of objectivity in journalism call for giving “equal time” to different points of view—for balancing conflicting claims. This is a source of irritation to scientists, because scientific standards of objectivity require not balance or equal time but empirical verification of opposing hypotheses.”
Next time out I’ll discuss some research that shows most scientists are quite happy with how their work is portrayed in the media as well as critiquing the relationship that has developed between journalists and scientists.
Author: Adam Kane, kanead[at]tcd.ie
Photo credit: http://www.saltburnschool.co.uk/2012/07/press-call/