PDF Download - Society of Environmental Journalists

Research RoundupAre science journalists tough enough?A survey shows that scientists arepleased with coverage of their work,prompting questions about whetherscience journalism is “too tame.”By JAN KNIGHTSurvey results published in July 2008 show that scientistjournalistinteractions “are more frequent and smooth thanpreviously thought,” according to the survey authors.But in a more extensive interpretation published in December,the authors suggested that the results also indicate that “sciencejournalism is too tame, that is, that it is easily exploited by scientificsources.” Most science news reports, they continued, servescience rather than “the investigative orientation that is a majorjournalistic quality criterion.”This may be linked to changes within the scientific communityitself, the researchers explained. Scientists have become increasinglycomfortable working with journalists as a way to publicizetheir work. In turn, scientists may be more adept at controllingscience news, underscoring the need for “strong science journalism— strong in terms of resources, professionalism, and selfconfidence— in order to counterbalance the increasingly strategicorientation in scientific self-presentation” and conducted in a waythat is “analytically critical, investigative, and prepared to lookbehind the scenes ... Beyond doubt, such science journalismexists, but it is the exception — not the norm — in manycountries.”Scientists’ anticipation of news coverage holds anotherpotential drawback: It might influence decisions about their ownresearch, including framing their research results so that theyappeal to the general public, which “may mislead the public aboutthe true character of science,” the study authors stated, adding thattheir own survey showed this to be true.The survey, which focused on tension between scientists andjournalists, was distributed by mail in 2005 and 2006 to 1,354biomedical scientists in France, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdomand the United States and garnered a 43 percent response rate.Majorities of respondents in all countries agreed with allpositive statements about their encounters with reporters anddisagreed with all negative statements, a strong reversal of thecommon perception of scientists as strong critics of journalists.Positive statements included “Got message out to the public” and“My research was well-explained.” Negative statements included“My statements were distorted,” “Biased or unfair questions” and“Information was inaccurately used.”The scientists also indicated that “their own interactions withjournalists [were] okay and beneficial for them,” the study authorswrote, despite different expectations and other challenges inherentto communication between scientists and journalists.Changes in science journalism — including increased trainingfor science journalists — as well as changes in the scientificresearch community, including accepting communicating with thepublic as a “necessity and a duty,” may have contributed to therespondents’ positive views, according to the authors.For more information, see two studies:Hans Peter Peters, Dominique Brossard, Suzanne deCheveigné, Sharon Dunwoody, Monika Kallfass, Steve Miller andShoji Tsuchida, “Science-Media Interface: It’s Time to Reconsider”in Science Communication, Volume 30, No. 2 (December 2008),pp. 266 – 276.Hans Peter Peters, Dominique Brossard, Suzanne deCheveigné, Sharon Dunwoody, Monika Kallfass, Steve Miller andShoji Tsuchida, “Interactions with the Mass Media” in Science,Volume 321, Issue 5886 (July 11, 2008), pp. 204 – 205.www.sej.orgVisit Often12 SEJournal Spring 2009