Bringing science reporting back into the spotlight
“Science journalism is not dying, but it is under pressure” – this is what Luisa Massarani, one of the authors of the Global Science Journalism Report 2021, said in a conversation with Subhra Priyadarshini, Nature India’s Chief Editor. Her remarks appeared in a Nature editorial addressing the challenges science journalism faces worldwide and the measures newsrooms could adopt to strengthen and sustain this profession.
The hurdles of science journalism are numerous, most of which are linked to the business models of news outlets. As these increasingly rely on advertising revenue, long-term, in-depth, and ‘slow’ science reporting is often deemed insufficiently profitable.
The relevance of context and complexity
In recent years, driven by the pressure to publish scoops, results, and ‘breaking news,’ science coverage has increasingly shifted toward short bursts of attention, typically tied to crises – such as the COVID-19 pandemic or extreme weather events. But this approach often comes at the cost of losing context and sacrificing the complexity of both issues at hand and the scientific process itself. On the economic side, this has gone hand in hand with reduced investments in permanent science desks in newsrooms, resulting in fewer dedicated and properly trained science journalists – professionals with a thorough understanding of essential elements such as scientific reasoning, peer review, uncertainty, and complexity.
The result, as Mitali Mukherjee, director at the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, told Priyadarshini, is that news outlets give science news only limited and crisis-driven attention, “abandoning science once the crisis ebbs.” Yet the most important stories to tell are often those absent from daily headlines: complex yet pervasive issues, such as the ongoing environmental crisis, which require constant attention and nuanced explanations.
Lack of training
Another problem, Priyadarshini notes, is the lack of scientific literacy and specific training among editors, particularly at local papers, whose audiences are often more exposed to science-sceptical narratives. This deepens global inequalities in access to reliable science reporting, once again separating the Global North and the Global South. The latter, in particular, faces “a growing disinformation crisis”, to which accurate and accessible science journalism would be a powerful antidote. As Ben Deighton, managing editor of SciDev.Net and president of the World Federation of Science Journalists, told Nature, “In the Global South, science journalism is a democratic necessity.” Not least because the environmental crisis, together with its related economic and social costs, is expected to have the most significant impact in developing countries.
Public investment is crucial
Audiences do want to read about science, according to studies. The challenge is determining the best way to engage them. Deborah Blum, director of the Knight Science Journalism Program at MIT, advises telling stories readers can relate to, without lecturing or making them feel inadequate. The key is to demonstrate how deeply science is embedded in our everyday lives, how crucial it is that it is conducted thoroughly, and how we (as both audiences and citizens of democratic societies) can understand its results and trust the scientific community.
Once the social and political value of good and consistent science reporting is acknowledged, business support should follow, Priyadarshini argues. Newsrooms alone cannot sustain it through ad revenues alone. Public support is essential – from donors and from public institutions alike. As Deighton stresses, public investment is crucial to preserve the social role of science journalists as ‘watchdogs’ of both research and politics.
Further readings:
