Excellence and Innovation in Science Journalism: A Conversation with Michele Catanzaro

Michele Catanzaro is a lecturer at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (Spain), where he teaches science and health journalism, and an award-winning freelance journalist who contributes to outlets such as El Periódico, Nature, Science, and others. He coordinated the PerCientEx project on excellence in science journalism and was part of the ENJOI European project. At the upcoming World Conference of Science Journalists, he’s leading the interactive workshop “How to be excellent: free and easy tools to upgrade your science journalism”.

Photo: Tobias Schwerdt

Let’s start with the workshop: where did the idea come from? And why do you think upgrading science journalism is important now?

The idea is that mainstream science journalism—basically commenting on a paper published in Nature yesterday—has increasingly lost its value. This is especially true now, in an era of AI, where much content transformation can be easily handled by it. So what we really need is quality, genuine journalism. In this area, AI isn’t an enemy; it can even be an ally in strengthening journalism.

That’s the general framework of the session. Its origin lies in two projects: ENJOI and PerCientEx, which preceded ENJOI. Both projects aimed to define quality criteria and guidelines for science journalism or, more broadly, science communication, based on evidence and the existing literature. They were also co-created, meaning the input of a wide variety of stakeholders and audiences was included. This bottom-up process, though grounded in literature, makes the criteria more up-to-date and practical. The real goal of both PerCientEx and ENJOI criteria is usability—as a tool to teach, evaluate, and most importantly, to practice science journalism; a hands-on guide for implementation.

Who else will be speaking at the workshop, and what topics will you cover?

Astrid Viciano, part of the German Medien-Doktor project (a sister project to PerCientEx), will present an interesting initiative that automates part of this process. They have integrated Medien-Doktor’s quality criteria into an AI agent that helps science journalists check if their texts meet those standards. While PerCientEx and ENJOI provide criteria that journalists must manually match, their systems automate it. You submit your text, and the AI offers suggestions for improvement. It’s a clear example of how AI can assist journalism.

Then we have Rodrigo Pérez Ortega, an editor at science, who will talk about two initiatives. First, The Open Notebook is an extensive repository of resources for journalists, created by journalists to inspire their work—an excellent training tool. Second, the Foro Hispanoamericano de Periodismo Científico, an Ibero-American meeting that has been running for years, adopts a more traditional approach of bringing journalists together to share experiences, which is highly relevant for that region.

Ida Jooste from South Africa will contribute a somewhat different perspective. Instead of taking science journalists and improving their work, she focuses on training mainstream journalists to enter science journalism, thereby broadening the scope.

Another key point is that the workshop will be interactive. There will be an exhibition component, but more importantly, participatory sessions to gather audience input on how to improve existing tools, uncover blind spots, or identify tools urgently needed by colleagues.

What will you do with the feedback you gather? Will it be published?

This is an experiment, so the results depend largely on the level of participation. Since this is a one-time event, its success is uncertain, but we have the support of the World Federation of Science Journalists. Much will depend on community input. The participatory element was proposed by CASW, the US-based association sponsoring part of the session, and they are very interested in using the feedback to design new tools or improve existing ones. Whether this leads to a prototype, a paper, or just a report, I don’t know yet, but I will ensure there is a tangible outcome.

Do you find attending conferences like this beneficial for networking and discovering new frameworks or tools?

I’m a big fan of the World Conference of Science Journalists. It has been crucial to my career development. For example, the first one I attended was in London in 2009, which was truly game-changing. It helped me break out of my national bubble and engage with debates, methods, and stories important globally.

The conferences have also been a rich source of practical opportunities. I’ve built collaborations with editors and colleagues and even learned about a journalist-in-residence scheme there, which I later joined.

Although there are concerns about ecological impact and funding uncertainties for travel nowadays, when well organised, these conferences remain vital to the science journalism community. Held every two years with selective entry, they are highly valuable overall.

I encourage young journalists to apply for grants to attend because, along with experiences like internships at top outlets, it helps them flourish, gain a global perspective, and return with valuable connections, collaborations, and inspiration. Even the PerCientEx project was partly inspired by attending such conferences and observing outstanding investigative science journalists, which sparked the idea of systematising and mapping their work in the Ibero-American world.

What do you see as the most urgent challenges for science journalism (or science communication in general) right now?

We face overlapping crises. The latest is AI and automation, which puts new pressure on journalism. Before that, there were major economic crises related to the 2008-2009 financial downturn and the COVID pandemic. Even earlier was the crisis of the Internet business model—how to monetise online content. And before that, a less-discussed but crucial crisis: the vocational crisis in journalism, when CEOs from corporations with no communication background took over the media, leading to the financialisation of journalism and loss of civic mission. This happened alongside the Internet and other crises.

Lately, I’m less worried about AI, since, in the best-case scenario (not guaranteed), it adds value to high-quality journalism and exposes the futility of shallow copy-paste journalism. What worries me more now is the coordinated attacks on journalism by authoritarian regimes worldwide. These aggressions have never been as explicit as today. For example, in the US under Trump, in Israel with Netanyahu, with the horrific killing of hundreds of journalists in Gaza, and the suppression of free speech in Israel itself. Also, many right-wing governments in Europe engage in similar repression.

This shows journalism still matters—authoritarian “wannabe dictators” only attack it because it poses a threat. But it also means press freedom and information freedom are not guaranteed, which is deeply concerning.

Is there a way out of this grim situation? Do you still have hope?

After the last financial crisis, we feared journalism might disappear. I recall Nick Davies once said, “Maybe we are like archers when gunpowder was invented.” Now, I don’t share that feeling.

There are independent media here in Spain, like elDiario.es or El Confidential, among others across the political spectrum, that have managed to survive digitally. Even El País, a traditional outlet, ran a very successful digital subscription campaign—all of which emphasised high-quality journalism. So I am hopeful.

Specifically for science journalism, what gives me hope is the new generation of journalists—not the very young but those currently entering and active in the field. They are far less naïve than their predecessors, who often cheered on scientists uncritically. Instead, they have a watchdog attitude and a critical perspective, which is promising because the resources exist. Whether these strengths will flourish depends on the economic and political environment, but I remain cautiously optimistic.