Improving science journalism will have important but limited effects

This is an ideal case, of course, but no less important for that. In such an ideal scenario, time currently spent writing grant proposals would be spent on outreach. It's probably easier to turn scientists into journalists than the other way around, but at the same time, journalists bring a much wider perspective.


Scientists and journalists share a passion for questioning assumptions and biases. We are trained to uncover hidden narratives in the pursuit of deeper understandings. And we share an enthusiasm for revealing new knowledge that can be shared with the world.

These values cannot be taken for granted, especially in our current political environment. It is no secret that both scientists and journalists are facing a concerted wave of allegations around “bias” and “fake news.” This type of regressive criticism is not new. Throughout history, those who have sought to suppress the truth have endeavored to muffle the voices of scientists and journalists. Without these voices societies decay. Therefore, when confronted with the current assaults, we cannot allow ourselves to recoil into our protective harbors and wait for the storm to pass. We cannot wait for others to step into the void. We have to shrug off whatever reluctances we may have and find ways to share the stories of science with a world in desperate need of hearing them.

We recognize that there are differences between the ways journalists and scientists perform their professions, and those differences could serve as barriers for cooperation. Scientists often are wary of the way their work might be presented by journalists. They have seen nuanced research oversimplified or hyped for more dramatic (and sometimes misleading) headlines. At the same time, journalists can be frustrated by scientists who respond to straightforward questions with jargon and are unable or unwilling to explain the essence of their discoveries without caveats and qualifiers.

We believe, however, this mistrust is superficial and can be overcome for the benefit of all of society. Scientists and journalists share core aspirations. Both disciplines are about observing the world, questioning the unknown and collecting facts. Both scientists and journalists know their work is built on the work of others and they must find a way to share their discoveries. Scientists may tell their stories in papers they publish to share with their colleagues in the field. Journalists may tell their stories in print, radio or film, often trying to reach as wide an audience as possible. But the mission is the same. Knowledge can only have an impact if others hear about it.


As far as journalism goes, it seems to me that poor science reporting is (mostly) simply due to ignorance. Maybe there ought to be more outreach courses aimed at journalists. Of course you need experts to tell you about the technical details and the results themselves. But beyond that, many of the techniques of critical analysis aren't that hard.

From the political perspective something much more sinister looks to be going on. It feels less of a case of simple ignorance and more of wilful bullshitting : not caring about the evidence rather than (but not excluding the case of) not understanding it. It's not difficult to understand, say, that something being possible doesn't mean it isn't fantastically unlikely, or that because something did happen once it doesn't mean that it happened much less often than other incidents. False degrees of confidence in or against a result aren't because politicians don't understand this, it's because they don't care (not always out of malevolence or even stupidity, but sometimes). When you strip away the objective evidence, all you have is subjective, emotion-driven ideology. And where it may be difficult to argue with a fact, it's easy to argue with an emotion.

That's not to say that there aren't media outlets that are hugely partisan and essentially nothing but the mouthpieces of their favourite political tribe : there are. These institutions attempt to discredit science but only as part of a larger campaign of discrediting anyone and anything (from any field) that even hints at disagreement with their moral values. Anyone who says otherwise, regardless of their status, is branded as a member of the controlling elite, and conversely, anyone agreeing with them is One of The People. They don't actually care a damn about The People, of course; mostly this kind of rhetoric is used by people who are far more out of touch than the "elite" they like to deride. It is merely a rhetorical tool to sow division, nothing more. The underlying theme is one of avoiding and ignoring the evidence, because even imperfect evidence is, if analysed sensibly, a damn sight harder to argue with than a whimsical feeling.

So yes, improving science journalism is important. But this is only one expression of the root problem, not the problem itself.


https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/what-journalists-and-scientists-have-in-common/