Is Good Science Reporting Extinct in Media

Is Good Science Reporting Extinct in Media?

Sean H. Smith Master of Arts in Interactive Media candidate Elon University

Copyright Š 2010 Sean H. Smith. All rights reserved.

Abstract The view of science in legacy media, and in turn the general public in today’s world seems to be one of indifference and ignorance. This paper discusses the factors that influence the way science is reported in the news in both print and television form as well as the challenges that science and scientists face in trying to inform society about new discoveries and advancements within the field. What role does news or media as a whole play in the reporting of scientific information to the general public? How has and how should science be reported through news coverage in order to engage audiences more effectively? Should science be “dumbed down” in the news or should the public be more educated in the sciences and therefore more concerned about it’s coverage? The author will address these and other questions pertaining to science in the media. In addition, the paper will examine the future of journalism and the importance of the public’s knowledge of science and offer suggestions to improve science coverage and better inform society of such topics.

Introduction Today’s newspapers and television news broadcasts seem to be lacking the high-quality reporting of science that was once deemed important or “front-page” news in the past.

The only time one sees headlines on the front page of newspapers of the top story of television news that involves science is when it involves a tragedy such as a natural disaster or the death of an individual. As late as the mid 1990’s science was prominent in the news including coverage of the discovery of our prehistoric ancestors and presenting audiences with the majestic images of the Hubble Space Telescope (HST). These stories were not buried deep in a diminutive science and technology section. Instead they were on the front page or first section of the majority of newspapers and were the headlining stories in broadcast news.

Back then page-one reporting placed science in the mainstream of what was happening.

It made accessible to a larger audience information and knowledge that would be noticed only by smaller and specialized groups within the scientific community (Chubin, 1993).

As a result a general understanding of scientific information provided by the news, allowed people to be informed about issues and discoveries that influence their personal lives. With this knowledge citizens can then make informed decisions about these issues and be involved in the formation of policies that affect their lives and their communities (Chubin, 1993; Prewitt 1982; Gething, 2003).

The level of public understanding of science and health depends on the quality of media coverage of these subjects (Winsten, 1985; Nelkin, 1994). In the past, when news was front-page material, the newspapers were able to employ journalists who specifically reported news from the field of science. They were a unique breed of journalists who were well educated in science with a thorough understanding of the terminology and well versed in the scientific method as well as recognizing sound science (Winsten, 1997).

Through the years, as newsrooms have decreased in size – especially in the United States with the economic decline that began in 2008 – reporters have no longer able to concentrate only on the science beat. This could be one of the main reasons why today’s citizens are less informed about scientific topics. According to a 2007 Pew Research

Center report, the public’s interest in news about science and technology has fallen from 33% in 1986-1989 to 16% in 2000-2006 (Robinson, 2007). One of the reasons for this may be that the quality of science reporting has been on the decline. Today’s reporters cover so many different beats that they are no longer experts in a particular field, weakening their effectiveness in reporting news regarding biology or physics. Elon University Associate Professor of Environment Studies, Dr. Janet MacFall (personal communication, April 7, 2010) says that, “people who report science should know a little bit more about science.” In her opinion this is one of the downfalls in modern science news and how it is reported. This lack of understanding of both science and scientists by journalists has led to poor reporting of information that should be important to society.

In the coming sections the author will help to explain some of the influences the media has on science, as well and the influence of science on the media and the way it is influences the news. There are theories regarding the way scientists and science are perceived by the public resulting from the way they have been portrayed in the media in the past as well as the twist that journalist put on their stories that both benefit and harm the dissemination of science to the public. Finally, the paper will present some possible solutions to bring scientific journalism back to the front page and forefront of public understanding.

Media and its Influences There have been many influences on the media and the way news has been and is currently being reported. Many factors have converged in ways that make distinguishing one or two specifics reasons for poor scientific journalism in today’s media rather difficult. The media, politics, and economics have intertwined in that one has an effect on the others while also relying on and profiting from them. Each sphere has a hand in each of the other’s pockets so to speak. The meddling of politicians within legacy media, and vice versa has shifted news organizations’ paradigms in news coverage.

Robert McChesney (2008), purposes in his book, “The Political Economy of Media: Enduring Issues and Emerging Dilemmas, that politicis and money have ruined news and the way it informs the public. With the 1996 Telecommunications Reform Act, politicians and lobbying from giant media corporations gave more power to these corporations by allowing them to own more stations and forcing out smaller media companies that offered a variety of perspectives on issues that affect the public. Without these other perspective the public are force-fed beliefs and perspectives of both the media monopolies and the politicians that support them. News provided by large media is typically angled in a way that supports these companies or the politicians that back them, altering the news and influencing the public in negative ways. Today’s monopolistic news organizations only alter people’s perception of what is going on in their communities as a result of these influences. Society is no longer getting news, it’s getting beliefs and opinions. One can read the New York Times or watch Fox News and get a completely different story from what they would read in the USA Today or see on

CNN. Where did the facts go?

Another reason for the lack of an understanding of scientific concepts by the public is the way science and specifically scientists, have been portrayed in entertainment media.

Since the very beginning of news and entertainment in human civilization scientists and the work they do has been depicted in a variety of ways with most of them being negative. Whether it is yellow journalism of the late 19th century, the movies of the early 1900’s, or modern television programming, scientists have rarely been depicted as a typical citizen of society. Many depictions have showed scientists as being odd and antisocial characters in which their lives revolve only around their work. They are seen as eccentric and recluse spending all of their time in a lab completely isolated and different from the rest of society.

An example of such an individual is the main character in Mary Shelley’s 1818 novel “Frankenstein” and the subsequent movies. In addition to conducting his work in the dark basement of a medieval mansion, his only interaction with others is with his disfigured assistant Igor. Dr. Frankenstein is presented as the evil creator of a monster responsible for the deaths of others. Of course, this had an influence on the story’s audience in that the story was a warning against the expansion of man and the perceived malevolence resulting from the industrial revolution.

Today’s entertainment is no different in the way they sway the public’s impression of scientists. Television shows, such as The X-Files fill people’s minds with the possibility of pseudo-science being a legitimate discipline capable of answering some of society’s mysteries. Early 21st century television has now brought us shows like CSI, showing forensic scientists doing their work in poorly lit laboratories or rendering scientists as mere detectives as they gather evidence and samples that are typically collected by beat officers in real life. Dr. Michael Kingston (personal communication, April 9, 2010), interim and former chair of Elon University’s Biology and Environmental Studies departments says that these portrayals are very depressing to him and the scientific community in that these portrayals are so unrealistic. They only do harm to the public’s acceptance and understanding of science and those that put so much time and effort into their research in hopes of improving society and the planet.

In newsrooms, the ones who have the final say of which stories get a spot in the newspapers or on nightly news broadcast are the editors and producers. There are a number of organizational factors that have an impact on the selection process by these individuals when determining what will and won’t get covered in their news. The accessibility of information, the availability of crucial resources: time, money and competence, the dependence on advertisement accounts as well as editorial policies all have an impact on the processing and diffusion of information (Weingart, 1998). Besides these factors, news consisting of science typically lacks the interest required by editors or producers to put them into the mainstream news. According to Weingart (1998) scientific information needs to meet a certain criteria in order for journalists to judge the ‘news value’ of a story and what they decide to do with it. Generally these criteria include actuality, sensation, personalization, and locality. If a story lacks any of these, it

most likely won’t reach the presses or television screen.

These implicit criteria have led to the sensationalism of scientific news. The more outrageous, exciting, or catastrophic the information the more likely it will be headline news. In February 2010 Orlando Sea World trainer Dawn Brancheau drown while working with the orca, Tilikum. In the weeks following this tragedy there was suddenly a lot of talk about wild animals in captivity and their potential negative behavior as a result of living outside of their natural habitats. Biologists from around the world were suddenly in the spotlight of news as they discussed animal behavior and the negative impacts of captivity. Then, as the story died off the scientific talk in the news did as well.

Probably, the best example of this “catastrophe news” is the ongoing discussion of climate change and global warming. This topic has been presented to the public as a dooms-day scenario. It is believed by some that climate change is being presented to the public in a certain context in order to elicit hysteria within society without having any hard scientific evidence to prove its validity (Kerian, 2008). This type of twisting of science, in order to make it news worthy and gain the attention of the public is what is referred to as framing of science (Nisbet and Mooney, 2007).

Framing is done in two ways when it concerns science and the news. First, framing of science is practiced by journalists with the desire of gaining the attention of their editors, thus increasing their chances of getting their story printed. At times these reporters take the exaggerated information provided in press releases or conferences and run with it, knowing that most likely their work will be in the next edition. However, some of these journalists who don’t have a strong background in science don’t realize the danger and false hope they present to the public. Winsten (1985) highlights a case in 1984 about a study involving the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease with the drug, bethanechol chloride.

The preliminary results indicated that patients responded overwhelmingly positive to the treatment. The press rushed the story out after a press conference about the findings, informing the public of this breakthrough. What the majority of reporters did not know, as a result of a lack of scientific understanding, was that the research involved only four patients and the study was not double-blind, which those in the science field know is an inadequate sample size and improper methods of conducting quality research. The New England academic medical center that conducted the study was bombarded with phone calls from family members of those inflicted Alzheimer’s, begging for treatment of their loved ones. These people were given false hope by the news stories that there was now a cure for this devastating disease when in all actuality results were less than conclusive.

Second, the lack of quality in science reporting isn’t merely limited by journalists, news editors, or organizational factors. Scientists and the organizations for which they work are also to blame. As mentioned above, scientists and the organizations they work for try to find ways to make their research and results relevant in hopes of getting the attention of the public and/or policy makers. Unfortunately this is sometimes done in ways that exaggerates or sensationalizes findings and does so without proper peer review, which helps to establish credibility of said research. They exploit the press knowing that the more exciting the science they present in press releases and conferences, the more likely

it will be reported, therefore gaining the public’s attention of their company and its products (Winsten, 1985). This is a practice that should be avoided by both the news and scientific communities. In the aforementioned Alzheimer’s case, the medical center conducting the research needed to realize that their study was flawed and should have delayed having a press conference to present their finding until a more thorough and reviewed study was conducted.

The Role of the Media in Science and Science in the Media As this paper has indicated throughout, news plays an important role in delivering scientific information to society. When science is reported on the front page, science and technology pages of the newspaper – assuming they still have one – new audiences are reached. However, as more news organizations are influenced by politics and economics, fewer newspapers are reporting science today than they were 30 years ago. Mentioned in a Pew Research Center’s (PRC) Project for Excellence in Journalism (2010) report, Cristine Russell, current President of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing, has conducted research on the state of science journalism and estimates that of the 95 newspapers that published special science sections in the 1980s, only about 35 still do so today (Belfer Center, 2010). Also, only 10% of editors responding to the PEJ survey said they considered science and technology reporting “very essential” to the quality of their news product (PRC, 2010).

Without the mainstream coverage of science in the news it is less likely that the public will be aware of scientific discoveries or changes in policy that result from such research.

If lay citizens are uninformed there is no way they can participate in the democratic process of shaping policy that could improve their livelihood. By being knowledgeable of science that is being conducted, these citizens can question the validity of scientific claims that arise as well as questioning the status quo (Chubin, 1993). In a world that seems to be dominated by fundamentalist science and news regarding issues such as global warming and stem cell research, it is imperative that citizens be informed in an unbiased way so they can be sure that their political representatives are making decisions that are in society’s best interest.

Although framing of science can lead to the consequences previously mentioned, it does play a positive role in bringing science news to the forefront of the newspaper or news broadcast. By framing or “dumbing down” science, it does open up new and larger audiences that typically don’t gain much knowledge about science. Frames organize central ideas, defining a controversy to resonate with core values and assumptions of a community. Frames reduce complex issues by giving some aspects greater emphasis.

They allow citizens to rapidly identify why an issue matters to them, who might be responsible, and what should be done (Nisbet and Mooney, 2007).

On the other side of this, many scientists believe that when the public has a better understanding of the technical complexities of science that are covered in the news then

they would think more like scientists and the controversy revolving around a particular issue would be diminished (Nesbit and Mooney, 2007). Take the case of global warming for example. If the layperson had a firm grasp of how the global temperature has changed throughout the geological and atmospheric history of Earth, as well as an understanding of the correlation between the industrialization of our civilization and the dramatic rise in the average annual temperature (increased greenhouse gas and carbon emissions), then there would be no room for dispute on this topic.

However, to the dismay of those scientists that believe this, Nesbit and Mooney (2007) point out that research has proven that people, when faced with the flood of daily news, are more likely to screen information by seeking sources that closely fall within their beliefs of politics or faith. Again, the influence of politics and even faith play a large role in what information people expose themselves to or choose to believe. The 2007 Pew research showed that only 23% of Republicans believed global warming has been cause by mankind, compared to 75% of Democrats. Not until society becomes more openminded and accepting of other viewpoints and a variety of sources will people be better informed about science.

Just as the media and politicians influence how news is presented in order to sway or gain popularity within the public, scientists also yearn for recognition and praise within the scientific community as well as from the public. By having their work published in the news this can be more readily accomplished. However, scientists are seen as a “different breed” compared to an ordinary citizen in that they are seen as more intellectual and distant from the average man. People can often be turned off by what they have to say and how they say it. To combat this, scientists need to be more versed in the functions of the media when it comes to shaping the work, how to talk to, and best inform the general public through journalism training. In fact, MacFall (personal communication, April 7, 2010) says that, “there are actually initiatives ongoing at many levels to do that.

The Ecological Society of America, for example, offers workshops at every national meeting that the scientists can attend on how to communicate to journalists.” She also adds, that her environmental science majors are required to take journalism classes so they will be better prepared to work with news organizations in the future. By attending workshops such as these or by taking journalism classes in their spare time, scientists and science as a whole could greatly benefit.

Possible Solutions or More Confusion?

The framing of science can have a positive impact on disseminating scientific information to larger audiences. When applied responsibly and ethically, framing can be a valuable tool for scientists in engaging nontraditional audiences. Regarding traditional media, as it has been already pointed out, there are fewer options for audiences when it comes to news sources as a result of the current economic times. In addition, the rapid growth a popularity of the Internet has become a real threat to tradition news. Yet, this doesn’t have to be the case. Traditional news organization need to embrace the Internet

and take advantage of it in the future as new ways of monetizing online news come to be.

The Internet offers the ability of news organizations to reach the eyes and ears of the one billion people around the world that have access to the Internet.

On top of this, the Internet offers a seemingly endless amount of blogs and websites devoted to topics such as the environment, ecology, conservation, and sustainability.

These blogs can reach thousands, even millions of viewers and present a variety of viewpoints and previously untapped information and knowledge. In spite of this, there is the question of reliability and credibility of such sources. The majority of these bloggers are not educated in science and thus one must question if they really know what they are talking about. Yet, there are ways these bloggers can help establish credibility by creating associations with accepted and trust worthy organizations by linking their blogs to these organizations websites or submitting information to them for critique. By doing so, this will help convince blog readers and viewers that they do in deed know what they are talking about and that they are capable of providing honest and unbiased scientific information.

In light of this new participatory movement in journalism, there are even some in the public sphere that have even taken it upon themself to conduct their own scientific research. Dr. Jeffrey Coker (personal communication, April 9, 2010), Assistant Professor of Biology at Elon is one scientist who has taken an interest in the role of science in the news and citizen science in particular. He thinks that citizen science is a vast new testing ground for new ideas and new opportunities for research and the delivery of scientific information to the public. However, he does admit that “it’s a new development and it remains to be seen what citizen science can do.” He adds that there is good that can come from citizen science in regards to the numbers of samples that public can offer for particular research. He feels that citizens are capable of conducting sound scientific research. “People inherently have a scientific sense about them”, he explains. We are all born with the need to experiment. Even as toddlers, “they experiment with everything, they stick their tongues on everything, they manipulate, they drop balls down stairs to see what the effects are going to be.” He encourages people to embrace the scientist within them. If they do they will only benefit from the increased knowledge and then share that information with others, thus bettering the world as a whole.

Conclusion As this paper has pointed out the topic of science in the news and the media as a whole is a complicated one. Because of all the hands in the proverbial cookie jar, it’s become difficult for the public to trust the news and the scientific information presented within.

Also, it is imperative that news organizations find ways to make sure that their employees, that report the science beat have a firm grasp of the subject and the technical complexities in order to better present the information to citizens in ways that help them understand it and therefore make more informed decisions that influence changes in

policy for the betterment of society.

Of course, scientists also need to take the initiative to learn how to present their research to the public through the media. People are not going to start reading scientific journals for pleasure any time soon. News is still going to be the best way to get this information to them. Therefore, gaining a presence in the media and establishing credibility with the scientific community and the general public will be imperative. Yet, it must be done in a thoughtful and ethical way.

The world of science is at the precipice of change with the popularity of the Internet.

Those in the scientific field who grasp it and harness its power will be at the forefront of this change when it comes to spreading knowledge to the world and our place in it. It is clear that interactive media is going to play a large role for science in the future. Not only will the Internet and social media offer a vast number of resources for users to gain information and share ideas, but multimedia and interactive devices, such as electronic botanical field guides and USB microscopes will allow scientists and citizens alike to conduct better and more efficient research. We the people will have the power to create and distribute news in novel and inventive ways that will make our world a better place to live.

Bibliography Belfer Center. (2010). Experts. Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.

Retrieved from http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/experts/944/cristine_russell.html.

Chubin, D. (1993). Front-page science: Positive effects of negative images. BioScience.

43(5), 334-336 Gething, L. (2003). Them and us: Scientists and the media — attitudes and experiences . South African Medial Journal. 93(3), 197-201 Kerian, J. (2008, June 25). Yellow science. Wall Street Journal/Opinion Journal.

Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121433436381900681.html McChesney, R. (2008). The Political Economy of Media: Enduring Issues and Emerging Dilemmas. New York : Monthly Review Press.

Nelkin, D. (1984). Background paper in Science in the Streets: Report of the Twentieth Century Fund Task Force on the Communication of Scientific Risk (p.97). New York: Priority Press.

Nisbet, M.C., Mooney, C. (2007). Framing science. Science. 316, 56.

PRC. (2010). The changing newsroom. Journalism.org: Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism (Changing Content). Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org/node/11963.

Prewitt, K. (1982). The public and science policy. Science, technology, and human values 7, 5-14.

Robinson, M. (2007). Two decades of American news preferences part 2: News interest across decades and "news eras". Pew Research Center Publications. Retrieved from http://pewresearch.org/pubs/574/two-decades-of-americannews-preferences.

Weingart, P. (1998) Science and the media. Research Policy. 27, 869–879.

Winsten, J. (1985) .Science and the media: The boundries of truth. Health Affairs. 4(1), 5-23.