The Dark Side of Science Journalism?
At the recent Science 2010 Online conference in North Carolina, I was co-presenting a paper and posing the somewhat contentious question “How does a journalist know which scientists to trust?” It was an attempt to outline some of the more difficult processes that the science journalist has to navigate with regard to peer-reviewed papers. During the questions afterwards the discussion moved to the question of science journalism versus science PR and communications. It became clear from the debate that ensued that science journalism has become confused with science PR and communications. They were described as having gone over to the “dark side” and with the increasing power and influence that they seem to wield in science it seems pertinent to take a moment and consider, what is science journalism? As director of the MA in science journalism at City University London I am often asked to just why do we need a MA in science journalism.
Will it teach graduate students about science? Or how to promote science? Or is it to explain complex scientific ideas and new findings? Or even to provide some form of scientific entertainment the so called “and finally” stories. My response is usually none of the above. Science journalism is simply what it says on the tin, journalism about science. As a result, much of the coverage that is called science journalism is science PR and communications masquerading as journalism. This is a dangerous moment for science journalism to be confused about its purpose.
The announcement of the charges being brought under the Theft Act of three MPs and one Lord over their expenses should be a cautionary. Whilst journalism has applauded itself on the “scoop” of the MPs scandal and celebrated the convergence of traditional and new media. The story was broken by investigative reporters who initially became suspicious after an extensive freedom of information campaign. The story was not exposed by the political ‘lobby’ journalists as it should have been, because they allowed their cosy relationships with the MPs to cloud their judgement and fail to expose the biggest political story in most recent years.
The recent ‘Climate Gate’ leaked emails story and the recent errors by the UN Climate Change Panel are in part examples of the failure of science journalism to thoroughly investigate these stories. Is it too busy trying to promote the science of climate change rather that scrutinise and rigorously question it? Journalistic robustness might leave very little room for the growing climate sceptics lobby. Science journalism needs a clear definition and vision of what it is about.“>
Connie St Louis 
Elia Ben-Ari
March 10, 2010
Hi Connie. You say that “much of the coverage that is called science journalism is science PR and communications masquerading as journalism.” Can you be more specific about what you mean? Is a newspaper science story that reports a cool new scientific finding an example of PR/communications by your definition? Even if that story includes the perspective of at least one scientist who has expertise in the field but was not involved in the study?
Connie St Louis
January 1, 2011
Hi Elia. I think that the example that you cite of a cool scientific finding is science communication not science journalism. I agree that its good to have at least one scientist who has expertise outside the field who can add comment and perspective on a new finding. But I don’t think that a new finding is necessarily a science journalism story.
David Wells
July 21, 2011
Radio 4 this morning 21st July, Charles Lawson economics, Lord Stern economics, Briony Worthington green activist, Al Gore muppet, Hansen who knows! Without meaning to you hit the nail on the head but clearly for me you as a journalist who writes about science do not appear to understand the subject especially when you refer to climate science which isnt and should not be seen in the same light as science proper. As yet the idea of climate change initiated by Co2 remains an hypothesis. It is the case that belief is presented by “climate scientists” a generalistic description of those who may have a science based education but choose to work in the area of climate becase as a subject it is imponderable and governments are prepared to spend huge amounts on research instead of spending the same money on protecting their electorates from the ravages of weather which we have absolute evidence will behave chaotically whatever we do. The most damning endictment of the green activist movement is that we could spend every trillion that the UN, IPCC, EU Greenpeace and whoever says we should but by 2100 the net result would be a reduction in temperature of 800 ths of 1 deg C hence the interest of economists and if Lord Stern can be for the green paranoia then Charles Lawson I must assume has the right as an economists to respond making the case that to spend trillions on a project which is not based on science fact but opinion, supposition, cherry picked statistics and visions of graphic hysteria then as its ordinary people who get to pick up the bill then his input of common sense is well justified.
Just one example, Germany has spent Euros 150 billion on photo voltaic cells, a mathemitician has calculated that if indeed Co2 is an issue then this expenditure will by 2100 forestall global warming by 1 hour, so just to make it easy if 24 nations spend the same we may and I repeat may forestall some degree of warming by 1 day is that in simple economic terms worthing spending 3,600 billion or as you made clear you believe in the green activist point of view without considering whether or not it makes any sense or are you as many involved who believe in the hypothesis are in fact taking the economic viewpoint and get involved in what is a contentious issue because to you to do so is economically advantageous, do I smell self interest being dressed up as falatious concern for the environment, callous and cynical I think would better describe your motivation if you were to look in the mirror with the light on.