Science journalism is incredibly important for helping the public understand and trust what is new and developing in science. The reality on the ground in this field is drastically different between countries like Italy, Germany, and Lithuania. Germany takes the gold. Germany has an enviable framework for science reporting. In sharp contrast, Italy suffers from a highly polarized and fragmented media ecosystem, and Lithuania faces a lack of specialized science journalists. Next, we have to produce new media formats that engage audiences effectively. Responsible reporting is key in order to build confidence in the scientific process.
This is a key difference when you compare Germany to other countries, which have a fairly weak media landscape for science journalism. Public broadcasters and large national outlets keep specialized desks for science reporting, facilitating deep dives into complex issues. A well-developed professional community and dynamic fact-checking procedures reinforce the trustworthiness of German science journalists. This highly choreographed atmosphere allows journalists to deliver the accurate information we seek during difficult conditions created by our changing audiences.
The Importance of Fact-Checking and Accuracy
In an age of heightened demand for high-impact clickbaity work, science journalists need to be more committed to fact-checking and accuracy than ever before. In most countries, not least Italy, journalists are under constant pressure to deliver sensational, click-inducing headlines. Yet this phenomenon often overshadows nuanced reporting, which can erode public trust in scientific discussion altogether.
“The same article gets published in print and online, and if it gets no clicks online, then the topic doesn’t come up next time in the editorial discussions with regard to the print.” – Dana Mahr
To help push back against this disinformation trend, journalists are testing new collaborative media formats that speak to digital communities. The immersive, participatory potential of interactive formats like podcasts and Q&As can help power meaningful engagement and trust building between journalists and their audiences. These creative approaches break through the scientific narrative to provide a more personal and complex examination of scientific subjects, all while remaining scientifically grounded.
Plus, there is a unique challenge that comes with tailoring content to the various platforms. Journalists must navigate the delicate balance between engaging an audience and preserving the integrity of the scientific information being conveyed. This flexibility is key now more than ever, as audiences turn to a wider variety of platforms and outlets for information.
Differences Across European Countries
The media environment that science journalism is working within reveals a sharp dichotomy between Germany, Italy, and Lithuania. In Italy, the balkanized state of the media caucus makes it so that most subjects are either ignored or overly sensationalized for lack of proper funding. As one Italian participant noted, “Science journalism in Italy is treated as a luxury. When there’s a crisis, it suddenly matters. Otherwise, it’s ignored.”
Lithuania has its own challenges, starting with the extremely small market for science journalism. There are hardly any full-time specialists working in this field. As a result, generalists often write about science and work in partnership with universities and research institutes. This model results in an inconsistent depth of reporting, making it even harder for the public to grasp complex scientific topics.
In Germany, the existence of specialized science desks makes it possible to investigate more deeply complex topics. The system supports journalists in their role as trust brokers. They make unwieldy research digestible and build credibility among their communities.
“What I found really interesting was that they see their role as trust brokers—not only translating complex research, but also building trust.” – Nora Weinberger
The Role of Trust in Science Journalism
Science journalists earn trust not only by being great reporters. It’s not so much about the particularities of what’s happening with them, but instead their success highly depends on the media environments they’re in. As Nora Weinberger writes, “Whether journalists can cultivate trust may be less about specific reporting and more about conditions subsumed within the system.” Structural support and institutional backing are vital in establishing public trust in science. A helpful political culture deepens this trust and allows it to thrive.
Dana Mahr echoes similar sentiments, stating that public trust in science is not uniformly declining but is instead “fragmented, dynamic, and highly dependent on social, political, and media contexts.” Perhaps surprisingly, this knowledge helps us understand some of the nuances to how people evaluate scientific information. In the current climate, political identity is a major determinant of trusting scientific conclusions.
Furthermore, some German participants note the importance of political identity in shaping perceptions of scientific facts: “People don’t evaluate scientific facts independently anymore. They trust or reject science based on whether it aligns with their political identity.” This highlights the importance of journalists approaching these dynamics with extreme intentionality.
“Now there is really a need for media infrastructure and institutional support. Trust and political culture are questions of structures in society, not only of journalistic skills or good stories.” – Nora Weinberger