Palgrave Handbook of Science and Health Journalism

This chapter presents an overview of research on health and science journalists. First, the chapter establishes the push and pull that journalists have with scientific culture, focusing mainly on the differing values and norms between science and journalism. Second, this chapter reviews the history and sociology of health and science journalism work, including some of the global challenges that journalists share, and then pivoting to specific findings in various parts of the world. Lastly, this chapter analyses what “health” means to health journalists and what “science” means to science journalists, particularly through research on framing and role conceptions. Overall, the chapter provides a thorough overview of communication research about health and science journalists.

This chapter provides an overview of who reports science and health news. Journalists perceive different roles for themselves, as do the community members they serve. How journalists fulfil these roles, and community perceptions, can vary between contexts, as this chapter describes. The purpose and function of science and health reporting can also come with ethical implications, particularly with changes in the news production process. This chapter examines the people, processes and potential areas worthy of future exploration in science and health reporting to better understand the relationships and functions between research, media and society.

Data and numerical information surround us in our daily lives, and nowhere more so than when it comes to health and science. News reports about these topics have profound effects on our well-being and our sense of place in the world. Yet as this chapter shows, lack of numeracy skills often means such reports are partial, confused or downright incorrect. This chapter examines the ways in which numeracy underpins the ability of news sources, journalists and the public to communicate and engage with health and science reporting, and gives guidance on how to avoid the most glaring errors. The chapter concludes by asking whether Western systems of knowledge are always appropriate for non-Western societies.

This chapter combines different theoretical perspectives to explore uncertainty related to how journalists communicate about public health risks. Risk is a socially constructed phenomenon, and people’s perceptions of risk are not always logical, particularly when emotions and politics come into play. Subjective evaluations and the social construction of risks can result in either amplified or minimised perceptions of risks. In the process of communicating risk information to the public, the news media significantly influence public perception of risk and uncertainty. During the COVID-19 pandemic, news outlets created uncertainty by how they communicated various COVID-19-related risks to the public. These issues regarding the communication of risk to the public have several practical implications. This chapter provides an overview of what the current research tells us is best practice for journalists to responsibly report on potential risks and where further work remains to be done.

Misinformation is part of a treacherous information landscape that cuts across fields, feeding public distrust, harming public health and undermining public policymaking. Research on misinformation crosses disciplinary boundaries, providing wide-ranging knowledge from which health and science journalism research and practice can draw. Journalists, scientists, social media and technology platforms where misinformation ferments and spreads, along with individual recipients, all can play a role in tackling various aspects of the problem. Journalists who cover health and science are important connectors between science and society, and their work can both counteract and contribute to misinformation and its effects. A knowledge-based approach to health and science journalism, in which reporters with training and experience in the areas they cover are able to draw on their own expertise, can help reduce news-spread misinformation. Scholarly critiques of health and science in media have tended, however, to not examine work specifically known to be produced by health and science journalism specialists. Thus, research is needed to explore differences, if any, between the quality and influence of health and science news reports created by health and science journalism specialists, and work created by non-specialists.

The fields of science and medicine involve concepts, ideas and words that are difficult to tackle. Putting them into complex systems creates a communication challenge, especially for non-specialist journalists. The longstanding cultural gap between researchers and journalists can impede clear and effective communication. This chapter provides an overview of the research, exploring the nature and implications of this cultural divide.

This chapter reviews the research within science and health reporting on non-dominant ethnic and racial groups around the world, among other disadvantaged populations, focusing on disparities between health outcomes and how news outlets report on those groups. It describes the intent of inclusive journalism and the factors that limit inclusive journalism being fully achieved. In reviewing the available literature, this chapter discusses the lack of representation and inclusion in academic research as much as in journalism and outlines a future research agenda.

Health and science reporting on TV is often influenced by economic and political factors. Specifically, the journalistic output is shaped by outside institutions such as hospitals and research organisations. In many developing countries, the government defines reporting about the environment and epidemics. Research on television health and science reporting seems to be limited by difficulties in accessing television journalists and by the complexity of audiovisual content. There seems to be a lack of resources such as archives of TV content. One way researchers might access participants could be workshops for producers and audiences. More research should explore the effects of well-documented trends on TV, such as the prevalence of citizen sources, limited contextual information and presentation styles that include humour, dialogue and speculation.

Research on the content and impact of radio science and health journalism is rare. However, with the rise of podcasting, audio storytelling—including science and health storytelling—has become increasingly popular. This chapter will review the existing research on the role audio media—including traditional broadcast radio and podcasting—play in raising interest in and educating audiences about science and health topics.

The social actors, technologies, affordances and business models behind digital media and platforms, such as Facebook, X (previously Twitter), YouTube and Weibo, have changed the practices of science/health reporting. Platformisation offers new opportunities to bring valuable health/science news to audiences with limited access to and low interest in traditional media such as newspapers, magazines and television. In addition, the networked environments where science/health news circulates make it easier, and more likely, for scientists and medical experts to fact-check science and health stories, thus potentially increasing the likelihood that audiences will receive more accurate information. However, digital media innovation and platformisation have also created new pitfalls, given that science/health journalists may find themselves competing with science and health ‘storytellers’ who have far less ability for, or interest in, communicating accurate information.

This chapter reviews recent literature to provide an overview of the current state of the field in technological innovation in journalism generally and science and health journalism specifically. This chapter begins by asking, “How can technology improve science and health journalism?” To answer this question, we will first discuss the challenges that science and health journalism face, as well as how technology can help overcome those challenges. The chapter’s second question is, “How can we use technology to connect the public with science and health?” We investigate how technology can improve science journalism in terms of simplicity, context, and interactive storytelling, thereby increasing community engagement with science and health. Finally this chapter identifies gaps in the existing research, and provides directions and questions for future research.

In the context of current environmental harms, communication on climate and environment, as a field of research and in practice, bear an acute urgency. The intersection between media and environment is therefore a crucial site for contemporary research examination. This chapter addresses that nexus, focusing on the role of journalism in conveying biodiversity loss and climate change as issues of concern. How journalists select and problematise environmental harms is crucial for public understanding of environmental issues and social and policy responses to them. This chapter, therefore, explores the ways news industry trends, journalistic practices and media production processes shape media coverage of the environment. It likewise examines the role journalism plays in educating—and sometimes misinforming—the public about anthropogenic climate change and biodiversity loss. The chapter concludes with recommendations for both journalism practice and for media organisations to enable better environmental journalism.

Very little research exists on news media coverage of space science and exploration compared with other scientific topics despite widespread public interest in outer space. This chapter reviews the existing literature—starting with how the media covered the purported Martian canals in the late nineteenth century, through the space race, the Cold War, and coverage by various countries as space science and exploration became increasingly complex. Some scholars explored what kinds of space science received attention from the news media, while others investigated bias in space reporting. Barriers to this kind of research and reporting include controlled messages by public information officers (PIOs), space scientists’ fear of being misunderstood or misquoted by reporters, and shrinking newsroom staffs and resources. Future investigations could focus on international perspectives of space science and exploration, as the United States has received most of the attention. In addition, the field would benefit from more peer-reviewed research, especially on how private industry is changing the game and how non-text-based media are covering outer space.

News organisations, science communicators, and science journalists have been essential sources of information during the COVID-19 pandemic and past recent major outbreaks, including epidemics like the H1N1 flu, Ebola, HIV/AIDS, Zika, SARS, and MERS. The coverage of developing events creates enormous challenges, however, and in some cases, can spread unwarranted panic or misinformation. Throughout time, the main objectives of pandemic coverage and the general topics that needed to be communicated have not changed. However, since the 1980s, the tools available for covering emerging pathogens and epidemics have evolved, and with them, new questions and challenges have arisen that must be recognised and addressed. This chapter addresses the evolution, quality, shortcomings, and impacts of pandemic coverage from the early 1980s to the present. In addition, it proposes points to consider for the improvement of pandemic coverage. Current trends, research gaps, tensions, and unresolved conflicts will be discussed.

Research on the impacts of science and health reporting traditionally has focused on how journalists’ coverage of key science and health topics influences individual knowledge, beliefs and behaviours related to those topics. However, a growing body of research also suggests that science and health journalism can influence government policymakers’ decisions, which are likely to have a much greater impact on population-level outcomes than are changes in individual behaviour. This chapter reviews the research on journalists’ coverage of science and health policy and its impacts, focusing on policies related to healthcare costs and access, prevention and management of chronic and communicable diseases, climate change, genetically modified organisms and nanotechnology.

Emerging solutions-oriented journalism practices such as solutions journalism and constructive journalism aim to counter the persistent negative bias of traditional, problem-oriented news and hold specific promise for reporters covering health and science topics. Beyond scientific breakthroughs, solutions-oriented journalism focuses on explaining how society is responding to pressing issues, such as climate change, health disparities, and mental health, to provide a more accurate representation of social progress. In doing so, solutions-oriented journalism seeks to serve as a healing social force by improving news audiences’ emotional states, efficacy perceptions, and possibly support for policy changes. Evidence that such effects exist are emerging, yet findings are mixed. As more news outlets experiment with these newer journalisms in the contexts of health and science topics, scholars should continue to theorise and test their impacts on audience and societal emotional health and prosocial action.

Journalists play a key role in society as storytellers and sense-makers who can mediate between experts, institutions, and the public. While the news media could serve as an important source for information about health, medicine, and science, journalists often fail to adequately inform the public, which could result in detrimental impact. This chapter reviews theoretical, empirical, and practical considerations associated with journalists’ capacity to influence people’s beliefs, attitudes, intentions, and behaviours. We pay particular attention to communication challenges in the context of health communication, including mistrust, growing competition from alternative media, and misinformation. We demonstrate these potentials and obstacles using examples from the area of epidemics in general, and COVID-19 specifically. We conclude by considering ways to improve health and science journalism and restore public trust in news media.

Science and health communication have recently increased in importance, and not only because of crises such as anthropogenic climate change and the COVID-19 pandemic. Societies in general are growing more complex, and increasingly rely on scientific knowledge (Kohring, Vertrauen in Journalismus: Theorie und Empirie [Trust in journalism: Theory and empiricism]. UVK Verlagsgesellschaft, 2004; Luhmann, Vertrauen: Ein Mechanismus der Reduktion sozialer Komplexität [Trust: A mechanism for reducing social complexity]. UVK Verlagsgesellschaft, 2014; Summ & Volpers, What’s science? Where’s science? Science journalism in German print media. Public Understanding of Science, 25(7), 775–790. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​0963662515583419​, 2016; Weingart, Wissenschaftskommunikation unter digitalen Bedingungen: Funktionen, Akteure und Probleme des Vertrauens [The integration function of the mass media: Conceptual history, models, operationalization]. In P. Weingart, H. Wormer, A. Wenninger, & R. F. Hüttl (Eds.), Perspektiven der Wissenschaftskommunikation im digitalen Zeitalter (pp. 31–59). Velbrück Wissenschaft, 2017), which goes hand in hand with the importance of public trust in science. Within this complex setting, science and health journalists are important actors who need to provide public audiences with reliable and solid information—especially during crises. However, in the current digital age, the functions of science and health journalism for society are challenged (Fahy & Nisbet, The science journalist online: Shifting roles and emerging practices. Journalism 12(7), 778–793. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​1464884911412697​, 2011), particularly because scientific information reaches public audiences via a variety of (digital) media outlets, where journalistic and non-journalistic actors compete for attention (European Commission, Eurobarometer: European citizens’ knowledge and attitudes towards science and technology. https://​europa.​eu/​eurobarometer/​surveys/​detail/​2237, 2021; Metag & Schäfer, Wissenschaftsbarometer Schweiz 2016 [Science Barometer Switzerland 2016]. www.​wissenschaftsbar​ometer.​de, 2016; National Science Board, Science & engineering indicators 2018. National Science Foundation. https://​www.​nsf.​gov/​statistics/​2018/​nsb20181/​assets/​nsb20181.​pdf, 2018). Thus, for public audiences, the question of whom and which information to trust becomes ever more important.

Science and health journalism are tasked with informing the general public, as concisely and accurately as possible, about topics relevant to society, such as the health and environmental impact of smoking, the existence and dangers of climate change, the benefits of mask-wearing, the use of oral contraception, or the value of immunisation. At the same time, science and health, just like many other topics, have been politicised since the earliest recorded times, a phenomenon that often impacted their ability to positively shape society and continues to do so. In this chapter, we attempt to define politicisation, analyse some of the factors that favour its emergence and circulation in society, and present several examples of topics with scientific, medical, and public health relevance that became politicised globally, often with detrimental effects on individual and collective wellbeing. As we explore strategies to prevent or limit the political polarisation of science- and health-related topics, we emphasise the importance of identifying conspiratorial discourse and misinformation, particularly on social media, and the need to empower the consumption of information related to the multiple facets of health and media literacy.

This chapter provides an overview of the core ethical concerns that complicate health and science journalists’ work and that deserve scholarly attention. It applies a pragmatic but forward-thinking perspective that acknowledges but also seeks to move beyond the limitations journalists face in covering health and science research. It does so by first clarifying why science journalism is not science communication, as is often misunderstood, through establishing a public service function that sets science journalism apart from other related professions. Based on this core function, the chapter draws on journalism scholarship and existing codes of ethics to explore the unique ethical challenges inherent to health and science journalism and discusses considerations journalists must keep in mind in attempting to navigate them. These include challenges associated with verifying scientific research, presenting a proportionate picture of the state of the evidence, navigating source relationships, communicating uncertainty, and treating subjects with care. Finally, the chapter highlights key areas of tension that warrant further attention, including the lack of relevant research focused on the Global South, the role of organisations in journalism ethics, and journalists’ responsibility to address health and science misinformation.

In the opening chapter of this book, we explored the historical development of science and health journalism. Access to knowledge and an appetite for the latest information pervades everyday life. We have more information at our fingertips today than at any other time in our history. The media have played and will continue to play a key role in informing societies. Yet while our access to information is burgeoning, the quality of that information and reporting is at best poorly understood and at worst relatively unknown.