The use of Internet in newsgathering among European science journalists
Available from ciberjornalismo.com
Page 1
The use of Internet in newsgathering among European science journalists
A n t ó n i o M a r i a S a l v a d o C o x i t o G r a n a d o
The use of Internet in newsgathering
among European science journalists
Submitted in accordance with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
The University of Leeds
Institute of Communications Studies
July 2008
The candidate confirms that the work submitted is his own and that appropriate credit has
been given where reference has been made to the work of others.
____________
This copy has been supplied on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no
quotation from the thesis may be published without proper acknowledgment.
The use of Internet in newsgathering
among European science journalists
Submitted in accordance with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
The University of Leeds
Institute of Communications Studies
July 2008
The candidate confirms that the work submitted is his own and that appropriate credit has
been given where reference has been made to the work of others.
____________
This copy has been supplied on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no
quotation from the thesis may be published without proper acknowledgment.
Page 2
2
This research work was supported by a grant from
This research work was supported by a grant from
Page 3
3
Acknowledgements
This thesis is the culmination of a project that involved a lot of people whose
support was essential to the final result. I am grateful to all of them.
First of all, I would like to thank Dr. Stephen Lax for all the advice and
knowledgeable insights during the supervision of this thesis. His guidance was
crucial to the outcome.
From the Institute of Communications Studies, I would also like to thank Dr.
Richard Howells, whose words and opinion were always encouraging. Dr.
Stephen Sobol’s expertise was crucial in the developing and the building of the
website for the survey of European science journalists.
I would like to thank Drs. António Firmino da Costa, Helena Carvalho and
Patrícia Ávila for their helpful advice and expertise, and to Drs. Jane Gregory and
Stephen Sobol for their comments and guidance.
Thanks to my fellow PhD students for their help and support. I am especially
thankful to Rebecca and Joaquim, for their friendship.
Thanks to all the colleagues who helped me with the preparation and testing of the
survey and also to those who reviewed the manuscript in its multiple versions.
I would also like to express my appreciation for all the European science
journalists who helped me during this research, providing me with the contacts of
other science journalists and responding to the survey and the interviews.
From Público, my employee, I would like to thank José Manuel Fernandes, the
editor-in-chief, who approved this adventure and the leave of absence for the first
two years. Also to João Carlos Silva and Luciano Alvarez, who filled in while I
was out.
Finally, I would also like to thank my family for their support. To Ana, Mateus,
Mafalda and Bárbara for accepting the forced exile, that kept them away from
their friends and schools. To my wife Isabel, for everything else. Which is a lot.
Acknowledgements
This thesis is the culmination of a project that involved a lot of people whose
support was essential to the final result. I am grateful to all of them.
First of all, I would like to thank Dr. Stephen Lax for all the advice and
knowledgeable insights during the supervision of this thesis. His guidance was
crucial to the outcome.
From the Institute of Communications Studies, I would also like to thank Dr.
Richard Howells, whose words and opinion were always encouraging. Dr.
Stephen Sobol’s expertise was crucial in the developing and the building of the
website for the survey of European science journalists.
I would like to thank Drs. António Firmino da Costa, Helena Carvalho and
Patrícia Ávila for their helpful advice and expertise, and to Drs. Jane Gregory and
Stephen Sobol for their comments and guidance.
Thanks to my fellow PhD students for their help and support. I am especially
thankful to Rebecca and Joaquim, for their friendship.
Thanks to all the colleagues who helped me with the preparation and testing of the
survey and also to those who reviewed the manuscript in its multiple versions.
I would also like to express my appreciation for all the European science
journalists who helped me during this research, providing me with the contacts of
other science journalists and responding to the survey and the interviews.
From Público, my employee, I would like to thank José Manuel Fernandes, the
editor-in-chief, who approved this adventure and the leave of absence for the first
two years. Also to João Carlos Silva and Luciano Alvarez, who filled in while I
was out.
Finally, I would also like to thank my family for their support. To Ana, Mateus,
Mafalda and Bárbara for accepting the forced exile, that kept them away from
their friends and schools. To my wife Isabel, for everything else. Which is a lot.
Page 4
4
Abstract
The communication of science through the media is considered an important social
activity, as scientific awareness has previously been described as a fundamental pillar of a
democratic society. In this activity, science journalists play a crucial role, standing
between scientists – who do science – and the general public – who supports them
through taxes.
Even though these professionals play such a vital role, most of the research on the
socialization of science journalists is decades old and reflects mainly a United States
perspective. With the arrival of the Internet in newsrooms, it is essential to understand
how this new technology is shaping the newsgathering routines of science journalists and
changing the attitudes of these professionals.
To answer these questions, I conducted the first survey of European science journalists
working for general national print media and news agencies in 14 different countries of
the European Union. This survey was carried out through the Internet and calls for
participation were sent to 208 journalists from 102 different media. Answers were
received from 97 science journalists, a response rate of 46.6 percent. After the survey,
interviews with 12 of the respondents were conducted.
The main conclusion of this project was that not only science journalists are becoming
more dependent on scientific journals in their daily reporting, they are also spending a lot
of time on the Internet – 3.5 hours a day, on average –, an activity that increases the
concentration on breaking news and prevents them from going outside the newsroom to
write more feature stories. In consequence, readers are receiving a distorted image of
science as a series of “discoveries” or “breakthroughs”, distant from the real daily world
of scientists and the scientific process.
This dependency on the Internet, and on “ready-to-write” press releases from scientific
journals, is threatening science journalism, as professionals are controlled by the same
embargoes, are using the same sources and visiting the same sites, no matter what country
they are working in. This loss of information diversity is a consequence of the
introduction of the Internet in newsrooms, but also a result of the increasing media
awareness of science sources. Once considered to live inside an ivory tower, scientists are
now closer to society and able to control the media agenda for their own purposes.
Abstract
The communication of science through the media is considered an important social
activity, as scientific awareness has previously been described as a fundamental pillar of a
democratic society. In this activity, science journalists play a crucial role, standing
between scientists – who do science – and the general public – who supports them
through taxes.
Even though these professionals play such a vital role, most of the research on the
socialization of science journalists is decades old and reflects mainly a United States
perspective. With the arrival of the Internet in newsrooms, it is essential to understand
how this new technology is shaping the newsgathering routines of science journalists and
changing the attitudes of these professionals.
To answer these questions, I conducted the first survey of European science journalists
working for general national print media and news agencies in 14 different countries of
the European Union. This survey was carried out through the Internet and calls for
participation were sent to 208 journalists from 102 different media. Answers were
received from 97 science journalists, a response rate of 46.6 percent. After the survey,
interviews with 12 of the respondents were conducted.
The main conclusion of this project was that not only science journalists are becoming
more dependent on scientific journals in their daily reporting, they are also spending a lot
of time on the Internet – 3.5 hours a day, on average –, an activity that increases the
concentration on breaking news and prevents them from going outside the newsroom to
write more feature stories. In consequence, readers are receiving a distorted image of
science as a series of “discoveries” or “breakthroughs”, distant from the real daily world
of scientists and the scientific process.
This dependency on the Internet, and on “ready-to-write” press releases from scientific
journals, is threatening science journalism, as professionals are controlled by the same
embargoes, are using the same sources and visiting the same sites, no matter what country
they are working in. This loss of information diversity is a consequence of the
introduction of the Internet in newsrooms, but also a result of the increasing media
awareness of science sources. Once considered to live inside an ivory tower, scientists are
now closer to society and able to control the media agenda for their own purposes.
Page 5
5
Contents
List of Figures ......................................................................................................... 7
List of Tables .......................................................................................................... 9
1. Introduction....................................................................................................... 11
2. The construction of news .................................................................................. 20
2.1. Studies on the constraints of journalists..................................................... 25
2.1.1. Sources’ influence on the news........................................................... 25
2.1.2. Other influences on the news - organization, competition, audiences
and personal background............................................................................... 35
2.2. Journalists and the Internet......................................................................... 42
2.3. Public understanding of science and the media ......................................... 47
3. Methodology ..................................................................................................... 51
3.1. The survey.................................................................................................. 54
3.2. The interviews............................................................................................ 62
4. Survey results .................................................................................................... 66
4.1. Characterisation of the respondents ........................................................... 67
4.2. Sources used by European science journalists ........................................... 79
4.3. European science journalists relations’ with other journalists ................... 85
4.4. Organizational pressures on European science journalists ........................ 88
4.5. Science journalists and their audiences...................................................... 94
4.6. Self-evaluation among science journalists ................................................. 97
4.7. Use of Internet among European science journalists ............................... 105
Contents
List of Figures ......................................................................................................... 7
List of Tables .......................................................................................................... 9
1. Introduction....................................................................................................... 11
2. The construction of news .................................................................................. 20
2.1. Studies on the constraints of journalists..................................................... 25
2.1.1. Sources’ influence on the news........................................................... 25
2.1.2. Other influences on the news - organization, competition, audiences
and personal background............................................................................... 35
2.2. Journalists and the Internet......................................................................... 42
2.3. Public understanding of science and the media ......................................... 47
3. Methodology ..................................................................................................... 51
3.1. The survey.................................................................................................. 54
3.2. The interviews............................................................................................ 62
4. Survey results .................................................................................................... 66
4.1. Characterisation of the respondents ........................................................... 67
4.2. Sources used by European science journalists ........................................... 79
4.3. European science journalists relations’ with other journalists ................... 85
4.4. Organizational pressures on European science journalists ........................ 88
4.5. Science journalists and their audiences...................................................... 94
4.6. Self-evaluation among science journalists ................................................. 97
4.7. Use of Internet among European science journalists ............................... 105
Page 6
6
5. Results of the interviews ................................................................................. 119
5.1. The Internet as a tool for science journalists............................................ 120
5.2. The Internet and the daily routines of European science journalists ....... 126
6. Discussion of the results ................................................................................. 131
6.1. The problems of survey research ............................................................. 132
6.2. Can an insider be and outsider? ............................................................... 136
6.3. Who are the European Union science journalists working in national print
media and news agencies? .............................................................................. 139
6.4. What are their beliefs and expectations?.................................................. 142
6.5. How is Internet transforming science journalism in Europe?.................. 153
6.6. Directions for further research ................................................................. 162
7. Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 165
Appendixes.......................................................................................................... 173
Bibliography........................................................................................................ 190
5. Results of the interviews ................................................................................. 119
5.1. The Internet as a tool for science journalists............................................ 120
5.2. The Internet and the daily routines of European science journalists ....... 126
6. Discussion of the results ................................................................................. 131
6.1. The problems of survey research ............................................................. 132
6.2. Can an insider be and outsider? ............................................................... 136
6.3. Who are the European Union science journalists working in national print
media and news agencies? .............................................................................. 139
6.4. What are their beliefs and expectations?.................................................. 142
6.5. How is Internet transforming science journalism in Europe?.................. 153
6.6. Directions for further research ................................................................. 162
7. Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 165
Appendixes.......................................................................................................... 173
Bibliography........................................................................................................ 190
Page 7
7
List of Figures
Figure 1 - Screenshot of the first page of the survey ............................................ 59
Figure 2 - Screenshot of the survey backend ........................................................ 60
Figure 3 - Age of respondents............................................................................... 72
Figure 4 - Respondents’ years of experience as journalist.................................... 74
Figure 5 - Respondents’ years of experience as science journalists ..................... 75
Figure 6 - Level of education of European science journalists ............................. 76
Figure 7 - Journalists’ profile and country of origin ............................................. 78
Figure 8- ‘Most science journalists give a positive view of their sources’........... 81
Figure 9 - Whose interests does the embargo serve? ............................................ 83
Figure 10 - ‘I discuss story ideas with science journalists working in other
organizations’................................................................................................ 86
Figure 11 - ‘When covering an event, science journalists cooperate with each
other’ ............................................................................................................. 86
Figure 12 - ‘Science journalists from different media help each other more than
journalists in other areas’ .............................................................................. 87
Figure 13 - ‘I feel pressure from management to be “more creative” in writing
science stories’ .............................................................................................. 88
Figure 14 - ‘My credibility is tested more often than the credibility of other
journalists at my organization’...................................................................... 89
Figure 15 - ‘Other journalists and editors at my organization do not take science
journalists seriously’ ..................................................................................... 90
Figure 16 - ‘What other journalists write is used by me to assess the quality of my
work’ ............................................................................................................. 92
Figure 17 - ‘What other journalists write is used by my superiors to assess the
quality of my work’....................................................................................... 92
List of Figures
Figure 1 - Screenshot of the first page of the survey ............................................ 59
Figure 2 - Screenshot of the survey backend ........................................................ 60
Figure 3 - Age of respondents............................................................................... 72
Figure 4 - Respondents’ years of experience as journalist.................................... 74
Figure 5 - Respondents’ years of experience as science journalists ..................... 75
Figure 6 - Level of education of European science journalists ............................. 76
Figure 7 - Journalists’ profile and country of origin ............................................. 78
Figure 8- ‘Most science journalists give a positive view of their sources’........... 81
Figure 9 - Whose interests does the embargo serve? ............................................ 83
Figure 10 - ‘I discuss story ideas with science journalists working in other
organizations’................................................................................................ 86
Figure 11 - ‘When covering an event, science journalists cooperate with each
other’ ............................................................................................................. 86
Figure 12 - ‘Science journalists from different media help each other more than
journalists in other areas’ .............................................................................. 87
Figure 13 - ‘I feel pressure from management to be “more creative” in writing
science stories’ .............................................................................................. 88
Figure 14 - ‘My credibility is tested more often than the credibility of other
journalists at my organization’...................................................................... 89
Figure 15 - ‘Other journalists and editors at my organization do not take science
journalists seriously’ ..................................................................................... 90
Figure 16 - ‘What other journalists write is used by me to assess the quality of my
work’ ............................................................................................................. 92
Figure 17 - ‘What other journalists write is used by my superiors to assess the
quality of my work’....................................................................................... 92
Page 8
8
Figure 18 - ‘How frequently do you receive feedback from your audience?’ ...... 94
Figure 19 - ‘As a science journalist, I make a contribution to society by the type of
reporting I do’ ............................................................................................... 97
Figure 20 - ‘Science journalists are more accurate in their reporting than other
journalists’..................................................................................................... 99
Figure 21- ‘Science journalists have “more tenacity” than other journalists to
uncover fraud in their areas’ ....................................................................... 100
Figure 22 - ‘Science journalists should have a science background’.................. 101
Figure 23- ‘I prefer to write breaking news, instead of bigger, in-depth stories’ 103
Figure 24 - ‘As a whole, do you think the quality of science news is better or
worse than it was 10 years ago?’ ................................................................ 104
Figure 25 - ‘As a whole, do you think the quantity of science news produced by
the media has increased or decreased in the last 10 years?’ ....................... 104
Figure 26- ‘The Internet has made my job easier’ .............................................. 112
Figure 27 - ‘The Internet has improved the quality of my job’ .......................... 112
Figure 28 - ‘The Internet has improved science journalism in general’ ............. 113
Figure 29 - ‘The Internet is making science news more diverse’ ....................... 113
Figure 30 - ‘The Internet is making journalists go out of the newsroom more’ . 114
Figure 31 - ‘The Internet is making science journalism focus on breaking news’
..................................................................................................................... 114
Figure 32 - ‘The Internet is helping to publicize more European science’......... 115
Figure 33 - ‘The Internet is helping to publicize more American science’ ........ 116
Figure 18 - ‘How frequently do you receive feedback from your audience?’ ...... 94
Figure 19 - ‘As a science journalist, I make a contribution to society by the type of
reporting I do’ ............................................................................................... 97
Figure 20 - ‘Science journalists are more accurate in their reporting than other
journalists’..................................................................................................... 99
Figure 21- ‘Science journalists have “more tenacity” than other journalists to
uncover fraud in their areas’ ....................................................................... 100
Figure 22 - ‘Science journalists should have a science background’.................. 101
Figure 23- ‘I prefer to write breaking news, instead of bigger, in-depth stories’ 103
Figure 24 - ‘As a whole, do you think the quality of science news is better or
worse than it was 10 years ago?’ ................................................................ 104
Figure 25 - ‘As a whole, do you think the quantity of science news produced by
the media has increased or decreased in the last 10 years?’ ....................... 104
Figure 26- ‘The Internet has made my job easier’ .............................................. 112
Figure 27 - ‘The Internet has improved the quality of my job’ .......................... 112
Figure 28 - ‘The Internet has improved science journalism in general’ ............. 113
Figure 29 - ‘The Internet is making science news more diverse’ ....................... 113
Figure 30 - ‘The Internet is making journalists go out of the newsroom more’ . 114
Figure 31 - ‘The Internet is making science journalism focus on breaking news’
..................................................................................................................... 114
Figure 32 - ‘The Internet is helping to publicize more European science’......... 115
Figure 33 - ‘The Internet is helping to publicize more American science’ ........ 116
Page 9
9
List of Tables
Table 1 - Contacts for the interviews in the three groups of respondents............. 65
Table 2 -Origin of the science journalists who responded to this survey ............. 67
Table 3 - GNI per capita of the countries of the respondents - World Bank (2005)
....................................................................................................................... 69
Table 4 - Number of respondents according to GNI per capita of their country .. 69
Table 5 - Sex of science journalists according to age ........................................... 70
Table 6 - Sex of science journalists according to GNI of the country per capita . 70
Table 7 - Number of respondents according to the type of media they work for . 72
Table 8 - Number of people writing about science in each of the surveyed media
....................................................................................................................... 73
Table 9 - Area of education of European science journalists................................ 76
Table 10 - Area of education of science journalists according to GNI per capita 77
Table 11 - Main sources of European science journalists..................................... 80
Table 12 - ‘Do you report on scientific articles in peer-reviewed journals?’ ....... 82
Table 13 - Journalistic experience and acceptance of the embargo ...................... 83
Table 14- Journalistic experience and perception of the embargo system............ 84
Table 15 - Relations with science journalists from other media according to sex 85
Table 16- Pressure to be “more creative” according to GNI per capita................ 89
Table 17 - ‘Other journalists and editors at my organization do not take science
journalists seriously’ according to sex .......................................................... 91
Table 18 – ‘Other journalists and editors at my organization do not take science
journalists seriously’ according to GNI per capita........................................ 91
Table 19 - ‘What other journalists write is used by me to assess the quality of my
work’ according to GNI per capita ............................................................... 93
List of Tables
Table 1 - Contacts for the interviews in the three groups of respondents............. 65
Table 2 -Origin of the science journalists who responded to this survey ............. 67
Table 3 - GNI per capita of the countries of the respondents - World Bank (2005)
....................................................................................................................... 69
Table 4 - Number of respondents according to GNI per capita of their country .. 69
Table 5 - Sex of science journalists according to age ........................................... 70
Table 6 - Sex of science journalists according to GNI of the country per capita . 70
Table 7 - Number of respondents according to the type of media they work for . 72
Table 8 - Number of people writing about science in each of the surveyed media
....................................................................................................................... 73
Table 9 - Area of education of European science journalists................................ 76
Table 10 - Area of education of science journalists according to GNI per capita 77
Table 11 - Main sources of European science journalists..................................... 80
Table 12 - ‘Do you report on scientific articles in peer-reviewed journals?’ ....... 82
Table 13 - Journalistic experience and acceptance of the embargo ...................... 83
Table 14- Journalistic experience and perception of the embargo system............ 84
Table 15 - Relations with science journalists from other media according to sex 85
Table 16- Pressure to be “more creative” according to GNI per capita................ 89
Table 17 - ‘Other journalists and editors at my organization do not take science
journalists seriously’ according to sex .......................................................... 91
Table 18 – ‘Other journalists and editors at my organization do not take science
journalists seriously’ according to GNI per capita........................................ 91
Table 19 - ‘What other journalists write is used by me to assess the quality of my
work’ according to GNI per capita ............................................................... 93
Page 11
11
1. Introduction
This is a thesis about the construction of science news in Europe. It examines how
European science journalists are coping with the constraints of their job and how
Internet is changing their newsgathering routines. The main reasons for this
endeavour are simple: most research done on the socialization of science
journalists is decades old (Kiernan 2002, p.251), was conducted long before the
Internet invaded newsrooms, and reflects mainly a United States perspective.
To understand how science journalists in print media and news agencies all over
the European Union are working on a daily basis can give us a better perception
on how science institutions are building the public agenda on such an important
issue for society. At the same time, it is crucial to know how Internet is affecting
the newsgathering procedures of science journalists, and how this new tool has
changed the way they relate to the other participants in the news process.
Being a science journalist for the last 18 years, I am well aware of the problems of
involvement and detachment stated by Elias (1956) on his essay about the
relationships between ‘subjects’ and ‘objects’. During this work, in order to
preserve the distance between the professional and the researcher, I will try to
‘hold up the mirror’ and keep both roles ‘clearly and consistently apart’, focusing
mostly on the results of my academic work on how the Internet is affecting the
role of journalists as science communicators.
In his landmark work on science and the media, Hillier Krieghbaum stated the
reasons why we should care about the transmission of science to the general
public: first, he said, the public needs to know science if it is to make ‘wise and
intelligent choices’ (Krieghbaum 1967, p.5); second, ‘unless there is a real
understanding of science and technology’, democracy may be at stake (p.12); and,
third, science is important because it is ‘an adventure of the human spirit’ (p.13).
1. Introduction
This is a thesis about the construction of science news in Europe. It examines how
European science journalists are coping with the constraints of their job and how
Internet is changing their newsgathering routines. The main reasons for this
endeavour are simple: most research done on the socialization of science
journalists is decades old (Kiernan 2002, p.251), was conducted long before the
Internet invaded newsrooms, and reflects mainly a United States perspective.
To understand how science journalists in print media and news agencies all over
the European Union are working on a daily basis can give us a better perception
on how science institutions are building the public agenda on such an important
issue for society. At the same time, it is crucial to know how Internet is affecting
the newsgathering procedures of science journalists, and how this new tool has
changed the way they relate to the other participants in the news process.
Being a science journalist for the last 18 years, I am well aware of the problems of
involvement and detachment stated by Elias (1956) on his essay about the
relationships between ‘subjects’ and ‘objects’. During this work, in order to
preserve the distance between the professional and the researcher, I will try to
‘hold up the mirror’ and keep both roles ‘clearly and consistently apart’, focusing
mostly on the results of my academic work on how the Internet is affecting the
role of journalists as science communicators.
In his landmark work on science and the media, Hillier Krieghbaum stated the
reasons why we should care about the transmission of science to the general
public: first, he said, the public needs to know science if it is to make ‘wise and
intelligent choices’ (Krieghbaum 1967, p.5); second, ‘unless there is a real
understanding of science and technology’, democracy may be at stake (p.12); and,
third, science is important because it is ‘an adventure of the human spirit’ (p.13).
Page 12
12
Some years later, in Science and the media, Peter Farago reinforced these
arguments: ‘Science is part of our contemporary culture (…) it’s a part of
humanity itself’ and scientific awareness is a fundamental pillar of a democratic
society, he wrote (Farago 1976, p.2/3). According to him, these characteristics are
enough to show the importance of science in our society and the need for its
transmission to lay audiences.
The reasons given by scholars for the communication of science to the public
have not changed much since then (McGowan 1985; Hartz and Chappell 1997)
and even science journalists, who Krieghbaum admitted sharing a different culture
from scientists (Krieghbaum 1967, p.38), have become more and more supportive
of science and its practices.
It was not always like this. During the first decades of the 20th century1, science
was portrayed in the media as an activity that took place in highly-respected and
distant institutions and was performed by almost semi-gods. At that time,
journalists saw themselves as the ones who could communicate with the Olympus
and bring the light to the people:
True descendants of Prometheus, science writers take the fire from
the scientific Olympus, the laboratories and the universities, and
bring it down to the people. (US science journalist William Laurence
cited by Nelkin 1987, p.1)
This deferential attitude of science journalists has marked the coverage of science
news since the beginning. Because they write about a very specific and often very
complicated theme, most science writers overtrust their sources and tend to be
uncritical of the research they are told about. Because of the complexity of most
of the issues scientists deal with, science writers also tend to stick to stories which
1 ‘The new profession of science journalism arose in the United States in the years between the
World Wars”. Lewenstein, B. V. (2002). Science and the Media. Handbook of science and
technology studies. S. Jasanoff, J. C. Petersen, T. Pinch and G. E. Markle. Thousand Oaks, Sage:
343-360.
Some years later, in Science and the media, Peter Farago reinforced these
arguments: ‘Science is part of our contemporary culture (…) it’s a part of
humanity itself’ and scientific awareness is a fundamental pillar of a democratic
society, he wrote (Farago 1976, p.2/3). According to him, these characteristics are
enough to show the importance of science in our society and the need for its
transmission to lay audiences.
The reasons given by scholars for the communication of science to the public
have not changed much since then (McGowan 1985; Hartz and Chappell 1997)
and even science journalists, who Krieghbaum admitted sharing a different culture
from scientists (Krieghbaum 1967, p.38), have become more and more supportive
of science and its practices.
It was not always like this. During the first decades of the 20th century1, science
was portrayed in the media as an activity that took place in highly-respected and
distant institutions and was performed by almost semi-gods. At that time,
journalists saw themselves as the ones who could communicate with the Olympus
and bring the light to the people:
True descendants of Prometheus, science writers take the fire from
the scientific Olympus, the laboratories and the universities, and
bring it down to the people. (US science journalist William Laurence
cited by Nelkin 1987, p.1)
This deferential attitude of science journalists has marked the coverage of science
news since the beginning. Because they write about a very specific and often very
complicated theme, most science writers overtrust their sources and tend to be
uncritical of the research they are told about. Because of the complexity of most
of the issues scientists deal with, science writers also tend to stick to stories which
1 ‘The new profession of science journalism arose in the United States in the years between the
World Wars”. Lewenstein, B. V. (2002). Science and the Media. Handbook of science and
technology studies. S. Jasanoff, J. C. Petersen, T. Pinch and G. E. Markle. Thousand Oaks, Sage:
343-360.
Page 13
13
are ‘of relevance to daily life’, stories ‘with a human-angle’ (Hansen 1994,
p.114)2.
The search for ‘stories with a human angle’ might be responsible for the fact that
medical news have been dominating the field of science journalism (Holliman,
Trench et al. 2002) and seem to be getting more and more space in both quality an
popular media (Tanner 2004)3. According to Bauer (1998), its style of reporting
has even contaminated other fields of science news:
The rhetorical features of alarming, personalising and appealing to
authority, once characteristic of biomedical news, are becoming
increasingly dominant feature of science writing. As biomedical
news is, to a larger extent, a news value of the popular press, and it
has been shown that, both on quantity and quality, biomedical news
is becoming dominant, one could argue this shows a narrowing gap
between popular and quality science journalism in the direction of
more homogeneous science reportage. (Bauer 1998, p.742)
However, the supremacy of health news is a relatively recent trend. After the
Second World War, the cold war dominated science news and the ‘breakthroughs’
of both Soviets and Americans were widely reported (Nelkin 1987, p.95). Only
with the 1960s, news started to become concerned with environmental and health
issues, and the transition from ‘a physical to a biomedical dominance in science
reportage occurred in the popular press by the early 80s, but not until the mid-
1990s in the quality press’ (Bauer 1998, p.743).
This change was also pushed by the beginning of the end of the post-war
patronage of science, with the industrial-scientific complex increasingly replacing
the military-scientific complex (ibidem). The need for funds pressed scientists to
turn to the press, and science journalists were eager to help: ‘More recently, in the
2 ‘Interesting stories are, prototypically, “people stories.” A top producer, himself a space buff,
bemoaned the end of space stories during the Apollo-Soyuz linkup in 1975 and rejected those on
the exploration of Mars then already in the works, because “that’s with robots; I want men there.”’
(Gans 1979, p.155)
3 In her study of television health reporters, Tanner writes: ‘9 out of 10 reporters indicated that
when a health source provides personal examples for a particular story for the reporter to use, the
story idea has a good chance of making it into the air’. (Tanner 2004, p.359)
are ‘of relevance to daily life’, stories ‘with a human-angle’ (Hansen 1994,
p.114)2.
The search for ‘stories with a human angle’ might be responsible for the fact that
medical news have been dominating the field of science journalism (Holliman,
Trench et al. 2002) and seem to be getting more and more space in both quality an
popular media (Tanner 2004)3. According to Bauer (1998), its style of reporting
has even contaminated other fields of science news:
The rhetorical features of alarming, personalising and appealing to
authority, once characteristic of biomedical news, are becoming
increasingly dominant feature of science writing. As biomedical
news is, to a larger extent, a news value of the popular press, and it
has been shown that, both on quantity and quality, biomedical news
is becoming dominant, one could argue this shows a narrowing gap
between popular and quality science journalism in the direction of
more homogeneous science reportage. (Bauer 1998, p.742)
However, the supremacy of health news is a relatively recent trend. After the
Second World War, the cold war dominated science news and the ‘breakthroughs’
of both Soviets and Americans were widely reported (Nelkin 1987, p.95). Only
with the 1960s, news started to become concerned with environmental and health
issues, and the transition from ‘a physical to a biomedical dominance in science
reportage occurred in the popular press by the early 80s, but not until the mid-
1990s in the quality press’ (Bauer 1998, p.743).
This change was also pushed by the beginning of the end of the post-war
patronage of science, with the industrial-scientific complex increasingly replacing
the military-scientific complex (ibidem). The need for funds pressed scientists to
turn to the press, and science journalists were eager to help: ‘More recently, in the
2 ‘Interesting stories are, prototypically, “people stories.” A top producer, himself a space buff,
bemoaned the end of space stories during the Apollo-Soyuz linkup in 1975 and rejected those on
the exploration of Mars then already in the works, because “that’s with robots; I want men there.”’
(Gans 1979, p.155)
3 In her study of television health reporters, Tanner writes: ‘9 out of 10 reporters indicated that
when a health source provides personal examples for a particular story for the reporter to use, the
story idea has a good chance of making it into the air’. (Tanner 2004, p.359)
Page 14
14
80s, science writing, like other areas of journalism, has returned to a less critical
and more promotional style’. (Nelkin 1987, p.97). Science topics are nowadays
presented much more consensually than 40 years ago. In their study on the
coverage of science by the leading Italian newspaper Il Corriere della Sera over a
period of 50 years, Bucchi and Mazzolini (2003) noticed that controversies are
only visible in less than one fourth of the articles about science.
Despite this promotional style, the relations between scientists and journalists are
not without conflict. Belonging to a world that does not reward public
appearances, and it even abominates ‘publicity-seekers’ (Dibella, Ferri et al.
1991), scientists know by their own experience that ‘proeminence in the media
competes with reputation in science’ (Weingart 1998, p.870). The rules that a
scientist should follow when dealing with publicity were never actually written as
such, but Rae Goodell summarized them in her work The Visible Scientists: stay
in committees appointed by the administration or the Congress; research is a goal,
the rest is distraction; postpone public engagement until you are old; communicate
only with your peers; restrict action to activities that enhance public
understanding of science and funding; if politics, stay in the middle (Goodell
1977, p.92).
Most of these rules were already out of date when Goodell wrote about them. The
‘visibility system’, as she called it, was mainly responsible for this state of affairs:
Part of our government-by-crisis, visible scientists are catalysts in
the process of converting problems into visible issues. As
figureheads, they attract media (who follow public opinion) and
politicians (who follow the media and public opinion). (Goodell
1977, p.8)
The visibility system was slowly making its way into the science world, and
scientists were starting to be confronted with the need to speak to the public
through the media, maintaining what Nelkin (1987, p.169) called ‘their continued
ambivalence about the press’. Even when criticizing their colleagues for speaking
to the media, or criticizing the media for being inaccurate (Tankard and Ryan
80s, science writing, like other areas of journalism, has returned to a less critical
and more promotional style’. (Nelkin 1987, p.97). Science topics are nowadays
presented much more consensually than 40 years ago. In their study on the
coverage of science by the leading Italian newspaper Il Corriere della Sera over a
period of 50 years, Bucchi and Mazzolini (2003) noticed that controversies are
only visible in less than one fourth of the articles about science.
Despite this promotional style, the relations between scientists and journalists are
not without conflict. Belonging to a world that does not reward public
appearances, and it even abominates ‘publicity-seekers’ (Dibella, Ferri et al.
1991), scientists know by their own experience that ‘proeminence in the media
competes with reputation in science’ (Weingart 1998, p.870). The rules that a
scientist should follow when dealing with publicity were never actually written as
such, but Rae Goodell summarized them in her work The Visible Scientists: stay
in committees appointed by the administration or the Congress; research is a goal,
the rest is distraction; postpone public engagement until you are old; communicate
only with your peers; restrict action to activities that enhance public
understanding of science and funding; if politics, stay in the middle (Goodell
1977, p.92).
Most of these rules were already out of date when Goodell wrote about them. The
‘visibility system’, as she called it, was mainly responsible for this state of affairs:
Part of our government-by-crisis, visible scientists are catalysts in
the process of converting problems into visible issues. As
figureheads, they attract media (who follow public opinion) and
politicians (who follow the media and public opinion). (Goodell
1977, p.8)
The visibility system was slowly making its way into the science world, and
scientists were starting to be confronted with the need to speak to the public
through the media, maintaining what Nelkin (1987, p.169) called ‘their continued
ambivalence about the press’. Even when criticizing their colleagues for speaking
to the media, or criticizing the media for being inaccurate (Tankard and Ryan
Page 17
17
An article in the British Medical Journal showed how the media overplayed the
cold drug pleconaril when the trial results were made public, but failed to follow
up the rejection decision by the FDA, based on those same (scientifically poor)
trial results: ‘The FDA advisory committee unanimously recommended rejecting
the manufacturer's application. The company announced that it was ending trials
five months later.’ (Schwitzer 2003)
An even more recent article, in the Canadian Medical Association Journal,
showed how media reports had a strong influence in the prescription of Diane-35,
an androgen-blocking combination drug with contraceptive properties (Mintzes,
Morgan et al. 2005).
Science journalists are also accepting the control of scientific information by a
series of rules established by their sources, like the embargo, and see it as serving
the public interest (Kiernan 2002, p.240). Even if some authors, like Goodell
(1977), defend that the embargo system distorts the image of science to the
general public and serves mainly the publicity interests of scientific journals.
As a consequence of all these constraints, science journalists rarely confront the
scientific institutions and very seldom uncover scientific fraud or report about
wrongdoings in the scientific world. At the same time, science journalists have
become more and more supportive of science and its practices, showing
sometimes a religious creed on its trustworthiness:
We write about science because we love science and want to
communicate our fascination with the natural world. (Rensberger
2000, p.61)
This statement of Rensberger is just one, among many, that shows how science
journalists are becoming closer to their sources, are fascinated by the science
world and, because of that, often abandon the ‘watchdog’ role they hold in the
competitive model.
An article in the British Medical Journal showed how the media overplayed the
cold drug pleconaril when the trial results were made public, but failed to follow
up the rejection decision by the FDA, based on those same (scientifically poor)
trial results: ‘The FDA advisory committee unanimously recommended rejecting
the manufacturer's application. The company announced that it was ending trials
five months later.’ (Schwitzer 2003)
An even more recent article, in the Canadian Medical Association Journal,
showed how media reports had a strong influence in the prescription of Diane-35,
an androgen-blocking combination drug with contraceptive properties (Mintzes,
Morgan et al. 2005).
Science journalists are also accepting the control of scientific information by a
series of rules established by their sources, like the embargo, and see it as serving
the public interest (Kiernan 2002, p.240). Even if some authors, like Goodell
(1977), defend that the embargo system distorts the image of science to the
general public and serves mainly the publicity interests of scientific journals.
As a consequence of all these constraints, science journalists rarely confront the
scientific institutions and very seldom uncover scientific fraud or report about
wrongdoings in the scientific world. At the same time, science journalists have
become more and more supportive of science and its practices, showing
sometimes a religious creed on its trustworthiness:
We write about science because we love science and want to
communicate our fascination with the natural world. (Rensberger
2000, p.61)
This statement of Rensberger is just one, among many, that shows how science
journalists are becoming closer to their sources, are fascinated by the science
world and, because of that, often abandon the ‘watchdog’ role they hold in the
competitive model.
Page 20
20
2. The construction of news
In their seminal work on the construction of reality, Berger and Luckmann (1967)
argue that people create and sustain all social phenomena through practice:
The world of everyday life is not only taken for granted as reality by
the ordinary members of society in the subjectively meaningful
conducts of their lives. It is a world that originates in their thoughts
and actions, and is maintained as real by these. (Berger and
Luckmann 1967, p.33)
If we apply this theoretical framework to the media, we can say that ‘news is not a
veridical account of reality, but a social and cultural construction of journalists
and their sources’ (Ericson, Baranek et al. 1987, p.346). And this means that,
contrary to what many journalists sustain, news is not an immaculate description
of reality, but the product of the interactions of the people intervening in the news
process.
Social constructionism, however, contains a multiplicity of approaches. Best
(1995) talks about ‘strict constructionists’, who argue that social problem analysts
should avoid making any assumptions about objective reality, and ‘contextual
constructionists’, who accept that there are objective realities that must be taken
into account when analysing any problems:
Analysts who hope to understand how and why social problems
emerge and evolve must locate claims making within its context. By
default, all constructionist analysis becomes a form of contextual
constructionism. (Best 1995, p.348)
This research project, as others in the area of science news (Dunwoody 1999;
Kiernan 2002), falls in the latter category. The objects studied by scientists, such
as birds or rocks, have an objective reality, and the scientific papers they produce
really exist. However, I maintain, as others have done in the past, that
2. The construction of news
In their seminal work on the construction of reality, Berger and Luckmann (1967)
argue that people create and sustain all social phenomena through practice:
The world of everyday life is not only taken for granted as reality by
the ordinary members of society in the subjectively meaningful
conducts of their lives. It is a world that originates in their thoughts
and actions, and is maintained as real by these. (Berger and
Luckmann 1967, p.33)
If we apply this theoretical framework to the media, we can say that ‘news is not a
veridical account of reality, but a social and cultural construction of journalists
and their sources’ (Ericson, Baranek et al. 1987, p.346). And this means that,
contrary to what many journalists sustain, news is not an immaculate description
of reality, but the product of the interactions of the people intervening in the news
process.
Social constructionism, however, contains a multiplicity of approaches. Best
(1995) talks about ‘strict constructionists’, who argue that social problem analysts
should avoid making any assumptions about objective reality, and ‘contextual
constructionists’, who accept that there are objective realities that must be taken
into account when analysing any problems:
Analysts who hope to understand how and why social problems
emerge and evolve must locate claims making within its context. By
default, all constructionist analysis becomes a form of contextual
constructionism. (Best 1995, p.348)
This research project, as others in the area of science news (Dunwoody 1999;
Kiernan 2002), falls in the latter category. The objects studied by scientists, such
as birds or rocks, have an objective reality, and the scientific papers they produce
really exist. However, I maintain, as others have done in the past, that
Page 23
23
Participant observation is common to Tuchman, Gans and Fishman studies. The
researchers involved spent days inside the organizations trying to understand how
journalists and editors worked, what their values were, what they were concerned
with. The bureaucratic structure of the organization emerged: ‘A newspaper is a
bureaucracy’, wrote Tuchman (1978, p.149).
Journalists do not see themselves as bureaucrats. In fact, they mock bureaucracy
and sometimes become frantic about it. But the truth is that there are five basic
characteristics of a bureaucracy, all present in news organizations: a staff; fixed
areas of jurisdiction; a hierarchy; a rational system of expertise; and an ethos of
objectivity – which means that each case is supposed to be handled according to
the applicable procedures. (Berger and Berger 1976, p.215-217)
When analysing news organizations from this angle, researchers became aware of
many of the constraints that influence the work of journalists: sources, editors,
colleagues, other media, audiences, time, space, money, their own background
and attitudes. The power of sources in shaping the news, in a competitive
environment that resembles a production line, became more evident. The
establishing of facts by the simple use of credible sources or conflicting positions,
without the need of independent verification, became understandable. The search
for consensus of what is news, even between competing news organizations,
became logical.
In the end of the 1980s, an important study brought a new perspective to the
research on the shaping of news. Stocking and Gross (1989) explained how the
cognitive processes of journalists themselves could influence the outcome of their
work. According to their investigation, the cognitive process of a journalist could
be divided in six different stages: stimulus; categorization; theory generation;
theory testing; selection of information; and integration of information.
The main idea behind their thesis is that people tend to seek and select
information in ways that confirm their initial beliefs. So, when confronted with a
stimulus, people (and also journalists) tend to immediately categorize it. For
Participant observation is common to Tuchman, Gans and Fishman studies. The
researchers involved spent days inside the organizations trying to understand how
journalists and editors worked, what their values were, what they were concerned
with. The bureaucratic structure of the organization emerged: ‘A newspaper is a
bureaucracy’, wrote Tuchman (1978, p.149).
Journalists do not see themselves as bureaucrats. In fact, they mock bureaucracy
and sometimes become frantic about it. But the truth is that there are five basic
characteristics of a bureaucracy, all present in news organizations: a staff; fixed
areas of jurisdiction; a hierarchy; a rational system of expertise; and an ethos of
objectivity – which means that each case is supposed to be handled according to
the applicable procedures. (Berger and Berger 1976, p.215-217)
When analysing news organizations from this angle, researchers became aware of
many of the constraints that influence the work of journalists: sources, editors,
colleagues, other media, audiences, time, space, money, their own background
and attitudes. The power of sources in shaping the news, in a competitive
environment that resembles a production line, became more evident. The
establishing of facts by the simple use of credible sources or conflicting positions,
without the need of independent verification, became understandable. The search
for consensus of what is news, even between competing news organizations,
became logical.
In the end of the 1980s, an important study brought a new perspective to the
research on the shaping of news. Stocking and Gross (1989) explained how the
cognitive processes of journalists themselves could influence the outcome of their
work. According to their investigation, the cognitive process of a journalist could
be divided in six different stages: stimulus; categorization; theory generation;
theory testing; selection of information; and integration of information.
The main idea behind their thesis is that people tend to seek and select
information in ways that confirm their initial beliefs. So, when confronted with a
stimulus, people (and also journalists) tend to immediately categorize it. For
Page 25
25
2.1. Studies on the constraints of journalists
To probe deeper into the construction of science news, we will have to examine
the research already done on the constraints journalists face while doing their job.
For practical reasons, we will first analyse what previous research has said about
the pressures science journalists receive from sources. Subsequently, we will
present the studies about the influences of the news organization, the competitors,
audiences and even the personal background of journalists in the construction of
science news.
The peer-reviewed studies carried out on the Internet and its influence on the daily
routine of journalists will be analysed afterwards. Throughout these chapters
special attention will be given to studies about the work of science journalists and
the special characteristics of their job, as the main reason for this literature review
is to set the stage for the original research project that will be part of this thesis.
2.1.1. Sources’ influence on the news
It is a common saying that without news sources there is no news. However,
research has shown that sources are not only necessary in the news process – they
have an enormous influence on it (Gans 1979; Fishman 1980; Ericson, Baranek et
al. 1989):
The relationship between sources and journalists resembles a dance,
for sources seek access to journalists, and journalists seek access to
sources. Although it takes two to tango, either sources or journalist
can lead, but more often than not, sources do the leading. (Gans
1979, p.116)
2.1. Studies on the constraints of journalists
To probe deeper into the construction of science news, we will have to examine
the research already done on the constraints journalists face while doing their job.
For practical reasons, we will first analyse what previous research has said about
the pressures science journalists receive from sources. Subsequently, we will
present the studies about the influences of the news organization, the competitors,
audiences and even the personal background of journalists in the construction of
science news.
The peer-reviewed studies carried out on the Internet and its influence on the daily
routine of journalists will be analysed afterwards. Throughout these chapters
special attention will be given to studies about the work of science journalists and
the special characteristics of their job, as the main reason for this literature review
is to set the stage for the original research project that will be part of this thesis.
2.1.1. Sources’ influence on the news
It is a common saying that without news sources there is no news. However,
research has shown that sources are not only necessary in the news process – they
have an enormous influence on it (Gans 1979; Fishman 1980; Ericson, Baranek et
al. 1989):
The relationship between sources and journalists resembles a dance,
for sources seek access to journalists, and journalists seek access to
sources. Although it takes two to tango, either sources or journalist
can lead, but more often than not, sources do the leading. (Gans
1979, p.116)
Page 27
27
This close relationship between science and the media, and between scientists and
journalists, is something worth analysing more deeply. In his work, Sigal (1973)
already told us that the excessive contact with sources could lead to the absorption
of the sources’ values and, ultimately, to what he called ‘beat parochialism’:
Many of the journalists covering Apollo were so caught up in the
drama of the space race that they came to regard themselves as part
of the NASA “team”. (Sigal 1973, p.48-49)
Several reasons have been given to explain this special ‘coupling’ of scientists and
journalists. Rae Goodell points out three main reasons, that have to do with the
complexity of the subject journalists are writing about: (1) science is intimidating
and a close relationship with the scientists might help to overcome that; (2)
journalists have a lack of confidence in themselves to judge what is really
important; (3) trust may be jeopardized by bad coverage (Goodell 1979).
Weingart (1998, p.878) says that the reason for this coupling can be ‘understood
as an expected side phenomenon of modern mass democracies and corresponds to
their increased demands of legitimacy’. Other authors have pointed out that
science seems to be above other legitimation processes in society. Its apparent
neutrality, moved by universal criteria, makes scientists more respected sources,
seldom confronted by journalists (Goodell 1977; Nelkin 1987). The fact that most
science news items are about medical discoveries, and praise the positive aspects
of them, also helps this uncritical relation between science journalists and their
sources.
Even when dealing with scientific fraud, journalists tend to ‘appear relatively
tame’ (Lafollette 1992, p.153), or use words they would not use in any other
fields:
Fraud is a “sin” as well as a scandal. The culprit has “fallen” or
betrayed the profession […] Consumer fraud is a “ripoff” or a
“crime”, hardly a “sin.” Political scandals are abuses of trust and
reported, often cynically, as critiques of political institutions. (Nelkin
1987, p.26)
This close relationship between science and the media, and between scientists and
journalists, is something worth analysing more deeply. In his work, Sigal (1973)
already told us that the excessive contact with sources could lead to the absorption
of the sources’ values and, ultimately, to what he called ‘beat parochialism’:
Many of the journalists covering Apollo were so caught up in the
drama of the space race that they came to regard themselves as part
of the NASA “team”. (Sigal 1973, p.48-49)
Several reasons have been given to explain this special ‘coupling’ of scientists and
journalists. Rae Goodell points out three main reasons, that have to do with the
complexity of the subject journalists are writing about: (1) science is intimidating
and a close relationship with the scientists might help to overcome that; (2)
journalists have a lack of confidence in themselves to judge what is really
important; (3) trust may be jeopardized by bad coverage (Goodell 1979).
Weingart (1998, p.878) says that the reason for this coupling can be ‘understood
as an expected side phenomenon of modern mass democracies and corresponds to
their increased demands of legitimacy’. Other authors have pointed out that
science seems to be above other legitimation processes in society. Its apparent
neutrality, moved by universal criteria, makes scientists more respected sources,
seldom confronted by journalists (Goodell 1977; Nelkin 1987). The fact that most
science news items are about medical discoveries, and praise the positive aspects
of them, also helps this uncritical relation between science journalists and their
sources.
Even when dealing with scientific fraud, journalists tend to ‘appear relatively
tame’ (Lafollette 1992, p.153), or use words they would not use in any other
fields:
Fraud is a “sin” as well as a scandal. The culprit has “fallen” or
betrayed the profession […] Consumer fraud is a “ripoff” or a
“crime”, hardly a “sin.” Political scandals are abuses of trust and
reported, often cynically, as critiques of political institutions. (Nelkin
1987, p.26)
Page 31
31
Science publications also control the dissemination of information through the
embargo system, an agreement between the provider of information and the news
media. By receiving the information in advance, journalists agree that they will
not release it before a given time established by the ‘news promoter’ – to use the
expression of Molotch and Lester (1974).
The embargo system might go back to George Washington and the Revolutionary
War, but in science journalism it may have started with Morris Fishbein, former
editor of The Journal of the Americal Medical Association (JAMA). He used to
show Howard W. Blakeslee, the first science editor of the Associated Press, page
proofs of JAMA, provided that he would not write about the materials until the
date of the JAMA issue in which the study appeared (Stacey 1985). ‘It is unclear
when the embargo navigated from medical to science journals’ (Kiernan 1997,
p.304).
Science journals defend the embargo as a device that can help journalists produce
more ‘responsible’ articles. By not to rushing into print to beat competitors,
science journalists can have the time to contact sources and write a more
informative piece, hopefully free from speculation and inaccuracies.
We believe that our current embargo policy, similar to the approach
used by other scientific journals, is appropriate, effective, and fair
and serves to help foster accurate, responsible reporting.
(Fontanarosa and DeAngelis 2002)
Science reporters receive embargoed information, in the form of press releases,
from several scholarly journals, but we will concentrate on six of the most
important ones: Nature, Science, The New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA,
The Lancet and British Medical Journal. The New England Journal of Medicine
does not issue a press release, but provides copies of the upcoming issue in
advance to journalists all over the world (Wehrwein 1998). The publication dates
are Wednesday, for JAMA; Thursday, for Nature and NEJM; Friday, for Science,
The Lancet and British Medical Journal. Because the time of the embargo is set
for some hours before midnight GMT the day before publication, American TV
Science publications also control the dissemination of information through the
embargo system, an agreement between the provider of information and the news
media. By receiving the information in advance, journalists agree that they will
not release it before a given time established by the ‘news promoter’ – to use the
expression of Molotch and Lester (1974).
The embargo system might go back to George Washington and the Revolutionary
War, but in science journalism it may have started with Morris Fishbein, former
editor of The Journal of the Americal Medical Association (JAMA). He used to
show Howard W. Blakeslee, the first science editor of the Associated Press, page
proofs of JAMA, provided that he would not write about the materials until the
date of the JAMA issue in which the study appeared (Stacey 1985). ‘It is unclear
when the embargo navigated from medical to science journals’ (Kiernan 1997,
p.304).
Science journals defend the embargo as a device that can help journalists produce
more ‘responsible’ articles. By not to rushing into print to beat competitors,
science journalists can have the time to contact sources and write a more
informative piece, hopefully free from speculation and inaccuracies.
We believe that our current embargo policy, similar to the approach
used by other scientific journals, is appropriate, effective, and fair
and serves to help foster accurate, responsible reporting.
(Fontanarosa and DeAngelis 2002)
Science reporters receive embargoed information, in the form of press releases,
from several scholarly journals, but we will concentrate on six of the most
important ones: Nature, Science, The New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA,
The Lancet and British Medical Journal. The New England Journal of Medicine
does not issue a press release, but provides copies of the upcoming issue in
advance to journalists all over the world (Wehrwein 1998). The publication dates
are Wednesday, for JAMA; Thursday, for Nature and NEJM; Friday, for Science,
The Lancet and British Medical Journal. Because the time of the embargo is set
for some hours before midnight GMT the day before publication, American TV
Page 34
34
This practice [the embargo system] also ensures that the public gets a
“voilà” view of science. They will see the approved final product,
not the trial-and-error experimenting, debating, and groping that
make up the scientific process. In their concern to protect people
from inaccuracies, scientists mislead them much more seriously bout
the science of the scientific process. Also, by stripping science of its
natural human interest, they leave it for reporters to add artificial
drama. In short, scientists contribute to the very sensationalism and
“discovery” orientation of the press that they criticize. (Goodell
1977, p.131)
No one studied the embargo in science news more deeply that Vincent Kiernan. In
April 1990, JAMA changed its publication date to Wednesday in order to avoid
appearing after the NEJM on Thursday. Kiernan (1998) examined The New York
Times coverage of JAMA from 1989 to 1991, comparing it to the NEJM coverage.
He found that the ‘news coverage of JAMA’s contents jumped by almost 50
percent after its publication date was moved two days earlier in the week’. The
number of stories citing NEJM remained unchanged.
In another study about the Mars Meteorite case10, Kiernan (2000) found that
‘contrary to the stated rationale for embargoes on science news, premature
disclosure of the paper in the media resulted in news coverage that was largely
accurate’. Both these studies, and his doctoral thesis on the subject, led Kiernan to
state that the embargo system ‘distorts coverage of science, and consequently the
news the public receives about science’, and therefore ‘should be eliminated’.
(Kiernan 2002, p.252)
The future of the embargo system may be directly linked with the use of the
Internet in newsrooms. Finn (1997b) contends that the Internet may kill the
embargo. Kiernan (2002, p.249) says that the Internet ‘appears to be both
bolstering and undermining the embargo system’, because there are more sites
with embargoed information available everywhere in the world but, at the same
10 In 1994, a NASA team discovered tubular structures that seemed reminiscent of living
organisms in a meteorite from Mars. The case got worldwide attention when, in 1996, Science
published an article on the subject.
This practice [the embargo system] also ensures that the public gets a
“voilà” view of science. They will see the approved final product,
not the trial-and-error experimenting, debating, and groping that
make up the scientific process. In their concern to protect people
from inaccuracies, scientists mislead them much more seriously bout
the science of the scientific process. Also, by stripping science of its
natural human interest, they leave it for reporters to add artificial
drama. In short, scientists contribute to the very sensationalism and
“discovery” orientation of the press that they criticize. (Goodell
1977, p.131)
No one studied the embargo in science news more deeply that Vincent Kiernan. In
April 1990, JAMA changed its publication date to Wednesday in order to avoid
appearing after the NEJM on Thursday. Kiernan (1998) examined The New York
Times coverage of JAMA from 1989 to 1991, comparing it to the NEJM coverage.
He found that the ‘news coverage of JAMA’s contents jumped by almost 50
percent after its publication date was moved two days earlier in the week’. The
number of stories citing NEJM remained unchanged.
In another study about the Mars Meteorite case10, Kiernan (2000) found that
‘contrary to the stated rationale for embargoes on science news, premature
disclosure of the paper in the media resulted in news coverage that was largely
accurate’. Both these studies, and his doctoral thesis on the subject, led Kiernan to
state that the embargo system ‘distorts coverage of science, and consequently the
news the public receives about science’, and therefore ‘should be eliminated’.
(Kiernan 2002, p.252)
The future of the embargo system may be directly linked with the use of the
Internet in newsrooms. Finn (1997b) contends that the Internet may kill the
embargo. Kiernan (2002, p.249) says that the Internet ‘appears to be both
bolstering and undermining the embargo system’, because there are more sites
with embargoed information available everywhere in the world but, at the same
10 In 1994, a NASA team discovered tubular structures that seemed reminiscent of living
organisms in a meteorite from Mars. The case got worldwide attention when, in 1996, Science
published an article on the subject.
Page 35
35
time, there is a growing number of specialized newsgroups and public sites where
scientists hold their discussions and where reporters can get important information
before it even appears in journals.
2.1.2. Other influences on the news - organization, competition, audiences
and personal background
Sources, as we have seen, have a strong influence on what gets reported in the
media. Most of the issues journalists write about are prepared by the sources, the
so called ‘routine events’, as defined by Molotch and Lester (1974). Several
studies (Tuchman 1978; Gans 1979; Fishman 1980) have shown that the
organization of the newsroom, and the exchanges that take place between the
members of the staff, also exert a heavy weight on the construction of news:
The news reflects not the reality being reported on, but the social and
cultural organization of news work and the frames for news
discourse they provide. (Ericson, Baranek et al. 1987, p.101)
The first idea we must keep in mind when analysing the organizational constraints
of journalists is that the newsroom consists of people who are competing for a
scarce resource – space, have only a limited time to gather information, and must
do it within the budget of the organization. For a story to get published, it must go
through what Gans (1979, p.90) calls the ‘selling process’, which takes place
mostly inside the newsroom: a source (or an editor) sells a story to a journalist,
who sells it to the editor, who sells it to senior editors.
In big news organizations, the editorial operations become more centralized and
more bureaucratised. Beats, which are fixed areas of jurisdiction (one of the five
basic characteristics of a bureaucracy, as we have seen), only appear when
organizations are big enough (Johnstone 1986). And the system is so widespread
time, there is a growing number of specialized newsgroups and public sites where
scientists hold their discussions and where reporters can get important information
before it even appears in journals.
2.1.2. Other influences on the news - organization, competition, audiences
and personal background
Sources, as we have seen, have a strong influence on what gets reported in the
media. Most of the issues journalists write about are prepared by the sources, the
so called ‘routine events’, as defined by Molotch and Lester (1974). Several
studies (Tuchman 1978; Gans 1979; Fishman 1980) have shown that the
organization of the newsroom, and the exchanges that take place between the
members of the staff, also exert a heavy weight on the construction of news:
The news reflects not the reality being reported on, but the social and
cultural organization of news work and the frames for news
discourse they provide. (Ericson, Baranek et al. 1987, p.101)
The first idea we must keep in mind when analysing the organizational constraints
of journalists is that the newsroom consists of people who are competing for a
scarce resource – space, have only a limited time to gather information, and must
do it within the budget of the organization. For a story to get published, it must go
through what Gans (1979, p.90) calls the ‘selling process’, which takes place
mostly inside the newsroom: a source (or an editor) sells a story to a journalist,
who sells it to the editor, who sells it to senior editors.
In big news organizations, the editorial operations become more centralized and
more bureaucratised. Beats, which are fixed areas of jurisdiction (one of the five
basic characteristics of a bureaucracy, as we have seen), only appear when
organizations are big enough (Johnstone 1986). And the system is so widespread
Page 38
38
This behaviour of editors is not exclusive to science news and was detected in
several studies carried out on the construction of news (Sigal 1973; Tuchman
1978; Gans 1979; Ericson, Baranek et al. 1987). This conduct, however, has some
effects on the role of the media and certainly on the construction of reality through
the media, as Sigal (1973, p.181) explains: ‘So long as newsmen (…) use each
other as their standards of comparison, newsmaking will tend to be self-
reinforcing.’
Contrary to some myths on journalism, many times created by movies and
television series, journalists tend to
hunt in packs, continually monitoring each other’s output, and
following very similar editorial strategies, so that news media
agendas tend to be shared across papers and broadcasting channels.
(Manning 2001, p.216)
Sharon Dunwoody studied extensively the cooperative conduct of the most
respected American science journalists, during the annual meeting of the
American Association for the Advancement of Science. She noticed that they
exhibited this behaviour in two specific areas: topic selection and information
gathering. There were advantages in this behaviour. When cooperating in the
selection of the topic, science journalists neutralized the competitive aspects of
journalism, and this action was reassuring for both journalists and their editors,
because nobody would be scooped. At the same time, journalists could pool their
expertise on a particular issue.
Dunwoody witnessed the information-gathering cooperation between science
reporters in the sharing of notes and interviews, in the supportive questioning at
news conferences, and in the acting as warning system to one another. Of course,
both these kinds of cooperative behaviour also had some disadvantages:
standardization in story selection and disregard of areas of little interest to any of
the journalists involved. In the case she studied, social science was the ignored
area (Dunwoody 1980).
This behaviour of editors is not exclusive to science news and was detected in
several studies carried out on the construction of news (Sigal 1973; Tuchman
1978; Gans 1979; Ericson, Baranek et al. 1987). This conduct, however, has some
effects on the role of the media and certainly on the construction of reality through
the media, as Sigal (1973, p.181) explains: ‘So long as newsmen (…) use each
other as their standards of comparison, newsmaking will tend to be self-
reinforcing.’
Contrary to some myths on journalism, many times created by movies and
television series, journalists tend to
hunt in packs, continually monitoring each other’s output, and
following very similar editorial strategies, so that news media
agendas tend to be shared across papers and broadcasting channels.
(Manning 2001, p.216)
Sharon Dunwoody studied extensively the cooperative conduct of the most
respected American science journalists, during the annual meeting of the
American Association for the Advancement of Science. She noticed that they
exhibited this behaviour in two specific areas: topic selection and information
gathering. There were advantages in this behaviour. When cooperating in the
selection of the topic, science journalists neutralized the competitive aspects of
journalism, and this action was reassuring for both journalists and their editors,
because nobody would be scooped. At the same time, journalists could pool their
expertise on a particular issue.
Dunwoody witnessed the information-gathering cooperation between science
reporters in the sharing of notes and interviews, in the supportive questioning at
news conferences, and in the acting as warning system to one another. Of course,
both these kinds of cooperative behaviour also had some disadvantages:
standardization in story selection and disregard of areas of little interest to any of
the journalists involved. In the case she studied, social science was the ignored
area (Dunwoody 1980).
Page 39
39
This standardization can easily cross frontiers, as science journalists in other
countries read the most influential foreign newspapers to write about the same
things others are writing about (van Trigt, de Jong-van den Berg et al. 1994).
Sometimes, this copycat behaviour can have even more harmful effects as
unreliable science stories get reported over and over again, because of
organizational pressures (Lewis 1998; Finkbeiner 1999; Shaw 2000a). When one
of these stories gets into the media, and reporters feel obliged to report on it even
though they are aware of the story’s weaknesses, audiences are hurt the most.
Ever since the works of Gieber (1964), we know that journalists have a deficient
perception of their audiences. Sigal (1973, p.37) observed that reporters usually
say that they are writing for their readers but ‘the specific content of news
depends on the exchange of information between newsmen and their sources’.
Later, Gans (1979, p.230) showed that journalists have access to formal feedback
from their audience, but they seldom use it. When asked to describe who their
audience is, journalists tend to describe the most educated part of their audience,
perhaps to raise their own status (Gans 1979, p.238-239).
Citing Popovich (1978), Sharon Friedman notes that several studies show that
journalists do not think about their audiences while writing. One study showed
that many times journalists rely on the city editor’s perception of audience tastes.
Another showed that ‘the reporter’s source of reward was located among his peers
in the newsroom’ (Friedman 1986, p.32).
As in other areas of journalism, science reporters have a vague image of their
readers. When asked whom they are writing for, science journalists tend to give
very diverse answers, that go from ‘the layman’ to ‘Joe the plumber,’ or the
‘average high school graduate.’ Some say they are writing for professionals in
science, others are writing for themselves and their editors (Dennis and
McCartney 1979). As Nelkin (1987) observed, science journalists’ perceptions of
their readers are based on their personal observations, and they ‘maintain a set of
assumptions about readers that heavily influence their choices and their styles’
(p.118).
This standardization can easily cross frontiers, as science journalists in other
countries read the most influential foreign newspapers to write about the same
things others are writing about (van Trigt, de Jong-van den Berg et al. 1994).
Sometimes, this copycat behaviour can have even more harmful effects as
unreliable science stories get reported over and over again, because of
organizational pressures (Lewis 1998; Finkbeiner 1999; Shaw 2000a). When one
of these stories gets into the media, and reporters feel obliged to report on it even
though they are aware of the story’s weaknesses, audiences are hurt the most.
Ever since the works of Gieber (1964), we know that journalists have a deficient
perception of their audiences. Sigal (1973, p.37) observed that reporters usually
say that they are writing for their readers but ‘the specific content of news
depends on the exchange of information between newsmen and their sources’.
Later, Gans (1979, p.230) showed that journalists have access to formal feedback
from their audience, but they seldom use it. When asked to describe who their
audience is, journalists tend to describe the most educated part of their audience,
perhaps to raise their own status (Gans 1979, p.238-239).
Citing Popovich (1978), Sharon Friedman notes that several studies show that
journalists do not think about their audiences while writing. One study showed
that many times journalists rely on the city editor’s perception of audience tastes.
Another showed that ‘the reporter’s source of reward was located among his peers
in the newsroom’ (Friedman 1986, p.32).
As in other areas of journalism, science reporters have a vague image of their
readers. When asked whom they are writing for, science journalists tend to give
very diverse answers, that go from ‘the layman’ to ‘Joe the plumber,’ or the
‘average high school graduate.’ Some say they are writing for professionals in
science, others are writing for themselves and their editors (Dennis and
McCartney 1979). As Nelkin (1987) observed, science journalists’ perceptions of
their readers are based on their personal observations, and they ‘maintain a set of
assumptions about readers that heavily influence their choices and their styles’
(p.118).
Page 40
40
The personal observations of journalists are also influenced by their own
background. Journalism is not only a production process, and research has shown
that the news product also reflects the personal views of reporters (Schudson
1989). News journalists in Europe the USA and elsewhere continue to be drawn
from mainly middle class and educated elites (Manning 2001, p.71). Science
journalists belong to this elite, as Krieghbaum pointed out more than 30 years ago:
During the past quarter century, science journalists have acquired
better academic backgrounds and certainly have held their own
against two other recognized elites among reporters – those in
Washington and those overseas. (Krieghbaum 1967, p.92)
At that time, science journalists enjoyed a special status in the newsroom, as other
journalists even asked for advice on personal medical matters, ‘so typically these
writers came to be known in the office as “Doc”’ (Burnham 1987, p.198-199).
More recent research has shown that this pattern of superiority is still true (Dennis
and McCartney 1979; Tristani-Potteaux 1997). In this last study, which included a
survey of French science journalists, Françoise Tristani-Potteaux found that a
growing number of these reporters came from science areas and some had
journalism degrees. She also found that, among French science journalists, there is
a feeling of belonging to the world of research, a characteristic that can strongly
influence the outcome of their work.
There is an issue, however, that seems to divide science journalists when
discussing their background: the need to have a science education before reporting
on science issues. Nelkin (1987) and Hansen (1994) found that, in general,
journalists think that excessive science training is not important for the job, and
can even hinder the critical ability of journalists as they absorb the values of
scientists. However, a recent survey of journalists and mass communication
scholars in the United States revealed that most respondents are worried about the
training of science journalists as they are ‘at the critical intersection of the practice
of science and the public understanding of science’ (Treise and Weigold 2002).
Others, have been even more radical:
The personal observations of journalists are also influenced by their own
background. Journalism is not only a production process, and research has shown
that the news product also reflects the personal views of reporters (Schudson
1989). News journalists in Europe the USA and elsewhere continue to be drawn
from mainly middle class and educated elites (Manning 2001, p.71). Science
journalists belong to this elite, as Krieghbaum pointed out more than 30 years ago:
During the past quarter century, science journalists have acquired
better academic backgrounds and certainly have held their own
against two other recognized elites among reporters – those in
Washington and those overseas. (Krieghbaum 1967, p.92)
At that time, science journalists enjoyed a special status in the newsroom, as other
journalists even asked for advice on personal medical matters, ‘so typically these
writers came to be known in the office as “Doc”’ (Burnham 1987, p.198-199).
More recent research has shown that this pattern of superiority is still true (Dennis
and McCartney 1979; Tristani-Potteaux 1997). In this last study, which included a
survey of French science journalists, Françoise Tristani-Potteaux found that a
growing number of these reporters came from science areas and some had
journalism degrees. She also found that, among French science journalists, there is
a feeling of belonging to the world of research, a characteristic that can strongly
influence the outcome of their work.
There is an issue, however, that seems to divide science journalists when
discussing their background: the need to have a science education before reporting
on science issues. Nelkin (1987) and Hansen (1994) found that, in general,
journalists think that excessive science training is not important for the job, and
can even hinder the critical ability of journalists as they absorb the values of
scientists. However, a recent survey of journalists and mass communication
scholars in the United States revealed that most respondents are worried about the
training of science journalists as they are ‘at the critical intersection of the practice
of science and the public understanding of science’ (Treise and Weigold 2002).
Others, have been even more radical:
Page 44
44
The production of science news is changing due to the introduction
of electronic communications and particularly the Internet in
providing credible source material for science news. Rather than
increasing the global coverage of science news, this appears to have
led to an increased reliance on US science. (Holliman 2000, p. 309)
In their annual study on the use of Internet by American media, Middleberg and
Ross (2000) found that the percentage of print journalists searching for
information online has increased from 23 percent in 1995 to 81 percent in 2000.
Nearly all respondents to the 2000 survey (98 percent) said that they went online
at least daily to check e-mail, and spent about 15 hours a week reading and
sending e-mail.
Of all journalists surveyed, 53 percent say they’re online
‘continously – defined as at least two or three times day or more –
and another 29 percent say they’re online frequently – meaning up to
two times a day. (Middleberg and Ross 2000, p.6)
Craig Trumbo and his colleagues conducted two surveys of members of the
National Association of Science Writers (NASW), in the United States, and found
that the use of e-mail and the Web increased significantly between 1994 and 1999
(Trumbo, Sprecker et al. 2001). Subsequent in-depth interviews with 20
respondents to this survey concluded that ‘E-mail and the Web are having a
tremendous impact on the practices of science journalism and on the lives of
science writers’ (Dumlao and Duke 2003, p.302). Greater productivity and
increased work stress seem to be the direct results of the adoption of this
innovation.
Similar conclusions were drawn by other authors:
Currently, the rise of the Web is one of the main reasons for the
acceleration of technicalization and economicalization in journalism,
and it faces a difficult challenge in applying professional standards
to the Web (…) Economics and the technology of the news gathering
process will dominate future news production. (Loosen 2002)
The production of science news is changing due to the introduction
of electronic communications and particularly the Internet in
providing credible source material for science news. Rather than
increasing the global coverage of science news, this appears to have
led to an increased reliance on US science. (Holliman 2000, p. 309)
In their annual study on the use of Internet by American media, Middleberg and
Ross (2000) found that the percentage of print journalists searching for
information online has increased from 23 percent in 1995 to 81 percent in 2000.
Nearly all respondents to the 2000 survey (98 percent) said that they went online
at least daily to check e-mail, and spent about 15 hours a week reading and
sending e-mail.
Of all journalists surveyed, 53 percent say they’re online
‘continously – defined as at least two or three times day or more –
and another 29 percent say they’re online frequently – meaning up to
two times a day. (Middleberg and Ross 2000, p.6)
Craig Trumbo and his colleagues conducted two surveys of members of the
National Association of Science Writers (NASW), in the United States, and found
that the use of e-mail and the Web increased significantly between 1994 and 1999
(Trumbo, Sprecker et al. 2001). Subsequent in-depth interviews with 20
respondents to this survey concluded that ‘E-mail and the Web are having a
tremendous impact on the practices of science journalism and on the lives of
science writers’ (Dumlao and Duke 2003, p.302). Greater productivity and
increased work stress seem to be the direct results of the adoption of this
innovation.
Similar conclusions were drawn by other authors:
Currently, the rise of the Web is one of the main reasons for the
acceleration of technicalization and economicalization in journalism,
and it faces a difficult challenge in applying professional standards
to the Web (…) Economics and the technology of the news gathering
process will dominate future news production. (Loosen 2002)
Page 45
45
Science institutions and scholarly journals understood from the early days of
Internet the importance this new tool could have in the dissemination of science
news. Twenty-five years ago, long before the democratisation of the Web,
Tuchman (1978, p.18) observed that ‘reporters tend to gather around places where
stories might be expected to occur, such as central police stations and courts
processing crimes’.
The central source of science news had yet to appear. So, in May 1996, the
American Association for the Advancement of Science created Eurekalert!, a site
that brings together scientific sources and journalists. Sources pay up to $1000
dollars a year to have their embargoed materials posted on the site, journalists pay
nothing to access that information (Marshall 1998). However, to be allowed into
the site, journalists must at all times respect the embargoes decided by the news
promoters and, if they do not, permission to access the information will be
cancelled.
By May 2002, 25,000 press releases had already been posted in Eurekalert! and
more than 4,000 reporters from 45 countries had access to that information.
Twenty-six percent of those journalists used the site daily and 33 percent several
times a week (O'Malley 2002). In November 2002, there were 1330 journalists
from the European Union accessing Eurekalert!, 501 (37,6%) came from the
United Kingdom (O’Malley, pers.comm.). Journalists interviewed by Holliman
(2000, p.309) have acknowledged the strength of Eurekalert! as a source of
credible science news but, at the same time, a way of putting greater emphasis on
American science.
Another important source of science news and press releases on the Internet is the
European rival of Eurekalert! – AlphaGalileo – which was launched in September
1998, with the promise of being ‘an effective one-stop shop for news on European
science, engineering and technology’ (Green 1998). According to the ‘newsletter’
AlphaGalileo eNews, sent regularly to all journalists registered with the service,
3584 journalists had access to AlphaGalileo in November 2002. The service was
run by the British Association for the Advancement of Science, and was
Science institutions and scholarly journals understood from the early days of
Internet the importance this new tool could have in the dissemination of science
news. Twenty-five years ago, long before the democratisation of the Web,
Tuchman (1978, p.18) observed that ‘reporters tend to gather around places where
stories might be expected to occur, such as central police stations and courts
processing crimes’.
The central source of science news had yet to appear. So, in May 1996, the
American Association for the Advancement of Science created Eurekalert!, a site
that brings together scientific sources and journalists. Sources pay up to $1000
dollars a year to have their embargoed materials posted on the site, journalists pay
nothing to access that information (Marshall 1998). However, to be allowed into
the site, journalists must at all times respect the embargoes decided by the news
promoters and, if they do not, permission to access the information will be
cancelled.
By May 2002, 25,000 press releases had already been posted in Eurekalert! and
more than 4,000 reporters from 45 countries had access to that information.
Twenty-six percent of those journalists used the site daily and 33 percent several
times a week (O'Malley 2002). In November 2002, there were 1330 journalists
from the European Union accessing Eurekalert!, 501 (37,6%) came from the
United Kingdom (O’Malley, pers.comm.). Journalists interviewed by Holliman
(2000, p.309) have acknowledged the strength of Eurekalert! as a source of
credible science news but, at the same time, a way of putting greater emphasis on
American science.
Another important source of science news and press releases on the Internet is the
European rival of Eurekalert! – AlphaGalileo – which was launched in September
1998, with the promise of being ‘an effective one-stop shop for news on European
science, engineering and technology’ (Green 1998). According to the ‘newsletter’
AlphaGalileo eNews, sent regularly to all journalists registered with the service,
3584 journalists had access to AlphaGalileo in November 2002. The service was
run by the British Association for the Advancement of Science, and was
Page 47
47
2.3. Public understanding of science and the media
Over the last 25 years, public understanding of science (PUS) research has tried to
understand how science is perceived and absorbed by the general public. The
House of Lords Science and Society report defined public understanding of
science in general terms as the ‘understanding of scientific matters by “non-
experts.”’ (House of Lords 2000)
The discussion on PUS has evolved around three paradigms – science literacy,
public understanding of science and science and society -, as Bauer, Allum et. al
(2007) have shown. These paradigms illustrate different ways to look at the
relations between science and the public, and attribute different roles to the main
actors of this process.
The first period (1960s to mid-80s) is characterized by the idea that there is a
knowledge deficit and an insufficiently literate public. In this paradigm, media
should help educate the public about science, especially about its facts and
methods:
This deficit model serves the education agenda, demanding increased
efforts in science education at all stages of the life cycle. (Bauer,
Allum et al. 2007, p.80)
The second period is largely influenced by the Royal Society of London report
The Public Understanding of Science, released in 1985. In this period, PUS
researchers also talk about a knowledge deficit of the population, but the attitude
of the public is now their main concern:
The public is not positive enough about science and technology;
there are dangers citizens become negative or outright anti-science,
and this is of natural concern to institutions of science. (Bauer,
Allum et al. 2007, p.82)
2.3. Public understanding of science and the media
Over the last 25 years, public understanding of science (PUS) research has tried to
understand how science is perceived and absorbed by the general public. The
House of Lords Science and Society report defined public understanding of
science in general terms as the ‘understanding of scientific matters by “non-
experts.”’ (House of Lords 2000)
The discussion on PUS has evolved around three paradigms – science literacy,
public understanding of science and science and society -, as Bauer, Allum et. al
(2007) have shown. These paradigms illustrate different ways to look at the
relations between science and the public, and attribute different roles to the main
actors of this process.
The first period (1960s to mid-80s) is characterized by the idea that there is a
knowledge deficit and an insufficiently literate public. In this paradigm, media
should help educate the public about science, especially about its facts and
methods:
This deficit model serves the education agenda, demanding increased
efforts in science education at all stages of the life cycle. (Bauer,
Allum et al. 2007, p.80)
The second period is largely influenced by the Royal Society of London report
The Public Understanding of Science, released in 1985. In this period, PUS
researchers also talk about a knowledge deficit of the population, but the attitude
of the public is now their main concern:
The public is not positive enough about science and technology;
there are dangers citizens become negative or outright anti-science,
and this is of natural concern to institutions of science. (Bauer,
Allum et al. 2007, p.82)
Page 48
48
In this period, research turns to attitudes towards science (for example, Einsiedel
1994). Although all the researchers agree that the public has an ‘attitudinal deficit’
towards science, they cannot agree on what to do about it. On one side of the
discussion, the scientists who believe that it is still possible to educate the public
because ‘the more you know, the more you love it’. On the other side of the table,
the researchers who argue that values and emotions are facts of life and that the
only way to fight the deficit is to try to seduce the public towards science (Bauer,
Allum et al. 2007).
In the last period – the so called Science and Society –, from mid 1990s to
present, researchers point out several deficits that are preventing science to reach
the whole population: public deficits of knowledge, attitude or trust, and also
deficits on the part of scientists and scientific institutions. In this paradigm, ‘the
distinction between research and intervention is blurred’ (Bauer, Allum et al.
2007, p.85) and ‘rebuild public trust’ seems to be the motto of every report or
white paper.
Journalists and the media, in general, have tried not to take an active part on this
discussion. Tom Wilkie, at the time science editor of The Independent, was one of
the voices defending the need for the press to maintain its independence on the
debate about PUS:
The function of those who work on newspapers is to sell newspapers
to the public: we are not in the business of educating the public.
(Wilkie 1991, p.577)
Nevertheless, the fact is that the news media play a role in informing the public
about science (Hargreaves, Lewis et al. 2003), and science institutions use the
media to promote their agenda.
The major finding of McCombs and Shaw (1972) study was that the media
agenda could influence the public agenda. Subsequent studies have proven their
assumption right (Funkhouser 1973; Brosius and Kepplinger 1990; MacKuen
In this period, research turns to attitudes towards science (for example, Einsiedel
1994). Although all the researchers agree that the public has an ‘attitudinal deficit’
towards science, they cannot agree on what to do about it. On one side of the
discussion, the scientists who believe that it is still possible to educate the public
because ‘the more you know, the more you love it’. On the other side of the table,
the researchers who argue that values and emotions are facts of life and that the
only way to fight the deficit is to try to seduce the public towards science (Bauer,
Allum et al. 2007).
In the last period – the so called Science and Society –, from mid 1990s to
present, researchers point out several deficits that are preventing science to reach
the whole population: public deficits of knowledge, attitude or trust, and also
deficits on the part of scientists and scientific institutions. In this paradigm, ‘the
distinction between research and intervention is blurred’ (Bauer, Allum et al.
2007, p.85) and ‘rebuild public trust’ seems to be the motto of every report or
white paper.
Journalists and the media, in general, have tried not to take an active part on this
discussion. Tom Wilkie, at the time science editor of The Independent, was one of
the voices defending the need for the press to maintain its independence on the
debate about PUS:
The function of those who work on newspapers is to sell newspapers
to the public: we are not in the business of educating the public.
(Wilkie 1991, p.577)
Nevertheless, the fact is that the news media play a role in informing the public
about science (Hargreaves, Lewis et al. 2003), and science institutions use the
media to promote their agenda.
The major finding of McCombs and Shaw (1972) study was that the media
agenda could influence the public agenda. Subsequent studies have proven their
assumption right (Funkhouser 1973; Brosius and Kepplinger 1990; MacKuen
Page 49
49
1991). Scientists and science institutions have long understood their capacity of
influencing the agenda in order to promote science and its benefits:
Scientists themselves are players in competition for media space and
public sympathy, rather than simply disinterested suppliers of
information. (Miller 1999, p.214)
In their 1978 study, Hall and his colleagues argue that ‘accredited’ sources enjoy
privileged access to the media. They get more space, because they have expert
knowledge and they represent a powerful sector of society. As a consequence,
they become ‘primary definers’ of the issues on the agenda (Hall, Critcher et al.
1978).
The public understanding of science movement has pushed scientists to become
primary definers of the science agenda, urging them to communicate with the
public as often as possible. As Gregory and Miller (1998) write, in the opening of
their book Science in Public, ‘in the last decade or so, scientists have been
delivered a new commandment from on high: thou shalt communicate.’
This appeal for communication has pushed scientists, science journals and science
institutions to create mechanisms to promote their activities, preserving, at the
same time, some control on the outcome of that public relations effort.
Eurekalert!, for instance, was created by the American Association for the
Advancement of Science, with rules for journalists set by the universities and
research journals.
As science has grown as a profession, so the worry has increased that
the scientific profession itself has vested interests to which scientists
will attend. Scientists want better grants, more equipment and so on.
They want to be taken more and more seriously by politicians and
policy-makers. (Yearley 2005, p.XIII)
Scientists are ‘sources with a mission’ (Nelkin 1984) and are challenged to be
science communicators and to ‘enter into dialogue with their peers, with the
public, and with mediators’ (Burns, O'Connor et al. 2003). However, scientists
1991). Scientists and science institutions have long understood their capacity of
influencing the agenda in order to promote science and its benefits:
Scientists themselves are players in competition for media space and
public sympathy, rather than simply disinterested suppliers of
information. (Miller 1999, p.214)
In their 1978 study, Hall and his colleagues argue that ‘accredited’ sources enjoy
privileged access to the media. They get more space, because they have expert
knowledge and they represent a powerful sector of society. As a consequence,
they become ‘primary definers’ of the issues on the agenda (Hall, Critcher et al.
1978).
The public understanding of science movement has pushed scientists to become
primary definers of the science agenda, urging them to communicate with the
public as often as possible. As Gregory and Miller (1998) write, in the opening of
their book Science in Public, ‘in the last decade or so, scientists have been
delivered a new commandment from on high: thou shalt communicate.’
This appeal for communication has pushed scientists, science journals and science
institutions to create mechanisms to promote their activities, preserving, at the
same time, some control on the outcome of that public relations effort.
Eurekalert!, for instance, was created by the American Association for the
Advancement of Science, with rules for journalists set by the universities and
research journals.
As science has grown as a profession, so the worry has increased that
the scientific profession itself has vested interests to which scientists
will attend. Scientists want better grants, more equipment and so on.
They want to be taken more and more seriously by politicians and
policy-makers. (Yearley 2005, p.XIII)
Scientists are ‘sources with a mission’ (Nelkin 1984) and are challenged to be
science communicators and to ‘enter into dialogue with their peers, with the
public, and with mediators’ (Burns, O'Connor et al. 2003). However, scientists
Page 52
52
most influential science writers in this continent. But this is exactly the reason
why this survey is important: because it can show what they think about the
constraints of their job, and give us a clear overview of the problems science
journalists face inside some of the major European newsrooms.
Not included in this survey are freelance science journalists – mainly because
their constraints are somewhat different from on staff journalists, but also because
they would enlarge the universe of respondents to unmanageable numbers within
a PhD project. We’ve also decided not to include science journalists working for
specialized magazines, because they work in a completely different environment,
where science is not competing with other issues for space. Their audiences are
different, their pace of work too.
Of course, there are disadvantages in using a self-completion questionnaire, the
most important of which is the difficulty in probing some of the given answers
and the collection of additional data, as researchers have pointed out (Bryman
2001). In the case of this research project, the subsequent interviews help us
overcome some of the issues raised by the survey, specially the ones that
challenge the findings of previous research.
The survey serves the purpose of answering the main questions of this thesis:
Who are the European Union science journalists working in national print media
and news agencies? What are their attitudes and expectations? How is Internet
transforming science journalism in Europe? By understanding the relations
science journalists have with their sources, with their colleagues and competitors,
and with their audiences, we will be able to better comprehend how science news
is being built in Europe. Because it is important to know how Internet has
changed the newsgathering routines of these professionals, a separate section of
the survey is dedicated to this issue.
Research has suggested that Web surveys appear to be attaining lower response
rates than equivalent mail surveys, especially because users are becoming
impatient with high-burden Web interactions (Crawford, Couper et al. 2001). At
most influential science writers in this continent. But this is exactly the reason
why this survey is important: because it can show what they think about the
constraints of their job, and give us a clear overview of the problems science
journalists face inside some of the major European newsrooms.
Not included in this survey are freelance science journalists – mainly because
their constraints are somewhat different from on staff journalists, but also because
they would enlarge the universe of respondents to unmanageable numbers within
a PhD project. We’ve also decided not to include science journalists working for
specialized magazines, because they work in a completely different environment,
where science is not competing with other issues for space. Their audiences are
different, their pace of work too.
Of course, there are disadvantages in using a self-completion questionnaire, the
most important of which is the difficulty in probing some of the given answers
and the collection of additional data, as researchers have pointed out (Bryman
2001). In the case of this research project, the subsequent interviews help us
overcome some of the issues raised by the survey, specially the ones that
challenge the findings of previous research.
The survey serves the purpose of answering the main questions of this thesis:
Who are the European Union science journalists working in national print media
and news agencies? What are their attitudes and expectations? How is Internet
transforming science journalism in Europe? By understanding the relations
science journalists have with their sources, with their colleagues and competitors,
and with their audiences, we will be able to better comprehend how science news
is being built in Europe. Because it is important to know how Internet has
changed the newsgathering routines of these professionals, a separate section of
the survey is dedicated to this issue.
Research has suggested that Web surveys appear to be attaining lower response
rates than equivalent mail surveys, especially because users are becoming
impatient with high-burden Web interactions (Crawford, Couper et al. 2001). At
Page 59
59
When building the website and designing the questionnaire, we took into
consideration the “Guidelines for Designing and Implementing Internet Surveys”,
suggested by Schonlau, Fricker Jr. et al. (2002, p.40-53). Especially useful were
the recommendations about the listing of only a few questions in each screen, the
need for password protection, the ensuring of the privacy of respondents, the
indications about the survey’s progress, the automatic validation of input and the
need for thoroughly testing of the survey before starting. We also took into
consideration the suggestions made by Wimmer and Dominick (2000) and
Bryman (2001) about the presentation of the questionnaire and its length. A
screenshot of the first page of the survey can be seen on figure 1:
Figure 1 - Screenshot of the first page of the survey
In order to ensure that the survey would be answered only once by each
respondent, the access to the survey was controlled by a password, embedded in
the URL sent individually15. In order to avoid double answers, this special URL
15 The URL had the following format: http://newmedia.leeds.ac.uk/sesj/index.cfm?user=wert56.
The letters after the equal sign were the unique password.
When building the website and designing the questionnaire, we took into
consideration the “Guidelines for Designing and Implementing Internet Surveys”,
suggested by Schonlau, Fricker Jr. et al. (2002, p.40-53). Especially useful were
the recommendations about the listing of only a few questions in each screen, the
need for password protection, the ensuring of the privacy of respondents, the
indications about the survey’s progress, the automatic validation of input and the
need for thoroughly testing of the survey before starting. We also took into
consideration the suggestions made by Wimmer and Dominick (2000) and
Bryman (2001) about the presentation of the questionnaire and its length. A
screenshot of the first page of the survey can be seen on figure 1:
Figure 1 - Screenshot of the first page of the survey
In order to ensure that the survey would be answered only once by each
respondent, the access to the survey was controlled by a password, embedded in
the URL sent individually15. In order to avoid double answers, this special URL
15 The URL had the following format: http://newmedia.leeds.ac.uk/sesj/index.cfm?user=wert56.
The letters after the equal sign were the unique password.
Page 62
62
3.2. The interviews
The second part of this research project consisted in conducting interviews with
some of the European science journalists who answered the survey. The idea
behind these interviews was to collect more information about the way journalists
relate with the Internet and how they feel about it. In this case, as Wimmer and
Dominick (2000) put it, we thought that the interview could be of an enormous
help to explore these questions more deeply:
The most important advantage of the in-depth interview is the wealth
of detail that it provides. Futhermore, when compared to more
traditional survey methods, intensive interviewing provides more
accurate responses on sensitive issues. (Wimmer and Dominick
2000, p.122)
To guide our work, and because the survey had already given us some information
on the use of Internet by European science journalists, we set two main goals for
these interviews: to understand how these journalists recognize the Internet as a
reporting tool; and to gather information on how Internet is changing the routines
of these professionals.
Drawing on these goals, on the literature review, and on our own results from the
survey, we planned the questions for the interview. Because we were dealing with
journalists with very tighten schedules, and because we would have to use the
telephone to conduct most of these interviews (the respondents were too scattered
to allow face-to-face contact), we decided to limit them to a maximum duration of
30 minutes.
This decision had an important effect on the quantity of information we could
collect from the interviews. Longer interviews would have allowed us to probe
even deeper on the aspects we wanted to study, but would also certainly
discourage some of the interviewees, too busy to spend one hour or more being
3.2. The interviews
The second part of this research project consisted in conducting interviews with
some of the European science journalists who answered the survey. The idea
behind these interviews was to collect more information about the way journalists
relate with the Internet and how they feel about it. In this case, as Wimmer and
Dominick (2000) put it, we thought that the interview could be of an enormous
help to explore these questions more deeply:
The most important advantage of the in-depth interview is the wealth
of detail that it provides. Futhermore, when compared to more
traditional survey methods, intensive interviewing provides more
accurate responses on sensitive issues. (Wimmer and Dominick
2000, p.122)
To guide our work, and because the survey had already given us some information
on the use of Internet by European science journalists, we set two main goals for
these interviews: to understand how these journalists recognize the Internet as a
reporting tool; and to gather information on how Internet is changing the routines
of these professionals.
Drawing on these goals, on the literature review, and on our own results from the
survey, we planned the questions for the interview. Because we were dealing with
journalists with very tighten schedules, and because we would have to use the
telephone to conduct most of these interviews (the respondents were too scattered
to allow face-to-face contact), we decided to limit them to a maximum duration of
30 minutes.
This decision had an important effect on the quantity of information we could
collect from the interviews. Longer interviews would have allowed us to probe
even deeper on the aspects we wanted to study, but would also certainly
discourage some of the interviewees, too busy to spend one hour or more being
Page 64
64
Invitations for the interviews
Journalists were contacted to take part in the interviews by e-mail20. The first
group of e-mails was sent on 19th April 2005 to 15 different journalists, five from
each group.
In order to get all the 12 interviewees, we contacted seven people from the first
group (respondents who use the Internet for less than 3 hours a day), seven from
the second group (respondents who use the Internet from 3 to 4 hours a day) and
nine from the third group (journalists who use the Internet for more than 4 hours a
day). A summary of these contacts is provided in Table 1. (see next page)
The 12 interviews for this project were conducted by telephone, from 22nd April
2005 to 9th June 2005, in English. Only one of these interviews (with a Portuguese
journalist) was done in person. For consistency reasons, this interview was also
conducted in English.
20 The content of the e-mail can be read in appendix VI.
Invitations for the interviews
Journalists were contacted to take part in the interviews by e-mail20. The first
group of e-mails was sent on 19th April 2005 to 15 different journalists, five from
each group.
In order to get all the 12 interviewees, we contacted seven people from the first
group (respondents who use the Internet for less than 3 hours a day), seven from
the second group (respondents who use the Internet from 3 to 4 hours a day) and
nine from the third group (journalists who use the Internet for more than 4 hours a
day). A summary of these contacts is provided in Table 1. (see next page)
The 12 interviews for this project were conducted by telephone, from 22nd April
2005 to 9th June 2005, in English. Only one of these interviews (with a Portuguese
journalist) was done in person. For consistency reasons, this interview was also
conducted in English.
20 The content of the e-mail can be read in appendix VI.
Page 65
65
Subject
number
GROUP I
<3hrs/day
GROUP II
3-4hrs/day
GROUP III
>4hrs/day
1st
e-mail
2nd
e-mail
3rd
e-mail
1st
e-mail
2nd
e-mail
3rd
e-mail
1st
e-mail
2nd
e-mail
3rd
e-mail
1 x x x - - - - - -
2 x x - - - - - - -
3 V - - - - - - - -
4 x V - - - - - - -
5 V - - - - - - - -
6 - - - x x x - - -
7 - - - V - - - - -
8 - - - x x V - - -
9 - - - x x x - - -
10 - - - x V - - - -
11 - - - - - - x x x
12 - - - - - - x V -
13 - - - - - - x x -
14 - - - - - - x x V
15 - - - - - - x x x
16 x x x - - - - - -
17 V - - - - - - - -
18 - - - x x x - - -
19 - - - x V - - - -
20 - - - - - - x - -
21 - - - - - - x x x
22 - - - - - - V - -
23 - - - - - - x V -
x – Didn’t answer the e-mail or refused to be interviewed
V – accepted the interview
Table 1 - Contacts for the interviews in the three groups of respondents
Subject
number
GROUP I
<3hrs/day
GROUP II
3-4hrs/day
GROUP III
>4hrs/day
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1 x x x - - - - - -
2 x x - - - - - - -
3 V - - - - - - - -
4 x V - - - - - - -
5 V - - - - - - - -
6 - - - x x x - - -
7 - - - V - - - - -
8 - - - x x V - - -
9 - - - x x x - - -
10 - - - x V - - - -
11 - - - - - - x x x
12 - - - - - - x V -
13 - - - - - - x x -
14 - - - - - - x x V
15 - - - - - - x x x
16 x x x - - - - - -
17 V - - - - - - - -
18 - - - x x x - - -
19 - - - x V - - - -
20 - - - - - - x - -
21 - - - - - - x x x
22 - - - - - - V - -
23 - - - - - - x V -
x – Didn’t answer the e-mail or refused to be interviewed
V – accepted the interview
Table 1 - Contacts for the interviews in the three groups of respondents
Page 66
66
4. Survey results
This chapter will present the results of a survey of science journalists working on
staff for general print media and news agencies in 14 different countries of the
European Union (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece,
Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom).
The survey was conducted through the Internet, between 17 November 2003 and
9 February 2004. Details on its methodology are elucidated in chapter 3 of this
thesis.
The results will be presented according to several sub-chapters that will follow the
main journalistic constraints recognized in the literature review and probed in the
questionnaire: general characterisation of the respondents, their relations and
thoughts about sources, competition, internal pressures, audiences, and their
feelings about the current situation of their job. Finally, we will present the results
about the use European science journalists make of the Internet and the influence
this new resource is having on their daily routines.
As we have stated in the previous chapter, invitations to participate in the survey
were sent to 208 journalists from 102 different media. Ninety-seven (97) valid
answers were obtained, which means this survey had a response rate of 46.6
percent.
4. Survey results
This chapter will present the results of a survey of science journalists working on
staff for general print media and news agencies in 14 different countries of the
European Union (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece,
Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom).
The survey was conducted through the Internet, between 17 November 2003 and
9 February 2004. Details on its methodology are elucidated in chapter 3 of this
thesis.
The results will be presented according to several sub-chapters that will follow the
main journalistic constraints recognized in the literature review and probed in the
questionnaire: general characterisation of the respondents, their relations and
thoughts about sources, competition, internal pressures, audiences, and their
feelings about the current situation of their job. Finally, we will present the results
about the use European science journalists make of the Internet and the influence
this new resource is having on their daily routines.
As we have stated in the previous chapter, invitations to participate in the survey
were sent to 208 journalists from 102 different media. Ninety-seven (97) valid
answers were obtained, which means this survey had a response rate of 46.6
percent.
Page 69
69
Countries GNI per capita (USD)
Denmark 30,600
Ireland 29,570
Austria 28,910
Netherlands 28,350
Belgium 28,130
France 27,040
Germany 26,980
United Kingdom 26,580
Italy 26,170
Finland 26,160
Sweden 25,820
Spain 21,210
Greece 18,770
Portugal 17,820
Table 3 - GNI per capita of the countries of the respondents - World Bank (2005)
In the first group, we joined countries with a GNI per capita lower than 22,000
USD (Spain, Greece and Portugal); in a second group, countries with a GNI per
capita higher than 22,000 USD but lower than 28,000 USD (France, Germany,
United Kingdom, Italy, Finland and Sweden). Finally, in the third group, countries
with a GNI per capita higher than 28,000 USD (Denmark, Ireland, Austria,
Netherlands and Belgium). Table 4 shows the groups formed by this division.
GNI per capita Number of cases Percent
<22,000 USD 21 21,6
22,000-28,000 USD 47 48,5
>28,000 USD 29 29,9
Total 97 100,0
Table 4 - Number of respondents according to GNI per capita of their country
Countries GNI per capita (USD)
Denmark 30,600
Ireland 29,570
Austria 28,910
Netherlands 28,350
Belgium 28,130
France 27,040
Germany 26,980
United Kingdom 26,580
Italy 26,170
Finland 26,160
Sweden 25,820
Spain 21,210
Greece 18,770
Portugal 17,820
Table 3 - GNI per capita of the countries of the respondents - World Bank (2005)
In the first group, we joined countries with a GNI per capita lower than 22,000
USD (Spain, Greece and Portugal); in a second group, countries with a GNI per
capita higher than 22,000 USD but lower than 28,000 USD (France, Germany,
United Kingdom, Italy, Finland and Sweden). Finally, in the third group, countries
with a GNI per capita higher than 28,000 USD (Denmark, Ireland, Austria,
Netherlands and Belgium). Table 4 shows the groups formed by this division.
GNI per capita Number of cases Percent
<22,000 USD 21 21,6
22,000-28,000 USD 47 48,5
>28,000 USD 29 29,9
Total 97 100,0
Table 4 - Number of respondents according to GNI per capita of their country
Page 72
72
Age
55-64 years
45-54 years
35-44 years
25-34 years
N
um
be
r
of
c
as
es
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Figure 3 - Age of respondents
Type of media
Most respondents (N=66; 68.8 percent) to this survey work for daily newspapers
and only a small percentage for weekly magazines or news agencies. This is an
expected result of this survey, as it had been decided that we would only question
science journalists working on staff for general print media and news agencies,
and most of the general print media are daily newspapers. Table 7 shows the
number of respondents according to the type of media they work for.
Number of cases Percent
Daily newspapers 66 68.8
Weekly/monthly 20 20.8
News agencies 10 10.4
Total 96 100.0
Table 7 - Number of respondents according to the type of media they work for
Age
55-64 years
45-54 years
35-44 years
25-34 years
N
um
be
r
of
c
as
es
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Figure 3 - Age of respondents
Type of media
Most respondents (N=66; 68.8 percent) to this survey work for daily newspapers
and only a small percentage for weekly magazines or news agencies. This is an
expected result of this survey, as it had been decided that we would only question
science journalists working on staff for general print media and news agencies,
and most of the general print media are daily newspapers. Table 7 shows the
number of respondents according to the type of media they work for.
Number of cases Percent
Daily newspapers 66 68.8
Weekly/monthly 20 20.8
News agencies 10 10.4
Total 96 100.0
Table 7 - Number of respondents according to the type of media they work for
Page 73
73
Size of the science section
In our survey, we’ve also tried to understand the allocation of resources to the
science section respondents belong to, so we could draw some conclusions on the
kind of media we were dealing with. All 97 respondents answered the question
“How many people write about science in your organization?”, and the results
were revealing of the organizations we had decided to survey. Table 8 shows the
answers to the question.
Frequency Percent
One person 15 15.5
Two people 19 19.6
Three people 29 29.9
Four people or more 34 35.1
Total 97 100.0
Table 8 - Number of people writing about science in each of the surveyed media
These results show that the journalists included in this survey belong to what may
be called the elite of European science journalists, as we had anticipated when
preparing the survey. Only well-resourced general newspapers or magazines can
allocate so many people to cover science on daily/weekly basis.
Journalistic experience of respondents
Besides working for very important organizations, the surveyed journalists also
have a very strong journalistic experience. The respondents’ mean number of
years working as a journalist is 17.3. Males are more experienced (mean=18.8
years) than females (mean=14.7 years), a statistically significant result26. In
countries with a GNI per capita lower than 22,000 USD (Spain, Greece and
Portugal) the mean number of years as a journalist is 12.7. In all the other
26 t (94) = 1.951, p = 0,05
Size of the science section
In our survey, we’ve also tried to understand the allocation of resources to the
science section respondents belong to, so we could draw some conclusions on the
kind of media we were dealing with. All 97 respondents answered the question
“How many people write about science in your organization?”, and the results
were revealing of the organizations we had decided to survey. Table 8 shows the
answers to the question.
Frequency Percent
One person 15 15.5
Two people 19 19.6
Three people 29 29.9
Four people or more 34 35.1
Total 97 100.0
Table 8 - Number of people writing about science in each of the surveyed media
These results show that the journalists included in this survey belong to what may
be called the elite of European science journalists, as we had anticipated when
preparing the survey. Only well-resourced general newspapers or magazines can
allocate so many people to cover science on daily/weekly basis.
Journalistic experience of respondents
Besides working for very important organizations, the surveyed journalists also
have a very strong journalistic experience. The respondents’ mean number of
years working as a journalist is 17.3. Males are more experienced (mean=18.8
years) than females (mean=14.7 years), a statistically significant result26. In
countries with a GNI per capita lower than 22,000 USD (Spain, Greece and
Portugal) the mean number of years as a journalist is 12.7. In all the other
26 t (94) = 1.951, p = 0,05
Page 74
74
countries of the EU (GNI per capita higher than 22,000 USD), the mean number
of years as a journalist is 18.5, also statistically significant27.
To have an idea of the total results of this survey, in what concerns the journalistic
experience of respondents, we’ve decided to divide the obtained answers in three
different categories: journalistic experience of five years or less (corresponds to
less experienced journalists – “beginners”), journalistic experience between 6 and
19 years (we can call them “experienced journalists”) and, finally, experience of
20 years or more (“veteran journalists”). Figure 4 shows the results of this
division.
Journalistic experience
20 or more years6-19 years0-5 years
N
um
be
r
of
c
as
es
50
40
30
20
10
0
Figure 4 - Respondents’ years of experience as journalist
Experience of respondents as science journalists
We also asked the respondents to tell us how many years they had been working
as science journalists, in order to understand their experience in this particular
field. The mean number of years the respondents have been working as science
journalists is 11.9 (median=10.0; STD=8.2). Females are less experienced in this
27 F (2, 93) = 4.893, p = 0,01
countries of the EU (GNI per capita higher than 22,000 USD), the mean number
of years as a journalist is 18.5, also statistically significant27.
To have an idea of the total results of this survey, in what concerns the journalistic
experience of respondents, we’ve decided to divide the obtained answers in three
different categories: journalistic experience of five years or less (corresponds to
less experienced journalists – “beginners”), journalistic experience between 6 and
19 years (we can call them “experienced journalists”) and, finally, experience of
20 years or more (“veteran journalists”). Figure 4 shows the results of this
division.
Journalistic experience
20 or more years6-19 years0-5 years
N
um
be
r
of
c
as
es
50
40
30
20
10
0
Figure 4 - Respondents’ years of experience as journalist
Experience of respondents as science journalists
We also asked the respondents to tell us how many years they had been working
as science journalists, in order to understand their experience in this particular
field. The mean number of years the respondents have been working as science
journalists is 11.9 (median=10.0; STD=8.2). Females are less experienced in this
27 F (2, 93) = 4.893, p = 0,01
Page 79
79
4.2. Sources used by European science journalists
In this sub-chapter, we will analyse the thoughts and relations of European
science journalists in what concerns their sources. As we have seen in the
literature review, the question of the sources of science journalists has been
discussed by several scholars who have identified a special dependence of these
professionals to information coming from science journals (for example, Hansen
1994).
As this is the first survey to include science journalists from many different
countries of the European Union, we thought we should probe this assertion. At
the same time, it seemed wise to try to understand the kind of relations European
science journalists establish with their sources, in order to confirm (or deny) the
dependences identified in the literature.
Main sources of science journalists
We asked European science journalists who their main sources were. In the
questionnaire, respondents were presented with a list of sources and were asked to
check their three main sources for science news. If they checked more than three
of the available options, the website for the survey would ask them to go back and
check only three of the possible answers. Table 11 shows the results for this
question.
4.2. Sources used by European science journalists
In this sub-chapter, we will analyse the thoughts and relations of European
science journalists in what concerns their sources. As we have seen in the
literature review, the question of the sources of science journalists has been
discussed by several scholars who have identified a special dependence of these
professionals to information coming from science journals (for example, Hansen
1994).
As this is the first survey to include science journalists from many different
countries of the European Union, we thought we should probe this assertion. At
the same time, it seemed wise to try to understand the kind of relations European
science journalists establish with their sources, in order to confirm (or deny) the
dependences identified in the literature.
Main sources of science journalists
We asked European science journalists who their main sources were. In the
questionnaire, respondents were presented with a list of sources and were asked to
check their three main sources for science news. If they checked more than three
of the available options, the website for the survey would ask them to go back and
check only three of the possible answers. Table 11 shows the results for this
question.
Page 84
84
science journalists tend to perceive the embargo as a device that serves mainly the
interests of scientific journals, as we can see in table 14.
Number of years as a journalist Total
The embargo serves mainly... 0-5 years 6-19 years > 20 years
…the interests of journalists 5 (35.7) 17 (42.5) 16 (42.1) 38
…the interests of the audience 3 (21.4) 3 (7.5) 2 (5.3) 8
…the interests of journals 5 (35.7) 16 (40) 18 (47.3) 39
…the interests of scientists 1 (7.1) 4 (10) 2 (5.3) 7
Total 14 40 38 92
(percentage in brackets) χ² (6) = 4.319, p > 0.05
Table 14- Journalistic experience and perception of the embargo system
science journalists tend to perceive the embargo as a device that serves mainly the
interests of scientific journals, as we can see in table 14.
Number of years as a journalist Total
The embargo serves mainly... 0-5 years 6-19 years > 20 years
…the interests of journalists 5 (35.7) 17 (42.5) 16 (42.1) 38
…the interests of the audience 3 (21.4) 3 (7.5) 2 (5.3) 8
…the interests of journals 5 (35.7) 16 (40) 18 (47.3) 39
…the interests of scientists 1 (7.1) 4 (10) 2 (5.3) 7
Total 14 40 38 92
(percentage in brackets) χ² (6) = 4.319, p > 0.05
Table 14- Journalistic experience and perception of the embargo system
Page 85
85
4.3. European science journalists’ relations with other journalists
Scientific literature gives us a picture of science journalists as professionals who
are most of the times ready to share information with colleagues from competing
media. In the United States, Dunwoody (1980) witnessed cooperation, supportive
questioning at news conferences and even sharing of notes by science journalists,
covering a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Does this practice prevail in Europe? How do European science journalists relate
with their peers? Those were the questions we were trying to answer when we
asked European science journalists: “How would you describe the majority of
your relations with science journalists working in other organizations?” Again, as
we did with the question about the relations science journalists maintain with their
sources, we gave them two possible answers: “Cooperative” or “adversarial”.
All 97 respondents answered the question: 81 (83.5 percent) said their relations
with colleagues from other media were “cooperative”, 16 (16.5 percent) said their
relations were “adversarial”. Women are slightly more cooperative than men, as
we can verify in table 15.
Sex Total
Male Female
Cooperative 50 (80.6) 31 (88.6) 81
Adversarial 12 (19.4) 4 (11.4) 16
62 (100) 35 (100) 97
(percentage in brackets)
Table 15 - Relations with science journalists from other media according to sex
We also asked science journalists how often the following situations occur: (1) “I
discuss story ideas with science journalists working in other organizations”; and
(2) “When covering an event, science journalists cooperate with each other”. To
answer these two questions, respondents were asked to choose in a four-point
4.3. European science journalists’ relations with other journalists
Scientific literature gives us a picture of science journalists as professionals who
are most of the times ready to share information with colleagues from competing
media. In the United States, Dunwoody (1980) witnessed cooperation, supportive
questioning at news conferences and even sharing of notes by science journalists,
covering a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Does this practice prevail in Europe? How do European science journalists relate
with their peers? Those were the questions we were trying to answer when we
asked European science journalists: “How would you describe the majority of
your relations with science journalists working in other organizations?” Again, as
we did with the question about the relations science journalists maintain with their
sources, we gave them two possible answers: “Cooperative” or “adversarial”.
All 97 respondents answered the question: 81 (83.5 percent) said their relations
with colleagues from other media were “cooperative”, 16 (16.5 percent) said their
relations were “adversarial”. Women are slightly more cooperative than men, as
we can verify in table 15.
Sex Total
Male Female
Cooperative 50 (80.6) 31 (88.6) 81
Adversarial 12 (19.4) 4 (11.4) 16
62 (100) 35 (100) 97
(percentage in brackets)
Table 15 - Relations with science journalists from other media according to sex
We also asked science journalists how often the following situations occur: (1) “I
discuss story ideas with science journalists working in other organizations”; and
(2) “When covering an event, science journalists cooperate with each other”. To
answer these two questions, respondents were asked to choose in a four-point
Page 86
86
scale the following possibilities: (0) Never; (1) Sometimes; (2) Most of the times;
(3) Always. Results for both these questions can be seen in figures 10 and 11.
Most of the timeSometimesNever
N
um
be
r
of
c
as
es
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Figure 10 - ‘I discuss story ideas with science journalists working in other organizations’
Alw ays
Most of the time
Sometimes
Never
N
um
be
r
of
c
as
es
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Figure 11 - ‘When covering an event, science journalists cooperate with each other’
In order to understand if science journalists are aware of the fact that, as scientific
literature states, professionals in this field help each other more than journalists in
scale the following possibilities: (0) Never; (1) Sometimes; (2) Most of the times;
(3) Always. Results for both these questions can be seen in figures 10 and 11.
Most of the timeSometimesNever
N
um
be
r
of
c
as
es
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Figure 10 - ‘I discuss story ideas with science journalists working in other organizations’
Alw ays
Most of the time
Sometimes
Never
N
um
be
r
of
c
as
es
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Figure 11 - ‘When covering an event, science journalists cooperate with each other’
In order to understand if science journalists are aware of the fact that, as scientific
literature states, professionals in this field help each other more than journalists in
Page 89
89
GNI per capita
<22,000 USD 22,000-
28,000 USD
>28,000 USD Total
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Very strongly disagree
8 (38) 23 (51) 18 (62) 49
Neither agree
nor disagree 3 (14.3) 13 (28.9) 4 (13.8) 20
Agree
Strongly agree
Very strongly agree
10 (47.6) 9 (20) 7 (24.1) 26
Total 21 45 29 95
(percentage in brackets) χ² (4) = 8.006, p > 0.05
Table 16- Pressure to be “more creative” according to GNI per capita
Respondents were also asked to rate other sentences according to the same seven-
point Likert scale. Results for these sentences can be checked in the following
figures.
V strongly agree
Strongly agree
Agree
N agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
V strongly disagree
N
um
be
r
of
c
as
es
30
20
10
0
Figure 14 - ‘My credibility is tested more often than the credibility of other journalists at my
organization’
GNI per capita
<22,000 USD 22,000-
28,000 USD
>28,000 USD Total
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Very strongly disagree
8 (38) 23 (51) 18 (62) 49
Neither agree
nor disagree 3 (14.3) 13 (28.9) 4 (13.8) 20
Agree
Strongly agree
Very strongly agree
10 (47.6) 9 (20) 7 (24.1) 26
Total 21 45 29 95
(percentage in brackets) χ² (4) = 8.006, p > 0.05
Table 16- Pressure to be “more creative” according to GNI per capita
Respondents were also asked to rate other sentences according to the same seven-
point Likert scale. Results for these sentences can be checked in the following
figures.
V strongly agree
Strongly agree
Agree
N agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
V strongly disagree
N
um
be
r
of
c
as
es
30
20
10
0
Figure 14 - ‘My credibility is tested more often than the credibility of other journalists at my
organization’
Page 90
90
V strongly agree
Strongly agree
Agree
N agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
V strongly disagree
N
um
kb
er
o
f c
as
es
30
20
10
0
Figure 15 - ‘Other journalists and editors at my organization do not take science journalists
seriously’
The majority of the respondents (51.7 percent) disagree with the sentence ‘Other
journalists and editors at my organization do not take science journalists
seriously’, 33.6 percent are on the agree side of the scale and 14.7 percent neither
agree nor disagree. Women feel more than man that they are not taken seriously
(see Table 17), and science journalists in countries with a GNI lower than 22,000
USD also feel that kind of pressure. Respect for science journalists inside their
own media in relation with the GNI per capita of the country they work in is
shown in Table 18.
V strongly agree
Strongly agree
Agree
N agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
V strongly disagree
N
um
kb
er
o
f c
as
es
30
20
10
0
Figure 15 - ‘Other journalists and editors at my organization do not take science journalists
seriously’
The majority of the respondents (51.7 percent) disagree with the sentence ‘Other
journalists and editors at my organization do not take science journalists
seriously’, 33.6 percent are on the agree side of the scale and 14.7 percent neither
agree nor disagree. Women feel more than man that they are not taken seriously
(see Table 17), and science journalists in countries with a GNI lower than 22,000
USD also feel that kind of pressure. Respect for science journalists inside their
own media in relation with the GNI per capita of the country they work in is
shown in Table 18.
Page 93
93
GNI per capita. Once again, science journalists in these countries seem to suffer
more internal pressures than other journalists working in more developed
countries.
GNI per capita Total
<22,000
USD
22,000-
28,000 USD
>28,000
USD
Never / Sometimes 12 (57.1) 30 (65.2) 22 (78.6) 64
Most of the time / Always 9 (42.8) 16 (34.8) 6 (21.4) 23
Total 21 46 28 95
(percentage in brackets) χ² (2) = 2.694, p > 0.05
Table 19 - ‘What other journalists write is used by me to assess the quality of my work’
according to GNI per capita
GNI per capita Total
<22,000
USD
22,000-
28,000 USD
>28,000
USD
Never / Sometimes 14 (66.6) 34 (73.9) 24 (85.7) 72
Most of the time / Always 7 (33.3) 12 (26.1) 5 (17.8) 24
Total 21 46 29 96
(percentage in brackets) χ² (2) = 1.738, p > 0.05
Table 20 - ‘What other journalists write is used by my superiors to assess the quality of my
work’ according to GNI per capita
GNI per capita. Once again, science journalists in these countries seem to suffer
more internal pressures than other journalists working in more developed
countries.
GNI per capita Total
<22,000
USD
22,000-
28,000 USD
>28,000
USD
Never / Sometimes 12 (57.1) 30 (65.2) 22 (78.6) 64
Most of the time / Always 9 (42.8) 16 (34.8) 6 (21.4) 23
Total 21 46 28 95
(percentage in brackets) χ² (2) = 2.694, p > 0.05
Table 19 - ‘What other journalists write is used by me to assess the quality of my work’
according to GNI per capita
GNI per capita Total
<22,000
USD
22,000-
28,000 USD
>28,000
USD
Never / Sometimes 14 (66.6) 34 (73.9) 24 (85.7) 72
Most of the time / Always 7 (33.3) 12 (26.1) 5 (17.8) 24
Total 21 46 29 96
(percentage in brackets) χ² (2) = 1.738, p > 0.05
Table 20 - ‘What other journalists write is used by my superiors to assess the quality of my
work’ according to GNI per capita
Page 94
94
4.5. Science journalists and their audiences
Journalists have a weak perception of their audiences (Gans 1979) and science
journalists are no exception (McCleneghan 1994). In this survey, we only asked
two questions about audiences. The first was aimed at understanding the level of
feedback European science journalists receive from their audiences. The second
was completely open: ‘What kind of reader do you have in mind when writing
your stories?’
In what concerns the first question, the results show that science journalists
usually receive feedback from their audiences: 47.4 percent receive it at least
twice a week. Results are expressed in figure 18:
Once a month or less
Once a w eek or less
2-3 times a w eek
Daily
N
um
be
r
of
c
as
es
40
30
20
10
0
Figure 18 - ‘How frequently do you receive feedback from your audience?’
The frequency of the feedback is related with the age of the respondents, as older
journalists tend to be more contacted by their audiences (table 21)30. These older
science journalists live in countries with a GNI per capita higher than 22,000
30 Spearman’s rho = - 0.263, p = 0.005
4.5. Science journalists and their audiences
Journalists have a weak perception of their audiences (Gans 1979) and science
journalists are no exception (McCleneghan 1994). In this survey, we only asked
two questions about audiences. The first was aimed at understanding the level of
feedback European science journalists receive from their audiences. The second
was completely open: ‘What kind of reader do you have in mind when writing
your stories?’
In what concerns the first question, the results show that science journalists
usually receive feedback from their audiences: 47.4 percent receive it at least
twice a week. Results are expressed in figure 18:
Once a month or less
Once a w eek or less
2-3 times a w eek
Daily
N
um
be
r
of
c
as
es
40
30
20
10
0
Figure 18 - ‘How frequently do you receive feedback from your audience?’
The frequency of the feedback is related with the age of the respondents, as older
journalists tend to be more contacted by their audiences (table 21)30. These older
science journalists live in countries with a GNI per capita higher than 22,000
30 Spearman’s rho = - 0.263, p = 0.005
Page 95
95
where the mean level of education is higher and, consequently, reader
participation too.
Frequency of contacts
by audience
Total
2-3 times
a week
Once a week
or less
25-34 years 9 (33.3) 18 (66.6) 27
35-44 years 12 (44.4) 15 (55.5) 27
45-54 years 15 (55.5) 12 (44.4) 27
55-64 years 9 (60) 6 (40) 15
Total 45 51 96
(percentage in brackets)
Table 21 - Frequency of contacts by the audience according to the age of journalists
The second question about audiences in this survey gave respondents the
opportunity to fill a blank space in order to define who they were writing for. As
expected, the answers were quite different, but we coded them into five different
categories: 1 – Ordinary/average readers; 2 – Interested/curious readers; 3 –
Educated/knowledgeable readers; 4 – People who are close to the journalist; 5-
Others.
Thrity-three (33) of the 94 answers to this question fall into the first category –
‘ordinary/average readers’, who are qualified by expressions like ´everybody’,
‘general public’, ‘lay person’ or ‘common readers’. Twenty-eight answers (28)
fall into the category of ‘interested/curious readers’, and respondents qualify them
as ‘interested but not expert’, ‘interested in science and technology’, ‘with
curiosity and without science background’ or ‘common people who are curious
about science’.
Into the category defined as ‘educated/knowledgeable readers’ there are 20
answers. Respondents qualify these readers as ‘higher education, but not in
where the mean level of education is higher and, consequently, reader
participation too.
Frequency of contacts
by audience
Total
2-3 times
a week
Once a week
or less
25-34 years 9 (33.3) 18 (66.6) 27
35-44 years 12 (44.4) 15 (55.5) 27
45-54 years 15 (55.5) 12 (44.4) 27
55-64 years 9 (60) 6 (40) 15
Total 45 51 96
(percentage in brackets)
Table 21 - Frequency of contacts by the audience according to the age of journalists
The second question about audiences in this survey gave respondents the
opportunity to fill a blank space in order to define who they were writing for. As
expected, the answers were quite different, but we coded them into five different
categories: 1 – Ordinary/average readers; 2 – Interested/curious readers; 3 –
Educated/knowledgeable readers; 4 – People who are close to the journalist; 5-
Others.
Thrity-three (33) of the 94 answers to this question fall into the first category –
‘ordinary/average readers’, who are qualified by expressions like ´everybody’,
‘general public’, ‘lay person’ or ‘common readers’. Twenty-eight answers (28)
fall into the category of ‘interested/curious readers’, and respondents qualify them
as ‘interested but not expert’, ‘interested in science and technology’, ‘with
curiosity and without science background’ or ‘common people who are curious
about science’.
Into the category defined as ‘educated/knowledgeable readers’ there are 20
answers. Respondents qualify these readers as ‘higher education, but not in
Page 98
98
As we can see, a majority of European science journalists thinks it makes a
contribution to society: 77.9 percent of the respondents agree, strongly agree or
very strongly agree with the given sentence. Scepticism about the importance of
their role grows with experience, as we can see in table 22 (Pearson R = -0.174,
p= 0.047)31.
Number of years as a journalist
0-5 years 6-19 years > 20 years Total
Disagree / Strongly disagree /
Very strongly disagree - 5 (12.2) 5 (13.2) 10
Neither agree nor disagree - 3 (7.3) 8 (21) 11
Agree / Strongly agree /
Very strongly agree 15 (100) 33 (80.5) 25 (65.8) 73
Total 15 41 38 94
(percentage in brackets)
Table 22 - ‘As a science journalist, I make a contribution to society by the type of reporting I
do’ according to journalistic experience
The next sentence journalists had to classify was: ‘Science journalists are more
accurate in their reporting than other journalists’. Results are on figure 20.
31 To calculate all the correlations, we used the original scale obtained by the survey and not the
recoded ages and experience of journalists.
As we can see, a majority of European science journalists thinks it makes a
contribution to society: 77.9 percent of the respondents agree, strongly agree or
very strongly agree with the given sentence. Scepticism about the importance of
their role grows with experience, as we can see in table 22 (Pearson R = -0.174,
p= 0.047)31.
Number of years as a journalist
0-5 years 6-19 years > 20 years Total
Disagree / Strongly disagree /
Very strongly disagree - 5 (12.2) 5 (13.2) 10
Neither agree nor disagree - 3 (7.3) 8 (21) 11
Agree / Strongly agree /
Very strongly agree 15 (100) 33 (80.5) 25 (65.8) 73
Total 15 41 38 94
(percentage in brackets)
Table 22 - ‘As a science journalist, I make a contribution to society by the type of reporting I
do’ according to journalistic experience
The next sentence journalists had to classify was: ‘Science journalists are more
accurate in their reporting than other journalists’. Results are on figure 20.
31 To calculate all the correlations, we used the original scale obtained by the survey and not the
recoded ages and experience of journalists.
Page 100
100
Literature points out that science journalists dependent too much on their sources
(Nelkin 1987) and seldom make any efforts to uncover fraud in their area
(Lafollette 1992, Dunwoody 1999). In order to see if science journalists recognize
this fact, respondents were asked if they agreed or disagreed with the following
sentence: ‘Science journalists have “more tenacity” than other journalists to
uncover fraud in their areas’. The results are in figure 21.
V strongly agree
Strongly agree
Agree
N agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
V. strongly disagree
N
um
be
r
of
c
as
es
40
30
20
10
0
Figure 21- ‘Science journalists have “more tenacity” than other journalists to uncover fraud
in their areas’
The majority of European science journalists (49.5 percent) disagree, strongly
disagree or very strongly disagree with the given sentence, against 20 percent
which agree, strongly agree or very strongly agree with it. Respondents who
stated ‘neither agree nor disagree’ represent 30.5 percent. There are no significant
differences in the obtained answers according to sex, age, origin, professional
experience and education of the respondents.
Literature points out that science journalists dependent too much on their sources
(Nelkin 1987) and seldom make any efforts to uncover fraud in their area
(Lafollette 1992, Dunwoody 1999). In order to see if science journalists recognize
this fact, respondents were asked if they agreed or disagreed with the following
sentence: ‘Science journalists have “more tenacity” than other journalists to
uncover fraud in their areas’. The results are in figure 21.
V strongly agree
Strongly agree
Agree
N agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
V. strongly disagree
N
um
be
r
of
c
as
es
40
30
20
10
0
Figure 21- ‘Science journalists have “more tenacity” than other journalists to uncover fraud
in their areas’
The majority of European science journalists (49.5 percent) disagree, strongly
disagree or very strongly disagree with the given sentence, against 20 percent
which agree, strongly agree or very strongly agree with it. Respondents who
stated ‘neither agree nor disagree’ represent 30.5 percent. There are no significant
differences in the obtained answers according to sex, age, origin, professional
experience and education of the respondents.
Sign up today - FREE
Mendeley saves you time finding and organizing research. Learn more
- All your research in one place
- Add and import papers easily
- Access it anywhere, anytime
Start using Mendeley in seconds!
Readership Statistics
7 Readers on Mendeley
by Discipline
57% Social Sciences
29% Philosophy
by Academic Status
29% Other Professional
14% Librarian
14% Student (Master)
by Country
43% United States
29% Portugal
14% Netherlands
