How the conflict between science journalism and industry could be exacerbated in today’s media-space
Four hundred and eighteen years ago, a man was carried to Rome’s execution ground, Campo de’Fiori, on a mule. He was tied to a stake, and the pyre was lit beneath him. When his body eventually burned into ashes, they were thrown away into the Tiber, a river that was running through the city.
The man was named Giordano Bruno, a philosopher, poet and cosmological theorist. He developed his own concept of the universe, a notion that was composed of three main ideas: first, the sun is the center of the universe instead of the Earth; second, the universe is infinite; third, everything is made up of the same particles — which Bruno referred to as “seeds.” His understanding of the universe — which in many ways resembled the modern theory of physics and cosmology — was, unfortunately, considered a heresy to the Catholic Church at the time. As a result, he fled across Europe during most of his adult life and was eventually sentenced to death.
Things have changed so much since then. Today, a sufficient proportion of people believe in science and the principles behind it to merit freedom of scientific expression. Scientists now have a lot more freedom to research their own areas of interest and expertise. The role of science in society has indeed undergone tremendous changes over the last few hundred years, and what matured with it was the bridge that connects the general public and experts in those fields: science journalism.
Science journalism has, however, encountered many obstacles during its development. One of the main constraints is its conflict with industry. To have a better understanding of this, let’s first go back to where it started.
Science journalism’s history
“Science journalism emerged in the United States primarily after World War II, and it particularly advanced with the launch of Sputnik by the Soviet Union,” said Robin Lloyd, an adjunct journalism professor at New York University. Lloyd believes factors such as concern about the Cold War and the spread of communism, and whether the Soviet Union would become technologically superior and better-weaponized played a key part in the rise of science journalism. The public — including public policymakers and politicians — became more interested in reading about technology, science and engineering so that they could better understand advancements in space exploration and medicine, another fast-growing field.
As science journalism started to boom, powerful industries started to realize how it could lead to policy changes. According to Jennifer Weeks, a freelance journalist at the Science History Institute, major U.S. tobacco companies tried to expand their spheres of influence by rebutting studies that addressed the connection between smoking and cancer. In fact, starting in 1953, the Tobacco Industry Research Committee started to generate reports over the next 50 years as counter-arguments.
The conflict between science journalism and for-profit industries persisted through the next few decades. As environmental issues became more prevalent, journalistic reports covering these issues received more attention. Starting in 1970, Congress established a series of health and environmental agencies and laws, all of which involved some degree of scientific research and reporting on issues close to the hearts — and wallets — of profit-minded industries.
The industries fought back hard. According to Weeks, journalist Bette Hileman’s first article in Environmental Science and Technology — which took a dive into the potential problems of farmers’ overuse of herbicides — provoked backlash in the agricultural industry. A major chemical company took actions by sending someone to the magazine to try to get her fired. Fortunately, the magazine had her back, but it was still a frightening experience for Hileman’s career.
The reason that science journalism is so susceptible to societal influence is that it blends hard science with the broader human experience. As Tom Zeller Jr., editor in chief of Undark Magazine, said, “science cannot be divorced from the political, economic, and cultural forces that shape its fortunes and dictate its directions, and the same can be said of science journalism.” From where scientific research receives funding from, to scientists who conduct experiments and politicians who debate over science policies, there are human elements involved in all stages of every scientific publication or discovery. Given its nature as a human product, it makes sense that facets of government, corporations, and the general public have shaped scientific storylines.
The battle between science journalism and industry reached new heights in the mid-1990s, due to the rapid development of digital journalism. Zeller observes that “the internet and related technologies undercut the 19th and 20th-century business model of journalism by making the ability to reach a large audience cheap and diffuse. That has caused many longstanding journalistic institutions to crumble at the same time that it has allowed a flood of ill-trained, dubious, or even mendacious actors to flood the information marketplace under the rubric of ‘journalism.’” While many news organizations had to reduce or give up on science journalism in order to cut their budget, the universality of the internet enabled more competition from anti-science corporations and advocacy groups.
Reaching audiences
The varied means through which stories reach their respective audiences strongly influence their impact. If the internet allowed convenient, one-click access to both science journalism and anti-science content, new forms of media — including augmented reality and virtual reality today — could exacerbate the battle.
Augmented and virtual reality tools have unique features for exposing audiences directly to the scene. Their immersive features are an integral component for making viewers empathize with the experience that journalists design. On the other hand, because of how immersive these features are, they could also be leveraged by anti-science sources as a propaganda tool.
As with every other type of medium, the effects are double-sided. To look on the bright side, new forms of media introduce different platforms through which journalists convey their stories. “The more platforms and the more story types that we can use to tell stories, the better. [This means there are] more people we will reach on different platforms,” says Professor Lloyd.
Continuing to have an impact
Regardless of the medium, there are a few things that science journalists should address to keep the field’s momentum going.
First, science journalists should change their mindset while producing articles. “I think that when we think of ourselves as working in a filo called science journalism, we limit the extent to which our skills can grow, and we limit our perspective,” says Professor Lloyd. She believes science journalists should be trained to think of themselves as people who specialize in the field of journalism — in other words — people who can competently report on science, technology, engineering, math, and health.
Second, it is important for journalists to understand how science works. From a scientist’s point of view, Jeffrey Browning — a research professor from Boston University Department of Microbiology — thinks that rather than just reporting a discovery, journalists should place the discovery within the context of scientific history. He concludes that it’s vital for journalists to see the evolution of different findings in science, so that stories can be captured in the context of how science got to where it is now.
Last, Browning suggests that it’s necessary to push scientists out of their comfort zones and encourage them to constantly communicate with journalists. This can be done through opportunities such as forums or events that bring scientists and journalists together.
Science journalism has come a long way. The field has transformed from paper to internet in the mid-1990s, and to augmented and virtual reality today. No matter how science journalism might change in the future, it should always be — as with every other type of journalism — “fundamental to a functioning democracy,” as Zeller puts it. Journalists must “keep doing what [they] do with honor and integrity,” which is to “be curious, be skeptical, be fair, be accurate, and be comprehensive.”
