Perils and positives of science journalism in Australia

Abstract

Scientists, science communicators and science journalists interact to deliver science news to the public. Yet the value of interactions between the groups in delivering high-quality science stories is poorly understood within Australia. A recent study in New Zealand on the perspectives of the three groups on the challenges facing science journalism is replicated here in the context of New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory. While all three groups perceived the quality of science journalism as generally high, the limitations of non-specialists and public relation materials were causes for concern. The results indicate that science communicators are considered to play a valuable role as facilitators of information flow to journalists and support for scientists. Future studies on the influence and implications of interactions between these three groups are required.

Keywords

media and science science communication science journalism

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ashwell

(2016) The challenges of science journalism: The perspectives of scientists, science communication advisors and journalists from New Zealand. Public Understanding of Science 25: 379–393.

Australian Science Media Centre (2007) Free to Speak? A Survey of Australian Scientists and Their Interactions with the Media. Adelaide, Australia: Australian Science Media Centre.

Bauer

(2008) Paradigm change for science communication: Commercial science needs a critical public. In: Cheng

Claessens

Gascoigne

NRJ

Metcalfe

Schiele

Shi

(eds) Communicating Science in Social Contexts. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 7–25.

Bauer

Allum

Miller

(2007) What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda. Public Understanding of Science 16: 79–95.

Bauer

Howard

Ramos

YJR

Massarani

Amorim

(2013) Global Science Journalism Report. Canberra, Australia: SciDev.Net.

Bell

(2009) Australian Research and Innovation system AUS-ACCESS4EU kick off meeting. CSIRO, November.

Besley

Tanner

(2011) What science communication scholars think about training scientists to communicate. Science Communication 33: 239–263.

Borchelt

(2008) Public relations in science: Managing the trust portfolio. In: Bucchi

Trench

(eds) Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology. Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 147–158.

Brumfiel

(2009) Science journalism: Supplanting the old media? Nature 458: 274–277.

10.

Burns

O’Connor

Stocklmayer

(2003) Science communication: A contemporary definition. Public Understanding of Science 12: 183–202.

11.

Castell

Charlton

Clemence

Pettigrew

Pope

Quigley

. (2014) Public Attitudes to Science 2014. London: Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

12.

Chyi

Lewis

Zheng

(2012) A matter of life and death? Examining the quality of newspaper coverage on the newspaper crisis. Journalism Studies 13: 305–324.

13.

Clark

Russell

Enyeart

Gracia

Wessel

Jarmoskaite

. (2016) Science educational outreach programs that benefit students and scientists. PLoS Biology 14: e1002368.

14.

Crow

Stevens

(2012) Local science reporting relies on generalists, not specialists. Newspaper Research Journal 33: 35–48.

15.

Dunwoody

Brossard

Dudo

(2009) Socialization or rewards? Predicting U.S. scientist-media interactions. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 86: 299–314.

16.

Durant

Evans

Thomas

(1989) The public understanding of science. Nature 340: 11–14.

17.

Gentzkow

(2014) Trading dollars for dollars: The price of attention online and offline. The American Economic Review 104: 481–488.

18.

Göpfert

(2007) The strength of PR and the weakness of science journalism. In: Bauer

Bucchi

(eds) Journalism, Science and Society. New York, NY; London: Routledge, pp. 215–226.

19.

Hale & Associates (2011) Australian Science Media Centre Five Year Evaluation. Banksia Park, SA, Australia.

20.

Hansen

(1994) Journalistic practices and science reporting in the British press. Public Understanding of Science 3: 111–134.

21.

Harding-Smith

(2011) Media Ownership and Regulation in Australia. Sydney, NSW, Australia: Centre for Policy Development, pp. 1–18.

22.

Hermida

(2010) Revitalizing science journalism for a digital age. In: Kennedy

Overholser

(eds) Science and the Media. Cambridge, MA: American Academy of Arts and Sciences, pp. 80–87.

23.

Leach

(2013) Science communication. In: Simonson

Peck

Craig

Jackson

(eds) The Handbook of Communication History. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 289–301.

24.

Len-Ríos

Hinnant

Park

Youngah

(2009) Health news agenda building: Journalists’ perceptions of the role of public relations. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 86: 315–331.

25.

Miller

(1998) The measurement of civic scientific literacy. Public Understanding of Science 7: 203–223.

26.

Miller

(2004) Public understanding of, and attitudes towards, scientific research: What we know and what we need to know. Public Understanding of Science 13: 273–294.

27.

Mitchell

Holcomb

(2016) State of the news media 2016. Journalism & Media, Pew Research Center. Available at: http://www.journalism.org/2016/06/15/state-of-the-news-media-2016/

28.

Murcott

THL

Williams

(2013) The challenges for science journalism in the UK. Progress in Physical Geography 37: 152–160.

29.

Nielsen (2015) Australia’s appetite for financial news and information on the rise. Available at: http://www.nielsen.com/au/en/press-room/2015/nielsen-online-news-rankings-April2015.html

30.

Papandrea

(2013) State of the Newspaper Industry in Australia, 2013. Canberra, ACT, Australia: News and Media Research Centre, University of Canberra.

31.

Peters

(2013) Gap between science and media revisited: Scientists as public communicators. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110: 14102–14109.

32.

Peters

Brossard

de Cheveigne

Dunwoody

Kallfass

Miller

. (2008) Science-Media interface: It’s time to reconsider. Science Communication 30: 266–276.

33.

Petersen

Anderson

Allan

Wilkinson

(2009) Opening the black box: Scientists’ views on the role of the news media in the nanotechnology debate. Public Understanding of Science 18: 512–530.

34.

Pettigrew

(2012) Australia’s Position in the World of Science, Technology and Innovation (ed Australia’s Chief Scientist). Canberra, ACT, Australia: Australian Government, pp. 1–4.

35.

Reed

(2001) (Un-)Professional discourse? Journalists’ and scientists’ stories about science in the media. Journalism 2: 279–298.

36.

Roy Morgan Research (2016) Australian newspaper readership, 12 months to March 2016. Available at: http://www.roymorgan.com/industries/media/readership/newspaper-readership

37.

Schäfer

(2011) Sources, characteristics and effects of mass media communication on science: A review of the literature, current trends and areas for future research. Sociology Compass 5: 399–412.

38.

Siles

Boczkowski

(2012) Making sense of the newspaper crisis: A critical assessment of existing research and an agenda for future work. New Media & Society 14: 1375–1394.

39.

Valenti

(2000) Improving the scientist/journalist conversation. Science and Engineering Ethics 6: 543–548.

40.

Weigold

(2001) Communicating science: A review of the literature. Science Communication 23: 164–193.

41.

Weitkamp

(2014) On the roles of scientists, press officers and journalists. Journal of Science Communication 13.Available at: http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/24756/