At the time of the COVID-19 pandemic, scientific expertise was and is more in demand than perhaps ever before. Scientific “experts” serve as an important source of information for journalists and for society. Our study analyzes, which experts get a chance to speak in German news coverage of COVID-19 compared to other pandemics, how diverse the spectrum of selected experts is and how their scientific expertise is to be assessed. Our findings show that the COVID-19 coverage is dominated by actors from the political executive and less than in previous pandemics by scientific experts. In addition, the coronavirus debate is characterized by a greater diversity of expert voices and the journalistic selection of scientific experts is biased in favor of those who have a high scientific expertise. On average, COVID-19 coverage seems to be biased more pronouncedly in favor of reputable scientific experts compared to previous debates on pandemics.
AlbækEChristiansenPMTogebyL (2003) Experts in the mass media: Researchers as sources in Danish daily newspapers, 1961–2001. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly80(4): 937–948.
2.
AnterL (2021) Mein text, meine Meinung, meine Wissenschaftlerin? Eine qualitative Untersuchung zur Nutzung von Wissenschaftler*innen als opportune Zeugen [My text, my opinion, my scientist? A qualitative study on the use of scientists as opportune witnesses]. Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft69(3): 397–415.
3.
AslamFAwanTMSyedJHParveenM (2020) Sentiments and emotions evoked by news headlines of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications7(1): 31.
4.
Ball- RokeachSJDeFleurML (1976) A dependency model of mass-media effects. Communication Research3(1): 3–21.
5.
BaschCHHillyerGCErwinZMMohlmanJCosgroveAQuinonesN (2020) News coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic: Missed opportunities to promote health sustaining behaviors. Infection, Disease & Health25(3): 205–209.
6.
BoyceT (2006) Journalism and expertise. Journalism Studies7(6): 889–906.
7.
BoykoffMTBoykoffJM (2004) Balance as bias: Global warming and the US prestige press. Global Environmental Change14(2): 125–136.
8.
BoyleT (2001) Intermedia agenda setting in the 1996 presidential election. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly78: 26–44.
9.
BreedW (1955) Social control in the newsroom: A functional analysis. Social Forces33: 326–335.
10.
BrostMPörksenB (2020) Angesteckt: Warum der Journalismus in der Corona-Krise besonders gebraucht wird—und vor welchen Problemen er steht [Infected: Why journalism is particularly needed in the Corona crisis—and what problems journalism is facing]. Die Zeit, 8April. Available at: https://www.zeit.de/2020/16/coronavirus-berichterstattung-journalismus-information (accessed 3 March 2021).
11.
CarlsonM (2009) Dueling, dancing, or dominating? Journalists and their sources. Sociology Compass3(4): 526–542
12.
ChenELermanKFerraraE (2020) Tracking social media discourse about the COVID-19 pandemic: Development of a public Coronavirus Twitter data set. JMIR Public Health and Surveillance6(2): e19273.
13.
ChipidzaWAkbaripourdibazarEGwanzuraTGattoM (2021) Topic analysis of traditional and social media news coverage of the early COVID-19 pandemic and implications for public health communication. Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness. Epub ahead of print 3March. DOI: 10.1017/dmp.2021.65.
14.
CollinsH (2004) Interactional expertise as a third kind of knowledge. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences3(2): 125–143.
15.
CollinsHMEvansR (2002) The third wave of science studies. Social Studies of Science32(2): 235–296.
16.
ConradP (1999) Uses of expertise: Sources, quotes, and voice in the reporting of genetics in the news. Public Understanding of Science8(4): 285–302.
17.
da CostaVGSaivishMVSantosDERde Lima SilvaRFMorelibML (2020) Comparative epidemiology between the 2009 H1N1 influenza and COVID-19 pandemics. Journal of Infection and Public Health13(12): 1797–1804.
DonsbachW (1987) Journalismusforschung in der Bundesrepublik: Offene Fragen trotz Forschungsboom [Journalism research in the German Federal Republic: Unanswered questions despite research boom]. In: WilkeJ (ed.) Zwischenbilanz der Journalistenausbildung [Interim balance of journalism training]. München: Ölschläger, pp. 105–142.
20.
DunwoodySRyanM (1987) The credible scientific source. Journalism Quarterly64(1): 21–27.
21.
EiseneggerM (2005) Reputation in der Mediengesellschaft [Reputation in the media society]. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
EngelmannI (2012) Nachrichtenfaktoren und die organisationsspezifische Nachrichtenselektion: Eine Erweiterung der Nachrichtenwerttheorie um die Meso-Ebene journalistischer Organisationen [News factors and organization-specific news selection: An extension of news value theory to include the meso level of journalistic organizations]. Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft60(1): 41–63.
24.
EsserF (1998) Die Kräfte hinter den Schlagzeilen: Englischer und deutscher Journalismus im Vergleich [The forces behind the headlines: English and German journalism in comparison]. Freiburg im Breisgau; München: Alber.
25.
GehrauVBlöbaumBFujarskiS, et al. (2021) Informationsrepertoires in Krisenzeiten: Was Informationsrepertoires zum Verständnis der Diffusion und Wirkungen wissenschaftlicher Informationen beitragen [Information repertoires in times of crisis: What information repertoires contribute to understand the diffusion and effects of scientific information]. In: 5th annual conference of the DGPuK professional group of science communicationGöttingen, Germany, 5 Februrary 2021.
26.
GoddiksenM (2014) Clarifying interactional and contributory expertise. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science47: 111–117.
27.
GolanG (2006) Inter-media agenda setting and global news coverage: Assessing the influence of the New York Times on three network television evening news programs. Journalism Studies7: 323–333.
28.
GoodellR (1977) The Visible Scientists. Boston, MA; Toronto, ON, Canada: Little, Brown & Co.
29.
HartPSChinnSSorokaS (2020) Politicization and polarization in COVID-19 news coverage. Science Communication42(5): 679–697.
30.
HuberB (2014) Öffentliche Experten: Über die Medienpräsenz von Fachleuten [Public experts: About the media presence of professionals]. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.
31.
IoannidisJPTezelAJagsiR (2021) Overall and COVID-19-specific citation impact of highly visible COVID-19 media experts: bibliometric analysis. BMJ Open11(10): e052856.
32.
JarrenO (2020) Im Krisenmodus: Das öffentlich-rechtliche Fernsehen in Zeiten von Corona [In crisis mode: public television in times of Corona]. epd Medien 13: 3–6. Available at: https://www.zora.uzh.ch/id/eprint/186723/1/jarren_corona.pdf (accessed 3 May 2022).
33.
KrawczykKChelkowskiTLaydonDJMishraSXifaraDGibertB, et al. (2021) Quantifying online news media coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic: Text mining study and resource. Journal of Medical Internet Research23(6): e28253.
KruvandM (2009) Bioethicists as expert sources in science/medical reporting. Newspaper Research Journal30(3): 26–41.
36.
KruvandM (2012) “Dr. Soundbite”: the making of an expert source in science and medical stories. Science Communication34(5): 566–591.
37.
LehmkuhlM (2021) Covid-19 und der Journalismus: Problemzonen im Verhältnis zwischen Wissenschaft und Öffentlichkeit [COVID-19 and journalism: problem areas in the relationship between science and the public]. In: Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung (ed.) Corona: Pandemie und Krise. Bonn: bpb, pp. 266–276.
38.
LehmkuhlMLeidecker-SandmannM (2019) “Visible scientists revisited”: Zum Zusammenhang von wissenschaftlicher Reputation und der Präsenz wissenschaftlicher Experten in der Medienberichterstattung über Infektionskrankheiten [“Visible scientists revisited”: on the relationship between scientific reputation and the public presence of scientific experts in mass media coverage of infectious diseases]. Publizistik64(4): 479–502.
39.
LewisJWilliamsAFranklinB (2008) A compromised fourth estate? UK news journalism, public relations and news sources. Journalism Studies9(1): 1–20.
40.
MarschallS (2020) Parlamente in der Krise? Der deutsche Parlamentarismus und die Corona-Pandemie [Parliaments in crisis? German Parliamentarism and the coronavirus pandemic]. Apuz38: 11–17.
MeyenM (2020) Die Expertokratie: Wo die Medizin regiert, gibt es keine parlamentarischen und auch sonst keine Debatten mehr [The expertocracy: where medicine reigns, there are no parliamentary and otherwise no more debates]. Available at: https://www.rubikon.news/artikel/die-expertokratie (accessed 3 March 2021).
NöllekeD (2009) Die Konstruktion von Expertentum im Journalismus [The construction of expertise in journalism]. In: DernbachBQuandtT (eds) Spezialisierung im Journalismus [Specialization in journalism]. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, pp. 97–110.
45.
PearmanOBoykoffMOsborne-GoweyJAoyagiMBallantyneAGChandlerP, et al. (2021) COVID-19 media coverage decreasing despite deepening crisis. The Lancet Planetary Health5(1): e6–e7.
46.
PetersHP (1994) Wissenschaftliche Experten in der öffentlichen Kommunikation über Technik, Umwelt und Risiken [Scientific experts in public communication about technology, environment, and risks]. In: NeidhardtF (ed.) Öffentlichkeit, öffentliche Meinung, soziale Bewegungen [Public sphere, public opinion, social movements]. Opladen: Springer, pp. 162–190.
47.
PetersHP (2014) Scientists as public experts. In: BucchiMTrenchB (eds) Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology. London: Routledge, pp. 70–82.
48.
QuandtTBobergSSchatto-EckrodtTFrischlichL (2020) Pandemic news: Facebook pages of mainstream news media and the Coronavirus crisis: A computational content analysis. Available at: https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.13290
49.
ReeseSD (2001) Understanding the global journalist: A hierarchy-of-influences approach. Journalism Studies2: 173–187.
50.
ReinemannC (2008) Journalism: Group dynamics. In: DonsbachW (ed.) The International Encyclopedia of Communication. Malden, MA; Oxford; Carlton, VIC, Australia: Blackwell, pp. 2573–2579.
51.
RothmanS (1990) Journalists, broadcasters, scientific experts and public opinion. Minerva28(2): 117–133.
SchäferM (2017) Medienhype ‘Hirndoping’? Die Rolle der Journalisten in der gesellschaftlichen Debatte um Neuroenhancement [Media hype ‘brain doping’? The role of journalists in the social debate on neuroenhancement]. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
54.
SchäferM (2020) “Letztendlich nur für Auflage?”: Corona und die Verantwortung der Medien [“Ultimately only for circulation?”: The coronavirus and the responsibility of the media]. Communicatio Socialis53(3): 308–323.
55.
SchimankU (2010) Reputation statt Wahrheit: Verdrängt der Nebencode den Code? [Reputation instead of truth: does the secondary code replace the code?] Soziale Systeme16(2): 233–242.
56.
Schütz-IeraceM (2010) Von geheimen Politikmachern und wissenschaftlichen Hoflieferanten: Wissenschaftliches Wissen in der Politikberichterstattung [From secret politicians and scientific royal warrants: scientific knowledge in media coverage of politics]. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
57.
ShepherdRG (1981) Selectivity of sources: Reporting the marijuana controversy. Journal of Communication31(2): 129–137.
58.
SoleyLC (1994) Pundits in print: “Experts” and their use in newspaper stories. Newspaper Research Journal15(2): 65–75.
59.
TejedorSCerviLTusaFZabotinaM (2020) Information on the COVID-19 pandemic in daily newspapers’ front pages: Case study of Spain and Italy. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health17: 6330.
60.
van AelstPTothFCastroLde VreeseCAalbergTCardonelAS, et al. (2021) Does a crisis change news habits? A comparative study of the effects of COVID-19 on news media use in 17 European countries. Digital Journalism29(2): 1–31.
61.
ViehmannCZiegeleMQuiringO (2020) Gut informiert durch die Pandemie? Nutzung unterschiedlicher Informationsquellen in der Corona-Krise [Well informed by the pandemic? Use of different sources of information during the Corona crisis]. Media Perspektiven 10–11: 556–577.
62.
Vonbun-FeldbauerRDogruelL (2021) Regional newspapers’ sourcing strategies: Changes in media-citation and self-citation from a longitudinal perspective. Journalism22(6): 1503–1521.
63.
WeingartP (2001) Die Stunde der Wahrheit? Zum Verhältnis der Wissenschaft zu Politik, Wirtschaft und Medien in der Wissensgesellschaft [The hour of truth? On the relationship between science and politics, economics and media in the knowledge society]. Weilerswist: Velbrück Wiss.
64.
WeischenbergS (1992) Journalistik: Theorie und Praxis aktueller Medienkommunikation [Journalism: Theory and practice of current media communication]. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
WormerH (2020) German media and coronavirus: Exceptional communication—Or just a catalyst for existing tendencies?Media and Communication8(2): 467–470.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
