The last comprehensive study of Canadian science journalists and science reporting was done over 20 years ago (Dubas and Martel 1973). A more recent content analysis of seven major Canadian dailies found most science stories are “hard” news in style and originate from wire sources (Einsiedel 1992).
This 1994 survey of 105 of Canada's daily English-language newspapers and their commitment to science journalism revealed a general weakening and dilution of reporter allocation. Over 50 percent of Canadian dailies did not allocate a science reporter. Only 18 full-time science reporters were identified. A follow-up of 45 journalists covering science at least half-time revealed most covered science policy. The vast majority had no science training. Time problems and competing demands hindered professional development.
Confirming suggestions of previous literature, this study also indicates the Canadian daily newspaper structure is not supportive of the style of reportage required for quality science writing, nor of the development of such writers.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anton, Ted, and Rick McCourt. The New Science Journalists. New York: Ballantine Books, 1995.
2.
Berger, Peter L., and Thomas Luckmann. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. New York: Doubleday, 1967.
3.
Check, William A.“Beyond the Political Model of Reporting: Nonspecific Symptoms in Media Communication about AIDS.”Reviews of Infectious Diseases9 (1987) no. 5: 987-1000.
4.
de Semir, Vladimir. “What is Newsworthy?”Lancet347 (1996): 1063-1066.
5.
Dubas, Orest, and Lisa Martel. Media Impact: A Research Study on Science Communication. Ottawa: Ministry of State, 1975.
6.
Dunwoody, Sharon (1980). “The Science Writing Inner Club: A Communication Link between Science and the Lay Public.” In Friedman, Dunwoody, and Rogers, eds, Scientists and Journalists: Reporting Science as News. New York: Free Press, 1986.
7.
Dunwoody, Sharon. “The Scientist as Source.” In Friedman, Dunwoody, and Rogers, eds., Scientists and Journalists: Reporting Science as News. New York: Free Press, 1986.
8.
Einsiedel, Edna F.“Framing Science and Technology in the Canadian Press.”Public Understanding of Science1 (1992): 89-101.
9.
Ettema, James S., D. Charles Whitney, and Daniel B. Wackman. “Professional Mass Communicators.” In Charles Berger and Steven H. Chaffee, eds. Handbook of Communication Science. California: Sage, 1987.
10.
Fishman, Mark. “News and Non-Events. Making the Visible Invisible.” In James Ettema and Charles D. Whitney, eds., Individuals in Mass Media Organizations: Creativity and Constraint. Sage Annual Reviews of Communication Research, vol. 10. Beverly Hills: Sage, 1982.
11.
Friedman, Sharon M.“The Journalist's World.” In Friedman, Dunwoody and Rogers, eds., Scientists and Journalists: Reporting Science as News. New York: Free Press, 1986.
12.
Giles, Robert H.“Educating the Masses—Of Reporters, That Is.”ASNE Bulletin (April 1992): 14-16.
13.
Glaser, Barney G., and Anselm L. Strauss. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1967.
14.
Hansen, Anders. “Journalistic Practices and Science Reporting in the British Press.”Public Understanding of Science3 (1994): 111-134.
15.
Klaidman, Stephen, and Tom L. Beauchamp. The Virtuous Journalist. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987.
16.
Logan, Robert A.“Commentary: Rationales for Investigative and Explanatory Trends in Science Reporting.”Newspaper Research Journal7 (1983) no. 1: 53-58.
17.
Matthews Media Directory (Canada). 37 (1993): no. 3.
18.
McCombs, Maxwell E., and Donald L. Shaw. “The Agenda-Setting Function of the Mass-Media.”Public Opinion Quarterly36 (1972) no. 2: 176-187.
19.
Mulkay, Michael. Science and the Sociology of Knowledge. London: George Allen and Unwin (1979).
20.
Nelkin, Dorothy. Selling Science: How the Press Covers Science and Technology. 2d ed.New York: Freeman, 1992.
21.
Nelkin, Dorothy. “An Uneasy Relationship: The Tensions between Medicine and the Media.”Lancet347 (1996): 1600-1603.
22.
Ramsay, Shirley A.“Communicative Competence for the Science Interview: Information Brokers and Authority Brokers.”Journalism Monographs107 (1988): 1-36.
23.
Sigelman, Lee. “Reporting the News: An Organizational Analysis.”American Journal of Sociology79 (1983) no. 1: 132-151.
24.
Storad, Conrad J.“Who Are the Metropolitan Daily Newspaper Science Journalists and How Do They Work?”Newspaper Research Journal6 (1984) no. 1: 39-48.
25.
Tuchman, Gaye. “Objectivity as a Strategic Ritual: An Examination of Newsmen's Notions of Objectivity.”American Journal of Sociology77 (1972) no. 4: 660-678.
26.
Tuchman, Gaye. “Making News by Doing Work: Routinizing the Unexpected.”American Journal of Sociology79 (1973) no. 1: 110-131.
27.
Tuchman, Gaye. Making News: A Study in the Construction of Reality. New York: Free Press (1978).
28.
White, David Manning. “The Gate Keeper: A Case Study in the Selection of News.”Journalism Quarterly27 (1950) no. 4: 383-390.
29.
Whitney, D. Charles, and Lee B. Becker, “Keeping the Gates for Gatekeepers: The Effects of Wire News.”Journalism Quarterly59 (1982) no. 1: 60-65.
30.
Wilke, Tom. “Sources in Science: Who Can We Trust?”Lancet347 (1996): 1308-1311.
31.
Winsten, Jay A.“Science and the Media: The Boundaries of Truth.”Health Affairs4 (1985) no. 1: 5-23.
