In the United States and many other large media markets, science journalism has experienced major structural shifts that have resulted in the profession largely being conducted by nonspecialists and freelancers who cope with an abundance of misinformation and a loss of public confidence. In this qualitative work, we present the results of in-depth interviews with science journalists to understand current struggles and motivations for producing science news. Despite structural challenges and occupational burnout, journalists are motivated to produce science news for their perceived social benefits. However, many of the ways they are left to cope with these issues are personal strategies (e.g., resilience) that are unsustainable and ignore systemic inequities.
AncillottiM.HolmbergN.LindfeltM.ErikssonS. (2017). Uncritical and unbalanced coverage of synthetic biology in the Nordic press. Public Understanding of Science, 26(2), 235–250.
2.
AshwellD. J. (2016). The challenges of science journalism: The perspectives of scientists, science communication advisors and journalists from New Zealand. Public Understanding of Science, 25(3), 379–393.
3.
BogomoletcE.GoodwinJ.BinderA. R. (2021). Masks don’t work but you should get one: Circulation of the science of masking during the Covid-19 pandemic. In BerubeD. M. (Ed.), Pandemic communication and resilience (pp. 213–244). Springer International Publishing.
4.
BraunJ. A.EklundJ. L. (2019). Fake news, real money: Ad tech platforms, profit-driven hoaxes, and the business of journalism. Digital Journalism, 7(1), 1–21.
5.
BrüggemannM.LörcherI.WalterS. (2020). Post-normal science communication: Exploring the blurring boundaries of science and journalism. Journal of Science Communication, 19(3), A02.
6.
BuchananM. (2020). Managing the infodemic. Nature Physics, 16(9), 894–894.
7.
CanuI. G.MarcaS. C.Dell’OroF.BalázsÁ.BergamaschiE.BesseC.BianchiR.BislimovskaJ.Koscec BjelajacA.BuggeM.Iliana BusneagC.ÇağlayanÇ.CernițanuM.Costa PereiraC.Dernovšček HafnerN.DrozN.EgliteM.GodderisL.. . .WahlenA. (2021). Harmonized definition of occupational burnout: A systematic review, semantic analysis, and Delphi consensus in 29 countries. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 47(2), 95–107.
8.
ChenC. P.Javid-YazdiM. (2019). Career counselling strategies to enhance the vocational wellness of journalists. Australian Journal of Career Development, 28(1), 31–38.
9.
ClaveauF.RoyJ.-H.SanterreO. (2020). Viral science? How COVID-19 brought science into the limelight. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3747158
10.
CredéM.TynanM. C.HarmsP. D. (2017). Much ado about grit: A meta-analytic synthesis of the grit literature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(3), 492–511.
11.
DeboveS.FüchslinT.LouisT.MasselotP. (2021). French science communication on YouTube: A survey of individual and institutional communicators and their channel characteristics. Frontiers in Communication, 6, 612667.
12.
DonsbachW. (2004). Psychology of news decisions: Factors behind journalists’ professional behavior. Journalism, 5(2), 131–157.
13.
DuckworthA. L.PetersonC.MatthewsM. D.KellyD. R. (2007). Grit: Perseverance and passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(6), 1087–1101.
14.
DunwoodyS. (1980). The science writing inner club: A communication link between science and the lay public. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 5(30), 14–22.
15.
DunwoodyS. (1982). A question of accuracy. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, PC-25(4), 196–199.
16.
DunwoodyS. (2021). Science journalism: Prospects in the digital age. In BucchiM.TrenchB. (Eds.), Routledge handbook of public communication of science and technology (2nd ed., pp. 14–32). Routledge.
17.
DunwoodyS.RyanM. (1985). Scientific barriers to the popularization of science in the mass media. Journal of Communication, 35(1), 26–42.
18.
DunwoodyS.ScottB. T. (1982). Scientists as mass media sources. Journalism Quarterly, 59(1), 52–59.
19.
FriedmanS. M.DunwoodyS.RogersC. L. (1986). Scientists and journalists: Reporting science as news. Free Press.
20.
FriedmanS. M.DunwoodyS.RogersC. L. (1999). Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science. Routledge.
21.
GalisonP. (2015). The journalist, the scientist, and objectivity. In PadovaniF.RichardsonA.TsouJ. Y. (Eds.), Objectivity in science: New perspectives from science and technology studies (pp. 57–75). Springer International Publishing.
22.
GaribiJ. A.AntónA.VillarroelJ. D. (2021). Information about human evolution: An analysis of news published in communication media in Spanish between 2015 and 2017. Publications, 9(3), 28.
23.
GravesL.AmazeenM. A. (2019, February25). Fact-checking as idea and practice in journalism. Oxford research encyclopedia of communication. Oxford University Press.
24.
GregoryJ.MillerS. (1998). Science in public: Communication, culture, and credibility. Basic Books.
25.
GuentherL.RuhrmannG.ZarembaM. C.WeigeltN. (2021). The newsworthiness of the “March for science” in Germany: Comparing news factors in journalistic media and on Twitter. Journal of Science Communication, 20(2), A03.
26.
GuestG.MacQueenK. M.NameyE. E. (2012). Applied thematic analysis. SAGE.
27.
HanitzschT. (2008). Comparative journalism studies. In Wahl-JorgensenK.HanitzschT. (Eds.), The handbook of journalism studies (pp. 437–443). Routledge.
28.
HaydenT.Check HaydenE. (2018). Science journalism’s unlikely golden age. Frontiers in Communication, 2, 24.
29.
HayesK.SilkeH. (2018). The networked freelancer?Digital Journalism, 6(8), 1018–1028.
30.
HayesK.SilkeH. (2019). Narrowing the discourse? Growing precarity in freelance journalism and its effect on the construction of news discourse. Critical Discourse Studies, 16(3), 363–379.
31.
HudaK. N.AzadM. A. K.ShakilR. M. (2020). Do the newspaper publishing houses in Bangladesh maintain quality of work life?Business Perspective Review, 2(3), Article 3.
32.
JamiesonK. H.KahanD.ScheufeleD. A. (2017). The Oxford handbook of the science of science communication. Oxford University Press.
33.
KoniecznaM. (2018). Journalism without profit: Making news when the market fails. Oxford University Press.
34.
LukanT.Čehovin ZajcJ. (2022). “If you don’t agree to be available 24/7, then you have nothing to do in journalism”: The boundary work tactics of precarious journalists. Community, Work & Family. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/13668803.2022.2050356
35.
McGregorS. C. (2019). Social media as public opinion: How journalists use social media to represent public opinion. Journalism, 20(8), 1070–1086.
36.
McKinnonM.HowesJ.LeachA.ProkopN. (2018). Perils and positives of science journalism in Australia. Public Understanding of Science, 27(5), 562–577.
37.
MillsJ.BonnerA.FrancisK. (2006). The development of constructivist grounded theory. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 25–35.
38.
NelkinD. (1995). Selling science: How the press covers science and technology. W.H. Freeman.
39.
OleshkoV. F.MukhinaO. S. (2022). Media freelancers of the digital age: Social, legal and ethical aspects. KnE Social Sciences, 7(3), 104–113.
40.
Peterson-SalahuddinC.DiakopoulosN. (2020). Negotiated autonomy: The role of social media algorithms in editorial decision making. Media and Communication, 8(3), 27–38.
41.
PosettiJ.BellE.BrownP. (2020). Journalism and the Pandemic: A Global Snapshot of Impacts. International Center for Journalists (ICFJ) and the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia University.
42.
ReynaV. H. (2021). “This is my exit sign”: Job control deficit, role strain and turnover in Mexican journalism. Journalism Practice, 15(8), 1129–1145.
43.
Ross ArguedasA. A. (2020). Medicalization in the media: News coverage of a new and uncertain diagnosis. Journalism Practice, 14(9), 1087–1105.
44.
RussellC. (2006). Covering controversial science: Improving reporting on science and public policy. Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy.
45.
ScheufeleD. A.KrauseN. M. (2019). Science audiences, misinformation, and fake news. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(16), 7662–7669.
SnyderI.JohnsonK.Kozimor-KingM. L. (2021). Work–life balance in media newsrooms. Journalism, 22(8), 2001–2018.
48.
StraussN.PainterJ.EttingerJ.DoutreixM.-N.WonnebergerA.WaltonP. (2022). Reporting on the 2019 European heatwaves and climate change: Journalists’ attitudes, motivations and role perceptions. Journalism Practice, 16(2–3), 462–485.
49.
SumnerP.Vivian-GriffithsS.BoivinJ.WilliamsA.BottL.AdamsR.VenetisC. A.WhelanL.HughesB.ChambersC. D. (2016). Exaggerations and caveats in press releases and health-related science news. PLOS ONE, 11(12), Article e0168217.
50.
TracyS. J. (2019). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating impact. John Wiley & Sons.
51.
VoglerD.SchäferM. S. (2020). Growing influence of university PR on science news coverage? A longitudinal automated content analysis of university media releases and newspaper coverage in Switzerland, 2003‒2017. International Journal of Communication, 14, 3143–3164.
52.
YuanS.KanthawalaS.Ott-FulmoreT. (2022). “Listening” to science: Science podcasters’ view and practice in strategic science communication. Science Communication, 44(2), 200–222.
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.
