Why does science journalism matter?

In 2023, Australia’s pre-eminent journalism awards – the Walkleys – included two new categories that had science journalists cheering: ‘specialist and beat reporting’ and ‘explanatory reporting’.

It wasn’t the slam-dunk that science journalists – and particularly those who report on climate change –were hoping for. We’d hoped for a new ‘science journalism’ category to sit alongside sport, business and community reporting. But the two new categories at least opened the door to acknowledging the skills involved in science reporting – which includes health, climate, environment and technology – and its importance for society.

Science journalism has long struggled to get recognition as a speciality within journalism. Science journalists are often bundled together with science communicators, viewed as cheerleaders and champions of science, serving its interests.

But first and foremost, science journalists are journalists. We report on science for the same reasons that sports journalists report on sport, or political journalists report on politics: because we’re fascinated by it, by the people in it, by the context in which it operates, and by the effects and impacts it has on our lives.

We report on science with curiosity, with respect, and with an understanding of the centrality of evidence. We report with an awareness of the flaws and limitations of scientific work. Science journalists’ loyalty – like that of all journalists – is always to the truth, or as close to it as we can get. If sometimes that truth reveals scientists or scientific work to have been compromised, unethical or harmful, that’s what we’ll report. ‘Without fear or favour’ sounds like a high-minded trope, but in its absence, journalism is public relations.

Communicating the bigger picture

One of the central purposes of journalism is to equip people with the information they need to make informed decisions. Independent journalism is a pillar of democracy, and it’s no coincidence that those seeking to undermine democracy start by attacking the free press.

Public awareness and understanding of scientific concepts and research has never been more important to this informed decision-making. That means good science journalism has never been more important.

The pandemic brought this into the sharpest possible focus. Day to day, sometimes hour to hour, science journalists were updating the public on what they needed to know to make decisions that were often life or death; to mask or not to mask, which COVID-19 vaccine to choose, what symptoms to be concerned about.

It’s tempting to argue that this information was already being provided by health authorities, sometimes speaking directly to the public via a daily media conference. It was also being interpreted and shared by scientists direct to the public via channels such as social media, institutional websites and newsletters.

But science isn’t about one voice, or one source of evidence, any more than democracy is. It’s about many voices, many sources of evidence – sometimes conflicting – and many different interpretations of that evidence.

The public needed – and still needs – to see the bigger picture to make informed decisions. They also need to know what’s going on behind the scenes, to understand the wider context in which those scientists and health professionals and politicians and industries are operating. It all matters.

That’s why good science journalism matters. The pandemic highlighted this, but it’s not the first scenario to do so, and it certainly won’t be the last. Reporting on climate change can have the same life-and-death implications as pandemic reporting. Other issues such as antimicrobial resistance, artificial intelligence, the rise of science denialism, the scourge of misinformation and disinformation … these are the biggest, but by no means the only, stories that need experienced, independent reporting.

Why science needs science journalism

Science journalism also matters to science. In a recent court case in New Zealand, microbiologist Siouxsie Wiles – an important scientific voice throughout the pandemic – has argued that the right of academic freedom brings with it a responsibility to disseminate and communicate. In New Zealand, that responsibility is uniquely enshrined in law that asserts the responsibility of universities to be the ‘critic and conscience’ of society.

Wiles is suing her employer – the University of Auckland – for failing to do enough to protect her from the relentless online and offline abuse and harassment that she experienced throughout the pandemic, as a high-profile science communicator.

Her case hinges at least partly on whether her communications work – both as a media commentator and as a science communicator – was fulfilling the university’s obligations to uphold academic freedom and act as a ‘critic and conscience’. If so, did the university fall short in meeting its health and safety obligations to Wiles?

The bulk of Wiles’ communications work during the pandemic has been through the mainstream media. She estimated that she had done more than 2,000 interviews with journalists in print, radio, online and television. As a means of communicating with the general public, journalism is still – and hopefully always will be – the most important, independent, unbiased (hashtag ‘notallmedia’) source of news and information that matters.

It’s one reason why science needs science journalism, but it’s not the most important. Science needs science journalism to hold it to account, the same way that political reporting holds politicians to account, and business reporting holds industry to account. The relationship between science and science journalism may not always be a comfortable one, but it’s necessary.

Without science journalists delving into the data, following the money and asking hard questions on behalf of society, those dark and hidden corners of scientific endeavour may get even darker and more hidden.

In November, another tranche of layoffs rocked the journalism world in the United States and the hammer has fallen particularly hard on science and climate journalists. The dreadful irony of climate journalists being sacked at the same time as the COP28 climate summit was being held in Dubai cannot be ignored. Those same journalists revealed that the summit was providing a cover for the fossil fuel industry to ramp up.

That is why the new Walkley categories – as nondescript as they are – are still a desperately needed move in the right direction. They signal, albeit in a whisper, that science journalism matters; to journalism, to society, and to science.