mosquito-borne diseases affect up to 700 million people each year. learn more

science

journalists may be too careful in their coverage of science news

sensationalization of research is one of the key criticisms of science coverage in the media, but a new study says the opposite might be true.

by emma jones

mar 21 2022

3 minute read

join the conversation

are journalists be too careful in their coverage of science news?

with information moving at a faster pace than ever before, it’s incredibly easy to feel overwhelmed. getty

science journalists may be expressing greater uncertainty in the coverage of research studies than the researchers themselves, according to a new study from the university of michigan .

researchers compiled a collection of 128,942 u.s.-based news articles and the abstract of the research paper they reported on. these articles were from 273 different news outlets covering 57,807 different scientific articles. by comparing the language and context in each abstract/news article pair, the researchers indicated that, in general, news used language and sentence structures that communicate less certainty than the research articles.

“the findings presented in the science news are actually lower than the certainty of the same scientific findings presented in the paper extracts,” jiaxin pei, an author on the paper, told poynter .

examples of using uncertain language when reporting on a research study include using phrases like “we suspect a has effects on b,” versus “we conclude that a has effects on b.” other words, like possibly, maybe, and approximately, also expressed a degree of uncertainty.

the researchers noted that only looking at the abstracts of these studies is a limiting factor. more research into the actual study is needed to get a larger picture of the differing ways science is being communicated.

society is biased toward results

however, not all researchers are convinced that reporting on news stories is entirely non-sensationalized. a case study published in the journal of science communication looked at the reporting from australian news agencies on a single research article as an example.

the authors argue that a positive spin is introduced in all areas of a scientific article’s life. a researcher writing a grant, for example, needing to secure funding may overemphasize the potential benefits of their project to generate more interest and funding. dedicating a significant amount of space in a grant application to reasons why a project might not work or why the findings might not be significant may hurt the applicant’s chances, especially in an era when competition for research funding is severe and applications are often strictly limited in terms of word count or number of pages.

once the research is published, pr professionals for the research institute or university are also inclined to do the same. their job is to generate interest in the research being done and attract media attention, which is most successful when the focus is on the effects of the research, versus giving equal attention to the factors that may detract from researchers’ findings. journalists are under similar pressure — it’s no secret that a snappy, bold headline generates far more clicks, compared to a balanced, nuanced explanation of the research.

what does this mean for readers?

with information moving at a faster pace than ever before, it’s incredibly easy to feel overwhelmed.

look for news articles that include mitigating factors, such as the potential side effects of a new drug, or other research that contradicts the findings in the new study.

signs of a good report on a research article also include details about how the research itself was carried out. for example, how many participants were involved in the study and whether the study was conducted on humans, animals or is based on survey observations.

giving another viewpoint on the topic, like a different study or including analysis from another expert in the field who isn’t part of the original study is also key to getting an understanding on where new studies fall into the bigger picture.

emma jones is a multimedia editor with healthing. you can reach her at emjones@postmedia.com or on twitter @jonesyjourn .

don’t miss a thing: sign-up for healthing’s newsletter

thank you for your support. if you liked this story, please send it to a friend. every share counts.

journalists may be too careful in their coverage of science news

sensationalization of research is one of the key criticisms of science coverage in the media, but a new study says the opposite might be true.

society is biased toward results

michael schutz on the ‘beeping hellscape’ in hospitals

when it comes to facial scars, we are 'our own worst critics'

what does this mean for readers?

advertisement

journalists may be too careful in their coverage of science news

sensationalization of research is one of the key criticisms of science coverage in the media, but a new study says the opposite might be true.

society is biased toward results

related stories

michael schutz on the ‘beeping hellscape’ in hospitals

when it comes to facial scars, we are 'our own worst critics'

how can fruit flies help us to understand autism better?

advertisement

what does this mean for readers?

advertisement

share story