---
title: "Science journalism"
chunk: 4/4
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_journalism"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:37:43.357712+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---

== Criticism ==

Science journalists regularly come under criticism for misleading reporting of scientific stories. All three groups of scientists, journalists and the public often criticize science journalism for bias and inaccuracies. However, with the increasing collaborations online between science journalists there may be potential with removing inaccuracies.
The 2010 book Merchants of Doubt by historians of science Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway argues that in topics like the global warming controversy, tobacco smoking, acid rain, DDT and ozone depletion, contrarian scientists have sought to "keep the controversy alive" in the public arena by demanding that reporters give false balance to the minority side. Very often, such as with climate change, this leaves the public with the impression that disagreement within the scientific community is much greater than it actually is. Science is based on experimental evidence and testing, and disputation is a normal activity.
Scholars have criticized science journalists for:

Uncritical reporting
Emphasizing frames of scientific progress and economic prospect
Not presenting a range of expert opinion
Having preferences toward positive messages
Reporting unrealistic timelines and engaging in the production of a "cycle of hype"
Science journalists can be seen as the gatekeepers of scientific information. Just like traditional journalists, science journalists are responsible for what truths reach the public.
Scientific information is often costly to access. This is counterproductive to the goals of science journalism. Open science, a movement for "free availability and usability of scholarly publications," seeks to counteract the accessibility issues of valuable scientific information. Freely accessible scientific journals will decrease the public's reliance on potentially biased popular media for scientific information.
Many science magazines, along with Newspapers like The New York Times and popular science shows like PBS Nova tailor their content to relatively highly educated audiences. Many universities and research institutions focus much of their media outreach efforts on coverage in such outlets. Some government departments require journalists to gain clearance to interview a scientist, and require that a press secretary listen in on phone conversations between government funded scientists and journalists.
Many pharmaceutical marketing representatives have come under fire for offering free meals to doctors in order to promote new drugs. Critics of science journalists have argued that they should disclose whether industry groups have paid for a journalist to travel, or has received free meals or other gifts.
Science journalism finds itself under a critical eye due to the fact that it combines the necessary tasks of a journalist along with the investigative process of a scientist.

=== Chocolate hoax ===

In 2015, John Bohannon produced a deliberately bad study to see how a low-quality open access publisher and the media would pick up their findings. He worked with a film-maker Peter Onneken who was making a film about junk science in the diet industry with fad diets becoming headline news despite terrible study design and almost no evidence.  He invented a fake "diet institute" that lacked even a website, used the pen name "Johannes Bohannon" and fabricated a press release.

== Notable science journalists ==

== See also ==

== References ==

== Further reading ==
Dixon, Bernard, ed. (1989). From Creation to Chaos: Classic Writings in Science. Basil Blackwell. ISBN 978-0-631-14976-7.
Brainard, Curtis (20 March 2009). "Nature's Artificial Divide". Columbia Journalism Review.
Yong, Ed (29 July 2010). "On the Origin of Science Writers". National Geographic Phenomena Blog. Archived from the original on 11 March 2021.

== External links ==