Science journalists as brokers of trust

(Press-News.org) “Trust in science is collapsing”—that’s the alarm we often hear. It’s not surprising, then, that recent years have seen major efforts to study the phenomenon and its dynamics in the general population. Far less attention, however, has been paid to the information professionals—journalists—who play a crucial bridging role between the world of scientific research and the public. A new paper in the Journal of Science Communication (JCOM) by a research group at the Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis (ITAS) of the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Germany, gives voice to journalists in three countries—Germany, Italy, and Lithuania—each representing a different media ecosystem.

The picture that emerges is far more fragmented and nuanced—and, above all, strongly context-dependent—than the common narrative would suggest. The journalists described themselves as being in constant negotiation with their audiences, calling themselves “knowledge brokers.” They also stressed that, in today’s science journalism, fact-checking and accuracy must be coupled with political, social, and emotional dimensions and with audience expectations, and they highlighted the need for new co-creative media formats.

“According to the journalists involved in our study, trust in science is not collapsing,” explains Nora Weinberger, a researcher at ITAS and one of the authors of the study, who contributed to the analysis of the focus-group data (that were all pre-analyzed locally). “That was kind of a surprise for me, because in the media and in discussions among researchers there’s this idea of a collapse, while participants in our study see trust as being constantly negotiated.”

“Public trust in science is not uniformly declining,” confirms Dana Mahr, also a researcher at ITAS and the study’s first author. “It’s fragmented, dynamic, and highly dependent on social, political, and media contexts, as well as individual expectations.”

The focus-group study involved 87 participants—mostly journalists (also including a number of science and institutional communicators and a few scientists)—across three very different countries. Germany shows a relatively solid landscape for science journalism, with dedicated desks in public broadcasters and major outlets, a strong professional network, and good fact-checking practices. Italy is more fragmented, with fewer pure science desks, many freelancers, and often poorly paid. As described by one Italian participant: “Science journalism in Italy is treated as a luxury. When there’s a crisis, it suddenly matters. Otherwise, it’s ignored.” Lithuania, shaped by its post-communist past, has a very small market with few full-time specialists; science is often covered by generalists or in collaboration with universities and research centers.

Context effects and fragmentation

Journalists highlighted the public’s growing ideological polarization: some continue to trust scientific institutions, while others assess information through an emotional and political lens. As one German participant put it: “People don’t evaluate scientific facts independently anymore. They trust or reject science based on whether it aligns with their political identity.”

They also criticized a reactive form of journalism that works on a very short time horizon and often depends on contingencies and public mood. In practice, topics are covered mainly in emergencies (think of the pandemic), while in-depth, long-term reporting is rare. This dynamic, by reducing the public’s familiarity with scientific issues, ends up triggering a vicious circle that further undermines trust in scientific research.

Online sets the agenda

Another key point is that dynamics of the online sphere spill over offline, shaping what appears in print. “The same article gets published in print and online, and if it gets no clicks online, then the topic doesn’t come up next time in the editorial discussions with regard to the print,” explains Mahr.

This further restricts in-depth coverage of important topics — from vaccines to climate change: if a subject doesn’t draw online interest, it stops being covered. Mahr cites global warming: although it’s scientifically crucial, it no longer attracts audiences unless framed with sensational headlines (often misleading, sometimes not evidence-based), and is gradually sidelined by outlets. “The journalists in our focus groups expressed the idea that basically you cannot do journalism on climate change because the public is overladen with information. Basically they are tired of the topic of climate change.” This, in turn, creates space for “alternative information” (not evidence-based and driven by a specific political agenda), which spreads pseudoscientific misinformation.

The role of support structures

Because journalism is so dependent on context and “market” factors, participants stressed the need for broader infrastructures to support their work: “Whether journalists can foster trust depends less on individual reporting and more on systemic conditions,” explains Weinberger. “Now there is really a need for media infrastructures and institutional support. Trust, and political culture, are questions of structures in society, not only of journalistic skills or good stories. For me, that was really surprising, in a way.”

The envisaged structures include elements that help mitigate market pressure: more stable funding (e.g., public service media), dedicated science desks, investigative funds, fact-checking units, collaboration networks, and ongoing training. In Germany, for example, these supports are more established than elsewhere, reducing click pressure and enabling longer-term, well-contextualized coverage.

Trust brokers and co-creation

“What I found really interesting was that they see their role as trust brokers—not only translating complex research, but also building trust,” says Weinberger. “That is not their formal job description, and from my point of view this represents a shift in their role.” This emerges in all three countries studied, despite clear differences in the media landscape. Journalists do not see their work as only conveying scientific information clearly, fairly, and accurately. They also take on an active role of mediation and dialogue with the public, in some cases pushing the profession toward the edge of activism. They feel literally tasked with building public trust in science.

For this reason, they believe news formats should incorporate more co-creation. “The journalists are aware of the social contract that we connect to the role of journalists—so they want to make it even stronger, with more transparency, more humility, and more dialogue with audiences. Basically, their idea is to allow more co-production.” 

The strategies mentioned include producing interactive formats such as podcasts and Q&A sessions, and building relationships within digital communities instead of relying on one-way messaging, adapting content to the platforms without compromising scientific accuracy. These approaches are not panaceas, but necessary experiments that mark a shift from simple dissemination to dialogue and from authority to co-creation, recognizing that trust must be built by meeting audiences where they already are.

The article “Science journalists and public trust: comparative insights from Germany, Italy, and Lithuania” by Dana Mahr, Arianna Bussoletti, Christopher Coenen, Francesca Comunello, Julija Baniukevic and Nora Weinberger is published in the Journal of science Communication JCOM. The study was conducted as part of the EU Horizon Europe project IANUS (Inspiring and Anchoring Trust in Science, Research and Innovation, Link: https://trustinscience.eu/) aimed at strengthening warranted trust in science, research, and innovation through inclusive, value-sensitive, and participatory approaches.

END