Abstract
In an attempt to qualify changes to science news reporting due to the impact of the internet, we studied all science news articles published in Danish national newspapers in a November week in 1999 and 2012, respectively. We find the same amount of science coverage, about 4% of the total news production, in both years, though the tabloids produce more science news in 2012. Online science news also received high priority. Journalists in 2012 more often than in 1999 make reference to scientific journals, and cite a wider range of journals. Science news in 2012 is more international and political oriented than in 1999. Based on these findings we suggest science news, due partly to the emergence of online resources, is becoming more diverse and available to a wider audience. Science news is no longer for the elite but has spread to virtually everywhere in the national news system.
Keywords
Science news, web-based information and communication technologies, quantitative content analysis, online and print newspapers
1. Introduction
On July 4 2012, CERN physicists announced the discovery of a possible Higgs boson. A few days prior to the announcement, rumours began to spread on Twitter and soon became “truly global” (De Domenico et al., 2013: 4). Social media, news feeds, and CERN’s own webcast, made sure that the news about the Higgs boson candidate, one of the most elusive particles in the history of modern science, reached millions of users, readers, and viewers across the globe. As the CERN Communication Group, slightly surprised, observed, the Higgs-like boson received rock star treatment, making its appearance in unexpected media, such as the most popular tabloid newspaper in the United Kingdom, The Sun, where the Page 3 model “reflected” on the discovery, and in the tweets of celebrities such as MC Hammer (Kahle, 2012).
Although in many respects atypical, the production and circulation of news about the Higgs-like boson demonstrate the impact of the internet on science reporting and the flow of science news. The number of science communication channels has amplified, and science news has become omnipresent. In “the electronic embrace of the internet,” science reporting seems characterized by the emergence of new producers of information, new channels for distributing information, and new audiences, all of which not only provide new opportunities for news media, research institutions, scientific journals, and concerned citizens, but also challenge traditional news values and practices (Trench, 2007).
The purpose of this study is to compare quantity, triggers, sources and demographics of science news before and after web-searching, social media and online media became pervasive in professional journalism. As Danish researchers, we conveniently focus on Denmark, a small country where the number of national newspapers is low. Even with limited resources, it is possible to collect and code all of the news items relating to science that have been published in Danish media over an extended period of more than a few days. Partly for the same reason, Denmark has been home to a unique quantitative and longitudinal study of general news. The continuing research project A News Week in Denmark coded all news items published in a given November week in 1999 and again in 2008 and 2011, aiming to trace the circulation of news in Danish media (Lund, 2013; Lund et al., 2009).
2. Trends in newspaper coverage of science
Science news in the new media ecosystem
The rise of online environments for news has been accompanied by several, contradictory changes in the way that traditional news media like newspapers process news stories. At the level of management, editorship, reporting and marketing, newspapers, throughout the 1990s and 2000s, still struggled to make best use of the web (Boczkowski, 2005; van der Wurff and Lauf, 2005). Still today, many newspapers are undergoing financial problems, while at the same time having to produce additional round-the-clock content for their online platforms.
There are no precise accounts of how newspapers in their coverage of science respond to the challenge of producing more news on multiple platforms in an environment characterized by rapid technological development and increased competition. The emergence of numerous web-based resources for science journalists, such as online news services provided by high-ranking scientific journals, specialized science news agencies and academic institutions, surely have made it easier for science journalists to access science stories without leaving the office or even picking up the phone. In an age of tight resources, Williams and Clifford (2012: 42) suggest, this would tempt science journalists, as other journalists, to pick the “low-hanging fruits” in the guise of readymade news stories and consequently lead to fewer independently researched science stories in the news. Granado (2011), surveying European science journalists working for general news media and news agencies, conclude that, indeed, science journalists are becoming more dependent on the services provided by scientific journals and in their daily work spend a lot of time on the internet. Similarly, British science journalists in interviews have conjectured that the idea that “the web is never full” generally encourage online science reporters to increase news production at the expense of news quality (Willams and Clifford, 2009). Fahy and Nisbeth (2011: 783), on a more positive note, see no reason to predict uniform decline in the standards of science news, but rather develop a typology for the plurality of roles that science journalists are expected to play in the new “science media ecosystem”.
Content-wise, the advent of online news platforms so far appears to have had little impact on science news in general. Although there are only very few studies available, all of which focus on special scientific topics, they all find that online science news items tend to differ but slightly from their offline counterparts (Gerhards and Schäfer 2010; Habel et al., 2009; Hyde 2006; Wilson et al., 2009). To take an example, Hyde (2006) found that online news articles about genetic cloning, produced from 1996 to 1999, tended to include fewer quoted sources than printed articles in the sample; however, the difference was partly explained by the fact that the print news stories were as much as 20-70% longer than their online stories (Hyde, 2006: 239). With respect to their language, tone and emphasis on the possible future benefits that may be associated with cloning, online and print articles were found to be strikingly similar.
Longitudinal studies of science news
Longitudinal studies provide valuable information on long-term changes in the amount and characteristics of science news (Bauer et al., 2006; Bauer et al., 1995; Bucchi and Mazzolini, 2003; Clark and Illman, 2006; Elmer et al., 2008; Krieghbaum, 1941; Logan et al., 2000; Pellechia 1997). Although it is difficult to compare results across most of such studies, since with a few exceptions they all employ different protocols for sampling and coding articles, most conclude that the amount of science news in the media have increased since the 1980s.
The first longitudinal study of science in the news probably was Krieghbaum’s (1941) analysis of 97 American newspapers from 1939 to 1941, showing that about 5% of non-advertising space was dedicated to science reporting. Surprisingly, almost the same percentage of science news was found about 50 years later in the study performed by Bauer et al. (1995), who included 6.000 articles from seven daily British newspapers from 1946 to 1986. Like Krieghbaum (1941), Bauer et al. (1995) defined science news in broad, “catholic” terms and measured the amount of science news relative to the effective number of news pages exclusive of advertising space. They found a slight increase in the amount of science news starting in the early 1980s.
In Italy, where the British study was replicated by Bucchi and Mazzolini (2003), the amount of science news found in the leading Italian newspaper Il Corriere della Sera grew dramatically from about 1% in the period from 1946 to 1950 to 21% in the late 1980s, reaching 29% by the early 1990s. Bauer et al.’s (2006) comparative study of science news in the Daily Telegraph (Great Britain) and in the Rabotnichesko Delo/Duma (Bulgaria) from 1946 to 1995 (1992 for the Telegraph) concluded that the intensity of science coverage in both newspapers could be modelled by a waved cubical curve. The curve peaked in the early 1960s, reached a low by the end of the 1970s (the Telegraph) and early 1980s (the Rabotnichesko Delo), and then continued to rise throughout the 1980s and into the 1990s. In the most recent longitudinal study of science news in European newspapers, Elmer et al. (2008), looking specifically at three nationwide newspapers in Germany in two periods, 2003-2004 and 2006-2007, reported an overall increase of science reporting by 48%. Even though they employed a stricter definition of science news than the British/Bulgarian and the Italian studies, they found the absolute increase in science news outside the science sections to be a staggering 136% (Elmer et al., 2008: 883).
On the other side of the Atlantic, similar, although more modest, growth in the absolute and relative amount of science news has been detected. Pellechia (1997), in her study of science news reporting in the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Post, found that all three newspapers had increased their emphasis on science news from 1966 to 1990. The absolute number of science sections rose from 18 in the period 1966-1970 to 56 in 1986-1990, and the percentage of science articles from 0.42% to 2.04% (p. 57). A later study of all science-related content in the New York Times’ science section from 1980 to 2000, performed by Clark and Illman (2006), observed a continuation of this upward trend. They reported that the amount of editorial science content in Science Times had more than tripled in the period, with the largest increase occurring from 1995 to 2000 (Clark and Illman, 2006: 504).
Sources and triggers
Traditionally, science journalists as well as general journalists tend to favour national events as triggers for their news stories. Bauer et al. (1995), for example, found that more than two-thirds of the British news devoted to science in the period from 1946 to 1986 was based on national events. As science journalists increasingly adapt web-based tools for getting and sharing information about events in science all over the globe, the national emphasis in science news stories may tend to be replaced by a more international outlook. From around 2000, using the web to search for material and get in touch with sources became standard practice for science journalists across the globe (Trench, 2007).
Many longitudinal studies of science news have looked specifically at newspaper articles that are triggered by the completion of scientific research printed in journals. Studies have found that journal articles account for about half of the science news found in US and European newspapers (Clark and Illman, 2006; de Semir et al., 1998; European Commission, 2007; Suleski and Ibaraki, 2010). However, Weitkamp (2003) in an earlier study from 2000 and 2001, when online tools were not predominant, found only 15% of science news in the United Kingdom to be triggered by a journal article. Recently, Kiernan (2014) in a content analysis of the New York Times’ science section from 1998 to 2012 found an increase in the use of journals as well as in the number of different journals cited, attributing the observations to the increased online availability of journals.
Elmer et al. (2008: 882) made a useful distinction between scientific triggers, i.e., events within the world of research, such as publication of papers, congresses, announcements from scientific institutions, etc.; non-scientific triggers, such as epidemics, political decisions, etc.; and combined scientific and non-scientific triggers, such as rocket launchings or policy-making related to scientific issues. They found that about half of the news articles in dedicated science sections were triggered by scientific events, whereas scientific triggers only accounted for 12-15% of the science news in other sections of the newspapers (Elmer et al., 2008: 883).
Throughout the later part of the twentieth century, universities increasingly have adopted a strategic approach to science news, releasing press information in order to enhance the visibility of research activities that are seen as crucial to their particular “brand” and to promote general corporate values of science (Bauer and Gregory, 2007; Borchelt and Nielsen, 2014; Nelkin, 1995). Some commentators see the strength of science public relations as a sign of weakness in science journalism (see, for example, Göpfert 2007). Others note that press releases may serve as a source of distortion in the flow of science news, for example by increasing the likelihood of “media hype” (Brechman et al., 2009; Bubela and Caulfield, 2004; Caulfield and Condit, 2012; Vestergård, 2011). The actual percentage of science news based on press releases from scientific institutions is difficult to determine, partly due to the fact that journalists rarely cite press releases (Bubela and Caulfield, 2004; Williams and Clifford, 2009). One study reported that medical journalists tend to agree that the availability of press releases increases their likelihood of reporting research (van Trigt et al., 1994). Other studies have found that scientific articles accompanied by press releases are more likely to appear as science news in newspapers (de Semir et al., 1998; Entwistle, 1995; Stryker, 2002).
Science news in Denmark
In 2003 the Danish Government introduced a new Act on Universities, establishing public communication of science and technology and knowledge transfer as a third mission of the university (Nielsen, 2005). Kjærgaard (2008), looking at news about nanotechnology published in Danish newspapers between 1996 and 2006, suggests that the framing of science news is closely linked to the national agenda provided by government policy-making and research initiatives. Nanotechnology, mainly due to its novelty as a research field and the hype attached to it, admittedly is a special case, but Kjærgaard’s (2008) conclusion about the embeddedness of science news in regional and national news contexts appears to be applicable across countries (for other studies of nanotechnology in the news, see Anderson et al., 2005; Kulve, 2006; Stephens, 2004).