Science journalists as brokers of trust

“Confidence in science collapses” – this is the alarm that we often hear. It is therefore not surprising that the last years have seen major efforts to study the phenomenon and its dynamics in the general population. However, much less attention has been paid to information professionals – journalists – who play a crucial puncture role between the world of scientific research and the public.

A new article entitled “Science Journalists and Public Trust: Comparative Insights of Germany, Italy and Lithuania” Journal of Science Communication By a research group at the Institute for the Evaluation of Technology and Systems Analysis (ITAS) of the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), in Germany, gives the floor to journalists in three countries – the Ermante, Italy and Lithuania – each representing a different media ecosystem.

The image that emerges is much more fragmented and nuanced – and, above all, dependent on the context – that the common narrative suggests. Journalists have described themselves as being in constant negotiation with their audience, calling themselves “knowledge brokers”.

They also pointed out that, in today’s scientific journalism, the verification of facts and accuracy must be coupled with political, social and emotional dimensions and the expectations of the public, and they underlined the need for new co-creative media formats.

“According to journalists involved in our study, confidence in science does not collapse,” said Nora Weinberger, ITA researcher and one of the study authors, who contributed to the analysis of development group data (which were all pre-analyzed locally).

“It was a kind of surprise for me, because in the media and in discussions between researchers, there is this idea of ​​collapse, while participants in our study see confidence as being constantly negotiated.”

“Public confidence in science is not uniformly decreasing,” confirms Dana Mahr, also ITAS researcher and the first author of the study. “It is fragmented, dynamic and very dependent on social, political and media contexts, as well as individual expectations.”

The study of the development group involved 87 participants – mainly journalists (also including a certain number of scientific and institutional communicators and some scientists) – carry out three very different countries.

Germany shows a relatively solid landscape for scientific journalism, with offices dedicated in public broadcasters and the main points of sale, a solid professional network and good practices for verifying facts. Italy is more fragmented, with fewer pure scientific offices, many freelancers and often poorly paid.

As described by an Italian participant, “scientific journalism in Italy is treated as a luxury. When there is a crisis, it suddenly counts. Otherwise, it is ignored.”

Lithuania, shaped by its post-communist past, has a very small market with few full-time specialists; Science is often covered by general practitioners or in collaboration with universities and research centers.

Effects of context and fragmentation

Journalists highlighted the growing ideological polarization of the public: some continue to trust scientific institutions, while others assess information through an emotional and political lens. As a German participant said, “people no longer assess scientific facts independently. They trust or reject science according to the question of whether it aligns their political identity”.

They also criticized a reactive form of journalism which works on a very short horizon and often depends on contingencies and public mood. In practice, the subjects are covered mainly in an emergency (think of the pandemic), while the in -depth and long -term reports are rare. This dynamic, by reducing public familiarity with scientific problems, ends up triggering a vicious circle that still undermines confidence in scientific research.

Online defines the agenda

Another key point is that the dynamics of the online sphere spread out, shaping what appears on paper. “The same article is published on print and online, and if they do not obtain online clicks, the subject will not present itself the next time in editorial discussions concerning printing,” explains Mahr.

This also restricts in -depth coverage of important subjects – from vaccines to climate change: if a subject does not arouse online interest, it ceases to be covered. The MAHR cites global warming: although it is scientifically crucial, it no longer attracts the public unless sensational titles (often misleading, sometimes not based on evidence), and are gradually set out by outlets.

“The journalists of our discussion groups have expressed the idea that, basically, you cannot do journalism on climate change because the public is superimposed on information. Basically, they are tired of the subject of climate change.” This, in turn, creates a space for “alternative information” (not based on evidence and motivated by a specific political program), which spreads a pseudoscientific disinformation.

The role of support structures

Because journalism depends so much on the context and the factors of “market”, the participants stressed the need for broader infrastructure to support their work. “The question of whether journalists can promote confidence depends less on individual relationships and more on systemic conditions,” said Weinberger.

“Now there is really a need for media infrastructure and institutional support. Confidence and political culture are questions of structures in society, not just journalistic skills or good stories. For me, it was really surprising, in a way.”

The structures envisaged include elements that help to mitigate market pressure: more stable funding (for example, the public service media), dedicated scientific offices, investigation funds, fact verification units, collaboration networks and continuing education. In Germany, for example, these supports are more established than elsewhere, reducing click pressure and allowing longer and well -contextualized coverage.

Trust brokers and co-creation

“What I found really interesting is that they see their role as trusted brokers – not only to translate complex research, but also to strengthen confidence,” explains Weinberger.

“It is not their official work description and, from my point of view, this represents a change in their role.”

This emerges in the three countries studied, despite clear differences in the media landscape. Journalists do not consider their work as only transmitting scientific information clearly, fairly and precisely. They also assume an active role in mediation and dialogue with the public, in some cases, pushing the profession towards the edge of activism. They literally feel responsible for strengthening public confidence in science.

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

The strategies mentioned include the production of interactive formats such as podcasts and questions of answers, and the establishment of relationships within digital communities instead of counting on unidirectional messaging, to adapt content to platforms without compromising scientific precision.

These approaches are not panaceae, but necessary experiences which mark a passage from a simple dissemination to dialogue and from authority to co-creation, recognizing that confidence must be built by meeting the public where they are already.

The study was carried out within the framework of the Ianus project of the EU Horizon Europe (inspiring and anchoring confidence in science, research and innovation, aimed at strengthening justified confidence in science, research and innovation thanks to inclusive, sensitive and participative approaches.