In the last week of September, three journalists and two scientists sat down to discuss some of today’s most challenging issues: trust in science, information literacy, truth-telling, and the future of journalism. Reporting on Science in an Era of Misinformation, a panel discussion organized and moderated by PEWS Faculty Affiliate Jenny Wohlfarth, brought together scientists and journalists to share their insights on how news media cover scientific topics in an era plagued with misinformation and disinformation.
“I’ve wanted to put together a discussion event like this for a while because it’s increasingly apparent how critically important science communication has become when there is so much misinformation and disinformation circulating online and all around us,” Wohlfarth explains. “As a journalist who has reported on scientific and environmental topics in my career, I know how helpful it is to find and interview scientists who are experts in their fields, and who are also trying to help the public by sharing key information, insights and developments. With this event, I wanted to bring together scientists and journalists to examine this challenge from both perspectives, and to discuss how we can all do a better job to keep the public informed and engaged, and to earn back their trust where it has been lost.”
The scientists on the panel consisted of Dr. Whitney Gaskins, biomedical engineer and the Associate Dean of Inclusive Excellence, Community Engagement, and Faculty Development in the UC College of Engineering and Applied Science, and Dr. Amy Townsend-Small, service-driven researcher, teacher and mentor in environmental science and policy and professor in the UC School of Environment and Sustainability (SEaS).
The journalists included Elizabeth “Betsy” Kim, health and environment reporter at the Cincinnati Enquirer, Duane Pohlman, national investigative correspondent for “Spotlight on America” and chief investigative reporter and anchor for Local 12 / WKRC-TV, and Sara Whitlock, a biologist working at SciLine, a nonprofit organization based at the American Association for the Advancement of Science that helps connect journalists and scientists.
Guided by Wohlfarth and audience questions, the panel discussed the challenges of a changing media landscape. “Newspapers are in the fight of their lives,” Pohlman explained; newsrooms are shrinking, and the classic newspaper is giving way to short and catchy news clips fit for social media consumption. “I wonder what it means for members of the public to figure out the truth when the internet incentivizes extremes, and social media incentivizes the endless doom scroll, which is not a healthy way to consume information,” reflects Kim.
A major theme of the conversation was the importance of truth-telling. “Lives are at stake when we don’t tell the truth about the impacts of science and technology on the world,” said Gaskins. But despite a shared interest in telling the truth, differences in timelines can sometimes create a challenge for journalist and scientist collaboration. The journalists on the panel described the realities of quick turnarounds and impending deadlines: “Journalists’ deadlines are often a few hours away and so they do not have the same timelines as scientists. Scientists sometimes don’t understand why journalists need to talk to them so quickly,” reported Whitlock. “Because science is a long and iterative process, it does not always fit into the news structure.” Even journalists who are dedicated to telling the truth about science sometimes find it difficult to do justice to complicated topics given the importance of fast reporting (“Breaking news is king,” says Pohlman) and limited reporting time/space (the average story on air is a minute and a half).
Dr. Gaskins and Dr. Townsend-Small also described the ways in which, despite their passion for public engagement, they have been penalized for their outreach efforts. “Universities need to do a better job at rewarding people that do public outreach,” Townsend-Small said. “The main way [academics] are rewarded is through journal articles and grants. Doing public outreach is not only not rewarded, but thankless and even penalized. That needs to change.” Both Gaskins and Townsend-Small have also faced push-back and attacks given their particular research efforts; Gaskins on diversifying engineering, and Townsend-Small on investigating the oil and gas industries.
Despite these challenges, the discussion remained optimistic. Panelists highlighted the importance and value of local resources (like libraries), fact-checking, and curiosity in increasing scientific literacy and combatting misinformation. All seemed to agree that we must continue to find ways to bring scientists and journalists into conversation with each other.
“For me, the discussion reinforced ideas and principles I hold very dear,” Wohlfarth reflected after the event: “One, listen to experts. It’s perfectly okay to be skeptical about things, and we should all take the time to seek out reliable, ethical and unbiased source of scientific information – or any kind of information, for that matter – so that we can learn from experts who have spent years or decades researching the topics that have major impact in our lives. Two, support the public-serving institutions and organizations that strive to provide unbiased, ethical and trustworthy information to help us better understand, adapt to and survive in our world today. Those institutions include our local public libraries, our local news organizations, and non-profit and non-partisan newsrooms, within our communities and beyond, that are striving to keep the public well-informed about important issues relevant to our lives.”
You can watch a full video of the event on our Youtube channel here (available soon!)
Join us for one of our upcoming events! Learn more here.