The bulk of contemporary science journalism falls under the category of "infotainment". This expression describes science writing that informs a non-specialist target audience about new scientific discoveries in an entertaining fashion. The "informing" typically consists of giving the reader some historical background surrounding the scientific study, summarises key findings and then describes the significance and implications of the research. Analogies are used to convey complex scientific concepts so that a reader without a professional scientific background can grasp the ideas driving the research.
Direct quotes from the researchers also help illustrate the motivations, relevance, and emotional impact of the findings. The entertainment component varies widely, ranging from an enticing or witty style of writing to the choice of the subject matter. Freaky copulation techniques in the animal kingdom, discoveries that change our views about the beginnings of the universe or of life, heart-warming stories about ailing children that might be cured through new scientific breakthroughs, sci-fi robots, quirky anecdotes or heroic struggles of the scientists involved in the research – these are examples of topics that will capture the imagination of the intended audience.
However, infotainment science journalism rarely challenges the validity of the scientific research study or criticises its conclusions. Perfunctory comments, either by the journalist or in the form of quotes – such as "It is not clear whether these findings will also apply to humans" or "This is just a first step and more research is needed" are usually found at the end of such pieces – but it is rare to find an independent or detailed critical analysis. (...)
When a scientist is asked to write an editorial about a new scientific paper, she is expected to not only mention the novelty and significance of the paper – there is also an expectation to point out major flaws and limitations, including those that might have been inadequately addressed during the peer review process.
Such an analytical and critical approach can be somewhat antithetical to infotainment science journalism. It is difficult to write an infotainment-style gripping narrative about the discovery of a new protein that acts as a master regulator of ageing if one has to remind the reader that upon critical analysis of the data, the alleged "master regulator" is just one of 20 other proteins that could also be seen as "master regulators" and that there were potential flaws in how cellular ageing was assessed.
Infotainment science journalism will continue to be the dominant form of science writing, because the portrayal of science as an exciting adventure with great promise and few uncertainties is bound to garner a large readership. Hopefully, we will also see a growth in critical and investigative science journalism that critically analyses and challenges scientific studies so that readers can choose from a broad array of science journalism offerings.
To help distinguish between infotainment science journalism and critical science journalism, the reader can evaluate a science news article or blogpost using the following criteria:
Direct quotes from the researchers also help illustrate the motivations, relevance, and emotional impact of the findings. The entertainment component varies widely, ranging from an enticing or witty style of writing to the choice of the subject matter. Freaky copulation techniques in the animal kingdom, discoveries that change our views about the beginnings of the universe or of life, heart-warming stories about ailing children that might be cured through new scientific breakthroughs, sci-fi robots, quirky anecdotes or heroic struggles of the scientists involved in the research – these are examples of topics that will capture the imagination of the intended audience.However, infotainment science journalism rarely challenges the validity of the scientific research study or criticises its conclusions. Perfunctory comments, either by the journalist or in the form of quotes – such as "It is not clear whether these findings will also apply to humans" or "This is just a first step and more research is needed" are usually found at the end of such pieces – but it is rare to find an independent or detailed critical analysis. (...)
When a scientist is asked to write an editorial about a new scientific paper, she is expected to not only mention the novelty and significance of the paper – there is also an expectation to point out major flaws and limitations, including those that might have been inadequately addressed during the peer review process.
Such an analytical and critical approach can be somewhat antithetical to infotainment science journalism. It is difficult to write an infotainment-style gripping narrative about the discovery of a new protein that acts as a master regulator of ageing if one has to remind the reader that upon critical analysis of the data, the alleged "master regulator" is just one of 20 other proteins that could also be seen as "master regulators" and that there were potential flaws in how cellular ageing was assessed.
Infotainment science journalism will continue to be the dominant form of science writing, because the portrayal of science as an exciting adventure with great promise and few uncertainties is bound to garner a large readership. Hopefully, we will also see a growth in critical and investigative science journalism that critically analyses and challenges scientific studies so that readers can choose from a broad array of science journalism offerings.
To help distinguish between infotainment science journalism and critical science journalism, the reader can evaluate a science news article or blogpost using the following criteria:
by Jalees Rehman, The Guardian | Read more:
Photo: Radu Razvan/Alamy
