As a scholar myself, I generally consider science and media well aligned. Where science is occupied with discovering and describing the inner workings of the world, the media reports about discoveries and keeps a check on ethical questions that are discussed for scientific advancement. Moreover, researchers and scholars of all fields use media to publish their findings. A richness of recent science podcasts, educational videos on YouTube or postings on social networks like ResearchGate seem to concur with this thesis.
But when it comes to the self-conception of science and media, I cannot shake the feeling of a certain imbalance. That is because the two systems seem to operate inherently different. Science and research are mostly complex and time-consuming ventures of people who dedicate their life to one specific question. At times, the findings that result are so unique that only experts can understand them. In contrast, the day-to-day business of many media results in short-lived, fast reports of the latest news. Therefore, the specialized language of science must be broken down to layman terms and consumable bits of information.
A Sample from Astrobiology
That is not to say science and media do not get along. In fact, they can inform each other. For example, data journalists use data science and social research methods. As specialized editors they put a lot of effort in combing through big piles of data – like the “Panama papers” – to find new stories and hidden facts. But most of the time, media coverage like this is confined to single beacons in a fast-paced media environment.
Jeffrey Kluger, a journalist for the Time Magazine, recently wrote about a similar sentiment. In the magazine segment “Good Question” and in other reporting he considered how humanity will take the news of alien life. As it turns out, this is a scenario NASA is preparing for. Back in 2024, Kluger writes, the space agency invited over 100 experts like journalists, communicators and scientists to an online workshop. Called “Communicating Discoveries in the Search of Life in the Universe” the session – as posted online – aimed to “explore mutually-beneficial and socially responsible paths towards communicating the discovery of extraterrestrial life and creating a lasting community of shared interest”.
Modern Media Causing a Problem
Some of the experts that joined the NASA workshop later published a paper exploring the challenges of communicating findings of extraterrestrial life. The primal problem – the experts are certain – will be that “ambiguous data, public misconceptions, and the dynamics of social media platforms” interfere with the effort to communicate discoveries and separate fakes from facts. In addition, certain media trends “that favor concise, exciting narratives over detailed explanations of ambiguity” will further this uncertainty.
The solution – the paper allows as a conclusion – results in two methods that experts call “prebunking” and “scaffolding”. Both concepts are proactive strategies to prevent misinformation from spreading. In order to “prebunk” experts suggest that media should publish factual content that provides insights of how science works and what research is about. This is meant to help educate the public even before certain discoveries are made. In addition, “scaffolding” – like confidence scales and other frameworks – prepare communicators with information and facts they need in their dynamic editorial routine.
Science Communication is What we Need
Considering the implications, I get the notion that this is not only about alien lifeforms. In my mind, it goes beyond astrobiology and should be a wake-up-call for science communication as a whole. Even though the approaches of science and media serve different purposes, the two fields can be fundamentally symbiotic. A strong sign for that is that media serves as an integral bridge conveying scientific knowledge to the public. By giving people empirically proven context for their day-to-day life, media even fosters societal participation and allows us to make informed decisions. In this sense, the case is clear: We need more and better science communication.
The challenge for that is threefold. First off, researchers and scholars should engage in public discourse and therefore need to learn the language and social cues. Secondly, journalists should explain complex scientific subjects even when it takes some time to read up on a topic. Setting up a news desk for science would furthermore be an even greater statement towards an empirically founded and fact-based coverage. And lastly: Scientific literacy should be considered an educational virtue. Especially during a time when trust in science and media is waning, governments and public officials should foster critical thinking and the capability of engaging with complex information.
Thank you for reading. This is a “POV” exploring thoughts, stories and current debates to provide a reflected view and assessment.