Senja Post

Scientific objectivity in journalism? How journalists and academics define objectivity, assess its attainability, and rate its desirability

Journalism critics have repeatedly proposed that journalists adopt scientific standards of objectivity. A comparative survey of 134 German journalists (34%) and 163 academics (33%) from different subject areas was conducted to investigate to what degree scientific criteria of objectivity resonate in journalists’ attitudes toward and understandings of objectivity. Results show that journalists and academics equally think that objectivity is attainable and desirable. Yet members of both professions dealing with cultural or historical subjects consider it less desirable than members dealing with social or natural scientific subjects. Journalists and academics define objectivity in different terms. Journalists think objectivity demands ‘trying to let the facts speak for themselves’, and academics think it requires systematic methods and transparent accounts. In others words, respondents’ attitudes toward objectivity depend on the subjects they deal with, while their understandings of objectivity depend on their professional belonging.

Communicating science in public controversies: Strategic considerations of the German climate scientists

In public controversies on scientific issues, scientists likely consider the effects of their findings on journalists and on the public debate. A representative survey of 123 German climate scientists (42%) finds that although most climate scientists think that uncertainties about climate change should be made clearer in public they do not actively communicate this to journalists. Moreover, the climate scientists fear that their results could be misinterpreted in public or exploited by interest groups. Asking scientists about their readiness to publish one of two versions of a fictitious research finding shows that their concerns weigh heavier when a result implies that climate change will proceed slowly than when it implies that climate change will proceed fast.

Stakeholders’ rationales for representing uncertainties of biotechnological research

Although various stakeholders are involved in public communication about science and technology, research so far has focused on scientists, journalists, and the public. Based on representative telephone surveys of the spokespersons of 55 German companies, 31 government agencies, 43 public interest groups, as well as 105 scientists, we investigated actors’ intentions to point out the scientific uncertainty of biotechnological research in their public communications. The different groups of actors’ intentions to mention uncertain aspects of biotechnological research in public are guided by different rationales. Scientists and company representatives’ intentions to point out uncertainty are strengthened by their hope to promote biotechnological research and weakened by their fear to increase public criticism. Public interest groups’ intentions are strengthened by their hope to increase public criticism and are weakened by their fear to promote biotechnological research. Representatives of government agencies are predominantly influenced by their will to do justice to their organizations’ interests.

Incivility in Controversies The Influence of Presumed Media Influence and Perceived Media Hostility on the Antagonists in the German Conflict Over Aircraft Noise

Previous research suggests that the antagonists in conflicts are influenced by their perceptions of hostile media coverage and presumptions of media effects. Research so far has concentrated on presumed media influences on the general public. This study concentrates on presumed media influences on the conflicting parties. It tests how hostile media perceptions and presumptions of media effects on the conflicting parties affect the antagonists’ acceptance of an uncivil and uncompromising style of public communication. In the context of the German controversy over aircraft noise, online surveys of 82 (47%) opponents of aircraft noise and 48 (33%) proponents of air traffic were conducted. Hostile media perceptions have no direct but an indirect effect on antagonists’ intentions to communicate. They strengthen both parties’ beliefs that the media make the protesters against aircraft noise more extreme. This, in turn, increases both parties’ acceptance of incivility in the public dispute.

Communicating scientific evidence: scientists’, journalists’ and audiences’ expectations and evaluations regarding the representation of scientific uncertainty

Abstract Although uncertainty is inherent in scientific research, it is an often neglected topic in public communication. In this article, we analyze how scientists and journalists think they should communicate about the uncertainty of scientific evidence in public, and whether their real-world communication meets laypersons’ demands and expectations. For scientists and journalists, our analyses are based theoretically on an expectancy-value model and empirically on two representative surveys. Laypersons’ expectations and evaluations are analyzed using qualitative in-depth interviews. Results show that scientists and journalists widely agree that scientific uncertainty should be pointed out in their communication. Nonetheless, while scientists show a clear inclination toward the media and hope that uncertainties will not be dramatized or misused, journalists on the other hand have a strong audience orientation and hope to stimulate critical reflection on scientific findings. For audiences, however, media coverage about scientific uncertainty is of less interest. They clearly expect fact-oriented information on the use of technology in everyday life.

How journalists verify user-generated content during terrorist crises. Analyzing Twitter communication during the Brussels attacks

Social media, and Twitter in particular, have become important sources for journalists in times of crises. User-generated content (UGC) can provide journalists with on-site information and material they otherwise would not have access to. But how they source and verify UGC has not yet been systematically analyzed. This study analyzes sourcing and verification practices on Twitter during the Brussels attacks in March 2016. Based on quantitative content analysis, we identified (1) the journalists and news organizations sourcing during the attacks, (2) classified different forms of sourcing and verification requests, and (3) analyzed the sourced UGC. Results show that sourcing on Twitter has become a global phenomenon. During the first hours of the attack, journalists rely on UGC. Their sourcing and verification practices vary widely and often lack basic verification procedures, which leads to a discussion about the ethical implications of sourcing practices.

Scientific uncertainty in public discourse: How scientists, media and audiences present und process scientific evidence

Scientific findings are inherently uncertain. Oftentimes, for instance, scientific investigations yield ambiguous states of affairs rather than clear facts. Many a time, scientists reach contradictory conclusions and usually, a research field includes many open questions. According to modern philosophies of science, scientific evidence is principally tentative as it can never be ruled out that it will be proven wrong in the future (Popper, 1959). Yet, in order for science to proceed, it has to accept facts as given when scientific consensus on particular research issues is reached (Kuhn, 1967; Popper, 1959). Scientific issues have become increasingly important in news coverage as more and more environmental problems and modern technologies are discussed in public. This raises the question as to how journalists, and other communicators, account for scientific evidence and how the audience processes this information. For example, past research has found that journalists tend to neglect scientific uncertainty in their depictions of scientific evidence (see Stocking and Holstein, 1993). However, more recent studies have pointed out that in controversial public debates, scientific uncertainty can be used strategically for political purposes, playing it down to stress the necessity of certain policy programs or playing it up to question them (Oreskes and Conway, 2010). In this Special Issue of Communications we seek to answer how scientists, the media, and audiences present und process scientific evidence in public discourse. The introduction by Sharon Dunwoody will recap the development of this research as a substantial field of communication science. As Dunwoody points out, despite increasing interest within the scientific community, many questions regarding media representations of scientific evidence and audience

Reputation von Hochschulen

Im Zuge des verscharften Wettbewerbs unter Hochschulen hat die Reputation von Hochschulen fur ForscherInnen und PraktikerInnen an Bedeutung gewonnen. Bislang existiert jedoch kein Uberblick, der die sehr heterogene empirische und konzeptionelle Literatur zu Hochschulreputation systematisiert. In diesem Beitrag werden deshalb Konzeptionen von Hochschulreputation zusammengetragen und ein Uberblick uber die empirische Forschung vorgelegt. Der Beitrag zeigt, dass kein allgemeingultiges Verstandnis von Hochschulreputation existiert und viele Studien mit Ansatzen aus der Forschung zu Unternehmensreputation operieren. Das wird dem spezifischen Wesen von Bildungsinstitutionen nicht gerecht. Empirisch wird schwerpunktmasig zu Effekten von Reputation auf Studierende und zu Wechselwirkungen zwischen Hochschulreputation und Hochschulrankings geforscht. Aber auch die Wirkung von Medienberichterstattung auf die (Medien-)Reputation von Hochschulen ist Gegenstand zahlreicher Studien. Oftmals stehen dabei die kommerziell ausgerichteten Institutionen im angelsachsischen Raum im Fokus. Aufgrund der kaum vorhandenen Forschung zum deutschsprachigen Raum stellen wir die Resultate einer eigenen empirischen Studie zu Medienreputation von Schweizer Universitaten vor.

Hochschulkommunikation aus kommunikationswissenschaftlicher Perspektive

Die Aufgaben in den Kommunikationsabteilungen von Hochschulen haben sich in den vergangenen Jahren stark verandert und ausgeweitet. Vor 15 Jahren ging es vor allem um die Presse- und Medienarbeit – um Pressemeldungen, Pressekonferenzen und die Pflege personlicher Kontakte zu JournalistInnen, nicht selten von Lokalmedien. Seitdem sind etliche Aufgaben hinzugekommen: Es mussen die Auftritte der Hochschule auf vielfaltigen Kanalen von eigenen Magazinen uber Websites bis hin zu Social Media aufgesetzt, koordiniert und betreut werden.

Politicized Science Communication: Predicting Scientists’ Acceptance of Overstatements by Their Knowledge Certainty, Media Perceptions, and Presumed Media Effects:

Partisans in mediated conflicts usually perceive hostile news media, anticipate undesired media effects, and intend to engage discursively. It is hypothesized that hostile media perceptions also encourage polarizing communication. This is tested for scientists involved in a politicized science dispute. German climate scientists (n = 131) firmly believe in anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Yet not all dismiss alternative hypotheses altogether. Results indicate that the more certain climate scientists are of AGW, the more they perceive that the news media downplay AGW and presume that the media nourish politicians’ doubts about it. This explains their justifications of overstatements of scientific findings in public.