From the rhetoric of science to scientific journalism

Abstract

Journalism and science are forced into unavoidable coexistence, despite the mistrust that the scientific sphere has shown towards journalism, related to its historical wariness towards rhetoric. In fact, scientific discontent is not unfounded, faced with scarcely specialized coverage, secondary sources, rudimentary texts and genders, agenda marginalization, etc. However, other misgivings are the result of misunderstanding journalism, for which the pedagogical function is subsidiary to the informative function. Journalism is not a platform for scientific debate, but an activity that has its own logic, language and hierarchical criteria. Cooperation is, above all, necessary – journalism adds to the social value of scientific activity, it contributes visibility and even attracts resources – and collaboration is advisable in order to stimulate a more competent scientific journalism.

Communicating science through competing logics and a science-art lens

“…When looking into the translated preferences, it is clear that these are in contrast to the preferences of the scientific logic [cf. Gross, 2014;Olesk, 2021;Rhomberg, 2010]. Playing by the rules and preferences by science rather call for what we define as 1) 'complexification' (embracing complexity), 2) 'multifacetication' (supporting validity with different scientific methods) and, 3) 'peerification' (mirrored in scientific articles and the review process performed by peers).…”

“…The two logics are important to understand and address as there is a certain -sometimes well-motivated -resistance, or skepticism, amongst researchers to adjust to the media logic or even trust the work performed by communication professionals [cf. Gross, 2014;Naerland, 2016;Rhomberg, 2010;Peters, 2012]. In order not to be driven by the media logic, but to drive the development and practices of communicating science -by holding on to the scientific logic -there is a need to develop an understanding of science communication and perhaps rethink efforts to communicate science; researchers need to develop skills for how to balance being both a 'visible scientist' and a 'legitimate expert'.…”

“…This is reflected not only when writing but also that when making the first sketches for the research comics; it is obvious that in some cases there are aspects that the comics did not capture at first sight -perhaps since they were hidden in the academic jargon or even overseen, taken for granted, in academic writing [cf. Grafström & Jonsson, 2020;Gross, 2014]. In other cases, it was the opposite, and the first sketches (made by the comic artist) captured aspects that were not 'heard' or 'seen' by us researchers when discussing the research.…”

Finding a Place for Deliberation and Democracy in the Manufactroversy about Climate Change

“…Beyond considering how scientists should frame arguments for the public, emphasis should also be placed on facilitating cooperation between scientists and journalists, who often act as gatekeepers of climate science. Gross (2014) points out that journalism is not an extension of scientific activity, but it does contribute to its social value. This collaboration between journalists and scientists enhances scientific journalism and brings scientific issues to public visibility, but it is still not the venue for scientific debate.…”