Who is having a voice? Journalists’ selection of sources in a creationism controversy in the UK press

Abstract

Media accounts of reality have the potential to influence public opinion and decision making processes. Therefore who has and who does not have access to the media and can make their voice heard is a crucial question with serious political consequences. In this article it is investigated whether the speciality of journalists influences their source selection procedures. The coverage of science in schools is an interesting example, since it can be covered by specialized science or education correspondents, but also by general news reporters. A public controversy in the UK about the inclusion of creationism in a school is used to identify which types of sources were selected by various journalists. The focus is upon the selection of sources and whether journalists with different specialties consider various sources relevant and credible. A content analysis of articles, featuring this controversy, is combined with an analysis of correspondent's strategies for selecting sources based on interviews with them. The findings suggest that compared to journalists that specialize in education issues, science correspondents employ a narrower scope when seeking sources. This might have important consequences for the representation of views on science education in the media.

The science-media interaction in biomedical research in the Netherlands. Opinions of scientists and journalists on the science-media relationship

“…They advised, amongst others, to further investigate journalists' sourcing practices. Allgaier [2011] investigated these journalistic practices of selecting sources in the single case of creationism controversy in the UK press. Journalists with various backgrounds covered this case.…”

Geoscience on television: a review of science communication literature in the context of geosciences

“…In addition, just like Stoof, most scientists are hesitant to discuss topics outside of what they consider to be their expertise or to make claims that they cannot back up with their own findings (Peters, 2013). In contrast, journalists seek out scientists as sources of knowledge not just on their own specific research topics, but also outside of their narrow area of expertise (Nelkin, 1995;Allgaier, 2011). Albaek (2011) observed that the role of journalists has shifted from merely reporting the news to interpret-…”

“…This trend has been evolving over some time (Wien, 2014), and is highlighted here to make scientists aware of this development. At the same time, the way journalists choose which expert to approach is frequently influenced by rather subjective reasons such as their own interest in the field, the visibility of certain scientists in the media, personal acquaintance with scientists, communication skills of the scientists, and their previous experiences with specific scientists (Allgaier, 2011). The fact that journalists need scientists as experts to interpret the news and the subjective reasons for selecting specific scientists for that role lead to scientists being asked to comment on topics outside of what they feel is their field of expertise.…”

Reasons given by UK churchgoers for their stance on evolution

“…Although the fiercest debates have been in the United States, the issue is still contested in Europe, and this may be a conflict that is intensifying. In the UK there have been several events relating to the teaching of creationism or evolution in schools that have resulted in widespread coverage in the media (Allgaier 2011;Allgaier and Holliman 2006;Baker 2010). As a consequence, polls continue to try and 166 A.…”