Scientist–Journalist Conflicts

Scientists and journalists do not always share very good relations. This is not good for society, as maintaining a harmonious relation between the two groups is essential for the communication of scientific knowledge to the public. They are both essential parts of the same business—that is, science communication—but are generally known to have developed differences between them, resulting in strained professional contacts. This situation can emerge into argumentation, tension, and verbal clashes. Scientists and journalists cannot do without close interaction with each other in today's state of affairs, where scientific discoveries have emerged as a major driving force and the public wants to know how these can influence their day-to-day life. But the point of view of journalists and scientists is sometimes so different that conflict develops. This creates vast communication gaps, and it only damages the process of communicating science and technology to society. This conflict must be understood and resolved at conceptual, practical, and professional levels.

For instance, in many meetings about science and media, one can easily expect some hard discussions over the issues in which both scientists and the journalists launch a salvo of criticisms and complaints at each other. Scientists complain about journalists that they are sensationalistic, they get their facts wrong, they misrepresent views, and they “hype.” Journalists criticize the scientists for not speaking in comprehensible language, not returning calls, expecting special treatment for science and scientists, not giving a “straight answer,” and so on. The relationship between science and the media could be described as unpredictable, as the two disciplines seem to be at different poles with hardly an alignment.

It has been a growing belief that only things having commercial and economic viability will sustain themselves in today's fast-advancing world, governed and influenced by business. Things have reached the point where commercial imperatives are making fundamental changes in the way science is done and disseminated. While the primary function of media has been to inform and educate the public about contemporary happenings, now it seems the primary function of media has become to earn money. A TV channel does not make money when we turn on the television; they make money when an advertiser pays them. And the advertiser is not necessarily going to pay for a feature on environment protection or a discussion that encourages people to be rational in a participatory democracy or inculcate a “scientific temper.”