Scientist–Journalist Relations

Contrasting Professional Cultures

For journalists, science is a good story. Science writers often claim they have the best job, because much of what they report is good news, as opposed to the crimes, disasters, and politicians in trouble that are the fodder on which many other journalists feed. Scientists and journalists have a mutual self-interest in getting along. And certainly the last 30 years has seen a marked improvement in their relations.

That does not mean that the going is always easy, however. Many of the bumps on the road to cooperation lie in the very different set of professional ethics by which these two groups govern their work. Although both scientists and journalists view accuracy as key to their profession, they approach the job of gaining that accuracy in different ways. It is there that conflicts often occur.

Both professions are very competitive, although again, there are differences. Both value being first to publish a given piece of information, but the routes are not the same. For scientists, it is to be first to publish research findings in a peer-reviewed journal, and the more prestigious the journal, the better. For journalists, the “scoop” is vital—to be the first on air or in print is key. Much of the time, journalists feel that waiting for a peer-reviewed journal to publish a result is too much to ask; someone else will publish the work first.

Many scientists are leery of rushing into print too fast. Some journal editors will refuse to publish work that has already been publicized in the mass media, even to the extent of pulling a paper that has already been accepted for publication if an account of the research appears in the mass media. To be sure, the Internet has changed much, as many scientific publications will publish an important piece of work quickly, almost on receipt of positive reviews, which obviates some of these difficulties. Nonetheless, the essential tension remains.

...