Using Journalism to Communicate Scientific Facts Effectively

The media landscape of what is the truth and what is not is more confusing than ever, as misinformation and disinformation worldwide spin out of control. Science itself is a constantly learning, ever-evolving form of information—and bad actors have used the evolving nature of science to undermine the credibility of the scientific method and scientists themselves. Journalists have a job: to help the public understand how facts and information evolve naturally while also communicating the most recent facts that scientists report. 

First, journalists must help the public understand some of the vocabulary scientists use. Kenneth Angielczyk of the Field Museum Of Science in Chicago defined three commonly used and misunderstood terms: “A fact is an indisputable observation of a natural or social phenomenon. We can see it directly and show it to others.”

​”A hypothesis is an idea that we can test with further observations. We set out to gather evidence to see if our hypothesis is supported.​”

“​A theory is a carefully constructed possible explanation for what we observe, drawing together many facts and hypotheses. Theories become stronger as they explain more facts. If a theory explains facts conclusively, it becomes accepted as the most likely explanation for the observed facts.” 

Understanding the parameters of these terms is vital, as this is one of the most common weak points that bad actors target: anti-evolution actors use the “evolution is just a theory” talking point often. The misconception is based on the colloquial definition of the word theory, “an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action,” ie. “My theory is that if we pull that lever, a light will go on.” Scientists have clear standards for how and why something can be classified as a “theory” at all, and theories will always be growing and changing as more facts become available. 

As technology advances, science also learns more and changes. For example, the theory of plate tectonics and continental drift has only been solidified as theory within the last 50 years. The makeup of the theory has also shifted and changed innumerable times since the idea of continental drift was first proposed in 1912 by geophysicist Alfred Wegener: “Following World War II, even more evidence was uncovered which supports the theory of plate tectonics. In the 1960's a world-wide array of seismometers were installed to monitor nuclear testing, and these instruments revealed a startling geological phenomenon. It showed that earthquakes, volcanoes, and other active geologic features for the most part aligned along distinct belts around the world, and those belts defined the edges of tectonic plates.”

When theories change, science didn’t lie: it learned more. As noted by the University of California, Berkeley’s “Understanding Science”:  “A well-supported theory may be accepted by scientists, even if the theory has some problems.” 

“In fact, few theories fit our observations of the world perfectly. There is usually some anomalous observation that doesn’t seem to fit with our current understanding. Scientists assume that by working to understand such anomalies, they’ll either disentangle them to see how they fit with the current theory or they’ll make progress towards a new theory,” the university points out. “And eventually that does happen: a new or modified theory is proposed that explains everything that the old theory explained plus other observations that didn’t quite fit with the old theory. When that new or modified theory is proposed to the scientific community, scientists come to understand the new theory, see why it is a superior explanation to the old theory, and eventually, accept the new theory – though this process can take many years.” 

It’s important for journalists to cover this process in detail in order to be completely transparent with audiences and negate the narrative that scientists lied or were misinformed. The other narrative to watch for is bad faith actors publishing studies before they’ve been completed or interpreting data incorrectly or misleadingly in headlines in order to generate traffic to their pages. It’s important for journalists to verify the information they are reporting before they reproduce it. 

Journalists can also assist the public in understanding the information they are reporting by consulting the sources directly, and using more digestible language: scientists can assist with this by releasing plain-language summaries of their research.

Overall, journalists' role in the scientific process is to share these facts with the public in a way that the public can both understand and appreciate. Along the way, journalists must support scientists and the information they generate over political talking points or bad-faith challenges to the scientific method.