Science and the Mass Media: A Clash of Cultures: mass media content is "a socially created product, not a reflection of an objective reality." In contrast, science is as close to an objective reality as we can muster. How the two interact is fascinating, and it's not without tension: Researchers get frustrated when the media sensationalize science, and they often lack respect for journalists, while reporters regularly find scientists to be incomprehensible and opaque, poor communicators who wrap their message within layers of caveats. [...]
science coverage in the media is growing. For example, a recent analysis of Danish newspapers concluded that there was a "dramatic and accelerating sevenfold increase in the number of articles referring to researchers" between 1961 and 2001.
What rules apply to news selection? According to Pamela J. Shoemaker and Stephen D. Reese,1 news values fall into six categories: prominence/importance, human interest, conflict/controversy, the unusual, timeliness, and proximity. [...]
A recent analysis of coverage by newspapers on research published in four elite journals concluded: "Journalists depict themselves as keen - at times even ruthless - competitors with one another, but this finding suggests a different view: When it comes to breaking news about scientific research, newspapers try to make sure that they cover the stories that other newspapers cover. The goal is not to be different, but to be the same."
