Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Journalism
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Reed, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

(Un-)Professional discourse?

Journalists' and scientists' stories about science in the media

Rosslyn Reed

Department of Writing, Journalism and Social Inquiry, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Technology, Sydney, PO Box 123, Broadway NSW 2007, Australia Rosslyn.Reed{at}uts.edu.au

The long-standing tension and conflicts between journalists and scientists surrounding the media reporting of science are explored in this article. Preliminary data were collected using video-taped focus groups with scientists and science journalists. Based on the analysis of this data, nine in-depth qualitative interviews were conducted with three scientists, three science journalists and three news journalists. These data have been analysed thematically. Accurate, accessible and informative reporting is a major concern of all participants and not only scientists, although they are interpreted differently. Competing time frames and organizational and technological demands combine with incomplete understanding of power relations to exacerbate tensions. Journalists are inclined to expect scientists to change their attitudes. Scientists have the most to gain by change. The continuing conflicts and tensions are located in historically constructed occupational identities, particularly that of the scientist as ‘modest witness’. The article concludes with some suggestions to improve relations between science and journalism.

Key Words: media sociology • professionalism • science journalism • sociology of professions

Journalism, Vol. 2, No. 3, 279-298 (2001)
DOI: 10.1177/146488490100200310


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Science CommunicationHome page
A. Hinnant and M. E. Len-Rios
Tacit Understandings of Health Literacy: Interview and Survey Research With Health Journalists
Science Communication, September 1, 2009; 31(1): 84 - 115.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Public Understanding of ScienceHome page
A. Petersen, A. Anderson, S. Allan, and C. Wilkinson
Opening the black box: scientists' views on the role of the news media in the nanotechnology debate
Public Understanding of Science, September 1, 2009; 18(5): 512 - 530.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Science CommunicationHome page
A. Ruth, L. Lundy, R. Telg, and T. Irani
Trying to Relate: Media Relations Training Needs of Agricultural Scientists
Science Communication, September 1, 2005; 27(1): 127 - 145.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Written CommunicationHome page
S. P. MacDonald
The Language of Journalism in Treatments of Hormone Replacement News
Written Communication, July 1, 2005; 22(3): 275 - 297.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Written CommunicationHome page
D. Charney
Lone Geniuses in Popular Science: The Devaluation of Scientific Consensus
Written Communication, July 1, 2003; 20(3): 215 - 241.
[Abstract] [PDF]