| Summary: | Accuracy and balance are fundamental principles of journalism worldwide. The main way that journalists ensure accuracy is by verifying the information in their stories against an independent account. Most journalists who report science must rely on scientific experts to verify the validity of claims they report. However, previous studies have found that science stories commonly contain only one source. Journalists typically maintain balance by fairly presenting opposing views. Previous
studies show that when journalists present conflicting claims, they tend to balance the
different opinions equally, regardless of the empirical evidence on which those claims
are based.
This thesis investigated verification and balance in New Zealand mass media science
news, using a national survey and in-depth interviews with New Zealand journalists,
and a content analysis of newspaper, radio and television coverage. The content analysis
showed that verification was uncommon in New Zealand science news, and only 32%
of science claim stories cited more than one source. Furthermore, 23% of stories were
five sentences or shorter, and the majority of stories (65%) were drawn from overseas
news organisations and wire services. When opposing views were presented, journalists
tended to use a balancing strategy without any interpretation of which view was
supported by the weight of evidence.
The interviews indicated that these practices are partly influenced by time constraints.
New Zealand almost completely lacks specialised science reporters, and only five of the
surveyed journalists had a dedicated science round. Most surveyed journalists spent less
than 20 hours per month reporting science, and few had formal training in science.
However, journalists also said that the normative dimensions of being a journalist were
important. In particular, journalists tended to value balance and fairness over ensuring
the validity of claims they report. Exploratory focus groups suggested that audiences
may also strongly value a balanced and unbiased approach to science reporting.
|
|---|
