In completing the Hot Topic assignment, and in seeing my peers present theirs, many realizations about science journalism have come to my attention. A common thread amongst nearly all of the presentations is the simplifying nature of popular articles. Oftentimes, a popular article will simplify what is written in a scientific study for the sake of understandability. It is important to note that journalism, not unlike other fields, is a business too. A journalist’s writing may not receive views / generate revenue if it’s difficult to understand, especially if they are writing for big companies like the New York Times or CNN. Unfortunately, journalists simplifications come at the expense of accuracy, sometimes even unintentionally. In many of my peers’ presentations, they reported the scientific study was manipulated to convey a point or accomplish a motive.

If I were a journalist for a paper like the New York Times, I would be sure I thoroughly read the scientific literature in order to maintain scientific soundness. Yes, those publications can be very confusing, however it is a journalist’s ethical duty to report factual information, and an intensive read can help a journalist do this.

Good representation of a scientific study should include all the main points, including results, experiment design, and goals. Including graphs would be helpful, however using one might confuse viewers, so a journalist could simplify graphical data into a simpler graph like a bar or line chart. In this respect, journalists can improve on simplifying data, and not just the big takeaways.

Overall, I was surprised by the degree to which scientific data is represented in popular media. This was an eye-opening experience!