Best practices in health and science journalism

The following best practices guide journalists in navigating the pitfalls of exaggeration, inadequate vetting and biased framing inherent in modern news production.

Ensuring scientific accuracy and context

Quality science reporting must reflect the reality of scientific endeavor: that it is "not a procession of facts and breakthroughs, but an erratic stumble toward gradually diminished uncertainty."[1]

Contextualize new findings: Journalists must "reasonably place new health and medicine research in the context of previous findings in the same area."[2] It’s critical to communicate that scientific discovery is a process, not an event. If a single new study contradicts the mainstream scientific consensus, the news item must make this clear.

Detail study limitations and risks: Many articles about drugs fail to mention potential side effects or harms, the size of a study or that it was done only in mice. When reporting on the risks of a specific treatment (e.g., gender-affirming care), journalists should contextualize it with the risks of not getting that treatment.

Ethical framing and language in reporting

The language used in headlines and ledes significantly influences audience perception. Journalists should ensure that their framing aligns with the evidence and avoids exaggeration.

Avoid hyperbolic language: Journalists should avoid exaggerating the novelty or importance of new studies in headlines and copy or using words and phrases such as: "breakthrough," "revolutionary," "life-changing," "game-changing," "landmark," "miracle" or "Holy Grail."

Distinguish correlation from causation: If a study only finds a link between two variables (a correlation), journalists should be careful not to suggest that one thing causes the other, such as “A new study shows that short sleep may cause weight gain,” unless the study actually showed a causal relationship. Instead, they should aim for wording that suggests a less direct relationship, such as: “A new study shows short sleep is linked to (or tied to or associated with) weight gain.”

Vetting sources and evidence

One of the fundamental media literacy questions asks "What’s missing?" In science journalism, this applies intensely to the vetting process.

Scrutinize evidence quality: This includes assessing whether the evidence has been peer-reviewed and what kind of data it is – an experimental or a longitudinal study, for example – and explain its limitations. Reporters need to ask critical questions about the study design, such as: "How big is the study?" and "What are they measuring, and is it a valid way to measure it?"[3]

Vet experts and seek independent comment: Before quoting experts, reporters should always "consider whether they have any biases that might influence their comments."[4] If an expert stands to profit from positive media coverage, that conflict of interest should be disclosed to readers. If the conflicts are severe enough, reporters may choose to omit them.

According to Teddy Rosenbluth, a reporter who covers health and medical misinformation for the New York Times, a crucial best practice is to call "independent experts who are not involved with the research or news we’re covering."[5] These experts can help place a new finding into context and identify flaws in the study’s design.

Maintain skepticism toward press releases: The need to produce "real time news" drives a dependence on press releases.[6] Journalists must remember that press releases are created by companies or universities to publicize their work and, as a result, may exaggerate its importance. Journalists should seek additional, diverse views to present a more balanced account and ensure their article is based on the actual findings and not the press release.

Reporting on politicized health and science topics

When covering topics where political disputes clash with scientific consensus (like climate change, vaccination or gender-affirming care), traditional norms like "balance" can become a source of bias.

Avoid false balance: The journalistic norm of balance is fundamentally problematic when applied to science. As noted above, this practice can create the mistaken sense that there’s debate among scientists on topics where a strong consensus has emerged. As Rick Weiss, director of SciLine (an organization aimed at connecting reporters with scientists) puts it, “when there’s just overwhelming evidence that something is true and other things are not true, that’s not the time to give equal coverage."[7] Instead, journalists should report on the strong scientific consensus; research shows that even among people with opposing beliefs, learning about the consensus on a topic can correct misconceptions.[8]

Find your mango: When covering broader issues like climate change, journalists should focus on connecting the story to everyday life through techniques like finding the "mango" – the way in which it will affect people in a local and emotional way, such as its impact on the mango crop in Egypt.[9]

Prioritize affected voices and context: When covering sensitive, politicized health topics, reporters should seek to interview the people receiving the treatment, such as transgender children themselves, as they are "experts on their own experience."[10]

Think outside the “science beat” box: Health and science topics that have a widespread impact, such as climate change or pandemic disease, should be explicitly addressed in all stories where they have an impact. Reporters on all beats can embrace the "climate paragraph" as a tool, threading context about the link between extreme weather and climate change into regular news stories.[11]

[1] Yong, E. (2021) What even counts as science writing anymore? The Atlantic.

[2] Treharne, T., & Papanikitas, A. (2020). Defining and detecting fake news in health and medicine reporting. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 113(8), 302-305.

[3] Satyanarayana, M. (2022) How to critically evaluate scientific claims before pursuing a story. The Open Notebook.

[4] Rosenbluth, T. (2025) How Do Times Health Reporters Choose Experts? The New York Times.

[5] Rosenbluth, T. (2025) How Do Times Health Reporters Choose Experts? The New York Times.

[6] Dempster, G., Sutherland, G., & Keogh, L. (2022). Scientific research in news media: a case study of misrepresentation, sensationalism and harmful recommendations. Journal of Science Communication, 21(1), A06.

[7] Robins-Early, N. (2021) How anti-vaxxers and ivermectin advocates have co-opted US local news. The Guardian.

[8] van Stekelenburg, A., Schaap, G., Veling, H., van’t Riet, J., & Buijzen, M. (2022). Scientific-consensus communication about contested science: A preregistered meta-analysis. Psychological Science, 33(12), 1989-2008.

[9] Arguedas Ortiz, D., & Dunn K. (2024) Find your mango and 13 other things we’ve learned about how to report on climate change. NiemanLab.

[10] Imbler, S., quoted in Santora, T. (2023) How to Report on Healthcare for Trans Youth Accurately and Sensitively. Open Notebook

[11] Arguedas Ortiz, D., & Dunn K. (2024) Find your mango and 13 other things we’ve learned about how to report on climate change. NiemanLab.