Health and science journalism norms and practices

Health and science reporting is influenced both by economic norms (the conditions and constraints in which journalists do their jobs) and journalistic norms, such as objectivity and balance.[1] Both of these have an impact on how reporting on these topics is done.

Balance as bias (bothsidesism)

In the words of Ross Gelbspan, “the professional canon of journalistic fairness requires reporters who write about a controversy to present competing points of view. When the issue is of a political or social nature, fairness—presenting the most compelling arguments of both sides with equal weight—is a fundamental check on biased reporting. But this canon causes problems when it is applied to issues of science. It seems to demand that journalists present competing points of views on a scientific question as though they had equal scientific weight, when actually they do not.”[2]

This is partly because journalists don’t usually distinguish between a social or political consensus and a scientific one. For example, coverage of climate change actually became more likely to present “both sides” between 1998 and 2000, when the level of scientific consensus was rising, because it became more heavily debated among politicians over that time.[3] Similarly, the practice of bothsidesism has been specifically criticized in reporting on gender-affirming care for transgender youth, where the concerns of a small minority of dissenting healthcare providers are often given similar weight to legitimate medical organizations.[4]

Time pressure and lack of expertise

The pressure to produce “real time news” drives a dependence on press releases written by PR professionals for research institutes and universities. Press releases are intentionally designed to get attention for the institution or researcher and may “oversell the value of the research.” Researchers have demonstrated that inaccurate or exaggerated reporting is often “a result of the information in the press releases.” This reliance grants “a level of control of the news agenda to the researchers and their institution.” Because so many science news stories are based on press releases, rather than the studies themselves, articles are also often sensationalized, misrepresent the data (for instance, by not making clear that a study was done only in mice and not humans) and make recommendations (such as supplementing or avoiding a particular nutrient) that either are premature or aren’t supported by the study’s findings.[5] Time pressures may also be one reason why politicians and government leaders, rather than scientists, are most often quoted or interviewed in news stories relating to climate change.[6]

Many news outlets no longer have dedicated health or science reporters, and it can be challenging for journalists without a scientific background to cover these stories accurately.[7] There have been some efforts to address this issue, such as the Oxford Climate Journalism Network, which is “developing new journalistic skills that mix statistical modelling, data, and cartography.”[8] In some places, there’s also a growing sense that topics like climate change are not exclusively “science” stories, with weather personalities increasingly talking about it when covering events like heat waves and forest fires.[9]

Compromised brands and outlets

Some major news outlets also create and publish "misleading promotional content for fossil fuel companies" known as advertorials or native advertising, which is "created to look like a publication’s authentic editorial work." While this doesn’t necessarily compromise the outlet’s reporting, research has found that at least two-thirds of people confuse these advertorials for "real" content.[10]

With the decline of local news, small outlets may lack the resources to cover health and science topics accurately, or may not be able to afford the risk of losing revenue by acknowledging a scientific consensus that their audience doesn’t agree with.[11] Corporations like Chevron, an oil company, have launched their own "news sites" to promote their point of view on topics like fossil fuels and solar energy. While the information may not be untrue, as NPR’s David Folkenflik puts it, the "context, the framing, the omissions add up to presenting a very different sense" of the truth, often softening hard truths or omitting facts displeasing to the company.

[1] Bennett, W. L. (1996). An introduction to journalism norms and representations of politics.

[2] Gelbspan, R. (1998). The Heat is On: The Climate Crisis, the Cover-Up, the Prescription. Perseus Press

[3] Boykoff, M. T., & Boykoff, J. M. (2004). Balance as bias: Global warming and the US prestige press. Global environmental change, 14(2), 125-136.

[4] Santora, T. (2023) How to Report on Healthcare for Trans Youth Accurately and Sensitively. Open Notebook.

[5] 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.

[6] Hamilton-Evans, D., & Mahoney T. (2023) Quiet Alarm: A Review of CBC’s Climate Reporting. SFU CERi.

[7] Priyadarshini, S. (2025) Why newsrooms must rethink science journalism before the next crisis. Nature.

[8] Newman, N. (2022) Journalism, Media, and Technology Trends and Predictions 2022. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.

[9] Ziafati, N. (2022) Canadian on air weather personalities shifting tone amid worsening climate change. The Canadian Press.

[10] Westervelt, A., & Green M. (2023) Leading News Outlets are Doing the Fossil Fuel Industry’s Greenwashing. The Intercept.

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