In recent years, the narrative that public trust in science is rapidly declining has gained widespread attention across academic circles, media outlets, and public discourse. Yet, a groundbreaking new study published in the Journal of Science Communication challenges this prevailing storyline. Drawing on extensive qualitative data collected from journalists operating in three European nations—Germany, Italy, and Lithuania—researchers at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology’s Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis (ITAS) reveal a far more complex and fragmented landscape of science trust and communication. Instead of a monolithic collapse, trust is described as a dynamic, context-dependent phenomenon continuously negotiated between science communicators and their audiences.
This study delves deeply into the critical, yet often overlooked role of science journalists who serve as intermediaries between the scientific community and the public. Unlike earlier research primarily focused on public opinion metrics, this observational study employs means such as focus groups and expert interviews with 87 information professionals—including science journalists, institutional communicators, and researchers—to capture nuanced perceptions of trust and media dynamics. Such a methodological approach offers fresh insight into how journalistic practices, media ecosystems, and sociopolitical contexts intersect to shape the public’s relationship with science.
The country-specific media ecosystems analyzed demonstrate striking differences. Germany exhibits a relatively robust institutional infrastructure, with dedicated science desks found across major public broadcasters and reputed media houses. This institutional stability also promotes stronger professional networks and fact-checking regimes, which contribute to mitigating the sensationalism often associated with tabloid-style reporting. Conversely, Italy’s landscape suffers from fragmentation: limited stable employment for science journalists, a proliferation of freelancers, and a general undervaluation of specialized science reporting. A participant from Italy poignantly described science journalism as a luxury item, grabbing attention primarily during crises but otherwise marginalized in the media diet. Lithuania’s small market size and post-communist historical legacies further complicate the picture, where specialist science reporters are scarce, and science coverage typically falls to generalist journalists or academic collaborators.
A salient theme emerging from the discussions is the profound impact of growing ideological polarization on the public’s reception of scientific information. Journalists across all three countries highlighted how audience members no longer process scientific facts through an objective lens but instead filter the information through political identities and emotional affiliations. This phenomenon complicates the task of science communicators, who must now operate within a fragmented societal fabric where factual correctness alone does not guarantee credibility or acceptance.
The study also sheds light on the evolving journalistic workflow shaped by the rapid cadence of online news consumption. Participants criticize what they refer to as a reactive journalism paradigm, characterized by short-term, contingency-driven coverage that prioritizes sensational topics with high click potential, such as pandemic crises, at the expense of providing sustained, well-contextualized reporting on enduring scientific challenges. This digital-first editorial logic, in which online audience metrics dictate print agenda-setting, creates feedback loops that marginalize less-clickworthy but scientifically vital topics like climate change, contributing to a decline in public familiarity and, potentially, trust.
Importantly, the research underscores that the commodification of digital attention has unintended consequences beyond mere topic selection. When key scientific issues become overshadowed by misinformation and “alternative” narratives that exploit audience fatigue and ideological biases, pseudoscience gains fertile ground to spread. Journalists expressed concerns regarding the erosion of shared epistemic frameworks, warning that limited long-form investigative reporting allows misinformation to fill informational voids, undermining evidence-based understandings.
Against this backdrop, the role of systemic support structures emerged as a central factor influencing science journalism’s ability to foster trust. Rather than attributing trust-building solely to individual reporter skill or isolated story quality, participants emphasized the necessity for broader institutional frameworks. These include sustainable funding mechanisms, such as those underpinning public-service media, dedicated science desks, fact-checking units, investigative funds, and robust professional networks that bolster journalistic capacity and independence. Germany’s relatively more developed support ecosystem was cited as enabling more resilient journalistic practice that can withstand market pressures and short-term digital trends.
Another transformative insight from the study pertains to the evolving self-conception of journalists as active “trust brokers”—a role that transcends traditional notions of objective information conveyance. Journalists increasingly perceive their mission as mediators who cultivate dialogue, facilitate public engagement, and foster trust not through mere transmission of facts, but via relational and co-creative processes. This reframing signals an implicit shift towards participatory science communication, where journalists embrace transparency, humility, and audience interaction to reinforce the social contract underlying their profession.
To enact this vision, the respondents advocate for news formats that blend interactivity and collaboration. They cited emerging experimental models such as podcasts with live Q&A, digital communities for collective sensemaking, and platform-adapted content that retains scientific integrity while meeting audiences where they already are. While acknowledging these approaches are no panacea, journalists agree that moving beyond one-way dissemination towards dialogic engagement is essential for sustaining warranted trust in science in digitally mediated societies.
This comprehensive study thus reframes the conversation on public trust in science by centering the voices and experiences of science communicators themselves, revealing a richly textured interplay of media structures, societal contexts, and journalistic innovation. In doing so, it challenges simplistic narratives about a uniform breakdown of trust and instead presents trust as an emergent, negotiated condition contingent on intricate socio-political and technological factors. The research calls for policy and institutional responses that recognize trust as a systemic attribute necessitating long-term investment in robust communication ecosystems.
As we face accelerating scientific and environmental challenges globally, these findings provide crucial insights for stakeholders seeking to bolster the public’s engagement with science. They highlight the necessity of supporting infrastructures that empower journalists as facilitators of mediated trust, while encouraging new media forms that foster mutual understanding and co-creation between scientists, journalists, and diverse publics. Ultimately, sustaining science’s social legitimacy requires embracing complexity, resisting reductive narratives, and fostering resilient communication pathways attuned to the evolving digital age.
Subject of Research: Science communication, public trust in science, role of science journalists, media ecosystems in Germany, Italy, and Lithuania
Article Title: Science journalists and public trust: comparative insights from Germany, Italy, and Lithuania
News Publication Date: 22-Sep-2025
Image Credits: ITAS
Keywords: Science journalism, Science advocacy, Science communication, Communications, Mass media, Written communication, Social studies of science
