JCOM research indicates that trust in science is not collapsing but is being negotiated continuously, and journalists see themselves as "knowledge brokers" connecting research and the public.
For years we have been hearing the warning: “Trust in science is collapsing.” It is not surprising, then, that many studies have examined the phenomenon of trust in science among the general public. But less attention has been paid to the intermediary professionals – journalists – who play a key role in bridging the gap between the world of scientific research and the public.
New article in the journal Journal of Science Communication (JCOM), conducted by a group of researchers from the Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis (ITAS) at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) in Germany, gives voice to journalists from three countries – Germany, Italy and Lithuania – each representing a different media ecosystem.
Trust – not collapse, but ongoing negotiation
The emerging picture is far more complex and fragmented than the conventional narrative. The journalists described themselves as “knowledge brokers” in constant negotiation with their audiences. They emphasized that in today’s science journalism, fact-checking and accuracy must also be integrated with political, social, and emotional aspects, and in accordance with audience expectations.
According to researcher Nora Weinberger (ITAS), one of the authors of the article: "The journalists in our study do not see a total collapse of trust in science – but rather an ongoing process of negotiation. This surprised me, because the public consciousness is dominated by a sense of crisis."
Dr. Dana Mehar (ITAS), lead author of the article, added: "Trust in science is not falling uniformly. It is fragmented, dynamic, and dependent on social, political, and media context, as well as personal expectations."
Gaps between countries
The study was based on focus groups attended by 87 journalists, science media professionals, and several scientists from three countries:
- Germany – A relatively strong field of science journalism, with dedicated systems, a stable professional network, and fact-checking systems.
- Italy – A fragmented field, with fewer dedicated scientific systems, a high number of freelancers, and low salaries. One participant described: “Scientific journalism in Italy is considered a luxury.”
- ליטא – An extremely small market, shaped by a post-communist past, where science is mostly covered by general journalists or in collaboration with research institutions.
Current challenges
Journalists noted disturbing trends:
- Ideological polarization in the public – Acceptance or rejection of scientific facts according to political identity.
- Reactive journalism – Short-term coverage, mainly in times of emergency (such as the coronavirus pandemic), alongside a lack of ongoing in-depth reporting.
- The impact of the Internet – Click metrics also set the agenda for the printed press, resulting in important issues like the climate crisis being marginalized unless presented in sensational headlines.
The need for systemic support
Participants emphasized that journalists' ability to build trust depends not only on their personal skills, but also on systemic conditions: stable public funding, dedicated science systems, investigative foundations, fact-checking units, collaborative networks, and ongoing training.
Journalists as "trust brokers"
Journalists see themselves not only as information moralizers, but as active mediators of trust – a role that brings their work even closer to the border of activism. Many believe that more collaborative and dialogic formats should be developed: podcasts, question-and-answer sessions, digital communities and more transparent communication with the audience.
According to Weinberger: "This is a fundamental change – not only to tell the scientific story, but also to create trust and ensure a renewed social contract between journalists and the public."
the article "Science journalists and public trust: comparative insights from Germany, Italy, and Lithuania" By Dana Mehar and colleagues, to be published on September 22, 2025 inJournal of Science Communication (JCOM), as part of the Horizon Europe IANUS project to strengthen value-based trust in science and innovation.
And what about Israel?
Editor's note: And what about Israel, this time I can describe it in the first person. It's like in Lithuania, a small market, which exists over the nose and anger of the university heads (who also made a decision to financially boycott the Haydan website in 2015 and there's no one to stop it). They believe that general news websites will do the job, and they don't mind slurred language and scientific shallowness. The same media outlets have editors who have forgotten the rules of the five Ws and want us to guess half of the headline because of the clickbait phenomenon (guess which planet has life). Competitors at the Davidson Institute also set up the website over the nose and anger of senior Weizmann Institute officials at the time, but unlike the Haydan website, they have donors. This shows that no university thinks that science communication is an important issue.
Of course, we can mention Haaretz (but the interesting articles that appear there are behind a paywall) and YNET. My friend Yaron Druckman and his team are knowledgeable in science and also benefit from collaborations with professional sites in the field. All the general news sites give random reporters the job as if it were politics or sports. Until then, we will have to settle for only 2-3 of the Ws.
More of the topic in Hayadan:
