HOW NEWSPAPERS COVER
SCIENCE, HEALTH, TECHNOLOGY
AND THE ENVIRONMENT
By Catherine Cowan
School of Journalism and
Mass Communication
University of North Carolina
at Chapel Hill
May 12, 1999
“The
pioneer spirit is still vigorous within this nation. Science offers
a largely unexplored hinterland for the pioneer who has the tools for
his task. The rewards of such exploration both for the Nation and the
individual are great. Scientific progress is one essential key to our security
as a nation, to our better health, to more jobs, to a higher standard of
living, and to our cultural progress.”
Vannevar Bush,
Director, Office of
Scientific Research,
I.
Introduction 4
II.
Methodology 8
III.
Quantitative Results 11
IV.
Qualitative Results 26
A. General science news 26
Recommendations for Lexington 28
B. Health and medical news 35
Recommendations for Lexington 43
C. Technology news 45
Recommendations for Lexington 51
D. Environmental news 55
Recommendations for Lexington 61
V.
Conclusion 62
Appendix
I: Guidelines for running science and medical stories 71
Appendix
II: Newspaper survey methodology 75
Appendix
III: Professional Contacts 78
Appendix
IV: Science sections and pages by newspaper 80
Appendix
V: Most popular national science stories of the week 83
Appendix
VI: Further reading 84
Appendix
VII: Copies of science, health and technology pages 86
I. Introduction
At the end of World War II, Vannevar Bush, director of the Office of Scientific Research and Development, was highly optimistic about the role of science in American public life. In his 1945 report to President Franklin D. Roosevelt entitled Science: The Endless Frontier, Bush saw scientific progress as the key to curing disease, providing jobs, defending the nation and educating the populace. For the good of the nation, Bush argued, the federal government must fund basic scientific research. Bush’s report laid the foundation for federal science policy during the Cold War, a policy that was only reinforced when the Russians launched Sputnik, beginning the two-decade space race that culminated with the United States putting astronauts on the moon.
Since then, however, federal
funding for science has been steadily declining. In 1965, the federal
government spent 1.85 percent of its gross domestic product on scientific
research and development; by 1995, that figure was cut in half to .9 percent.[1]
As federal funding for science has fallen, private sources of funding have
stepped in to fill some of the gap. In 1997, the entire annual research and
development budget was $180 billion; of that, the federal government provided
$73 billion, with private industry paying for the rest.[2]
Yet private funding often comes with strings attached. This trend means that scientists, who during the Cold War were often given money with no questions asked, are now having to justify the need for their research. Increasingly these explanations have involved an immediate use or practical application. Rather than allowing scientists to explore basic research, private industry wants them to concentrate on new products and technologies that can be quickly brought to the marketplace and sold for a profit.
This emphasis works very
well in some areas of science but not so well in others. For example, the
number of personal technology devices such as personal computers, cellular
telephones and digital pagers is exploding, and many experts do not see an end
to this trend or to the technological research that has produced it. Likewise,
it is easy to argue for the importance of funding medical research, which can
lead to treatments and cures for many human injuries or diseases.[3]
But private companies are highly unlikely to tackle environmental issues such
as deforestation, extinction of species or global warming, and basic scientific
research in areas such as astronomy, geology and archaeology is often simply
lost.
Journalists have not stood
idly by while science policy has changed. In 1939 Science Service, an
organization founded in the 1920s by newspaperman E.W. Scripps and biologist
W.E. Ritter, had 34 members who wrote for newspapers. By 1960, three years
after the launch of Sputnik, 25 percent of 1500 daily and Sunday newspapers
employed one or more reporters who covered science, medicine or technology, a
ten-fold increase over a period of two decades.[4]
Early Science Service members saw their roles as “missionaries” who brought
science to the public, a philosophy that set the tone for science writing
throughout the Cold War. During this time, journalists covered scientists as
stars, a trend readily apparent in stories about Nobel Prize winners. In one
example, Time magazine ran a picture of a large gold medal with a
caption about Nobel winners going to Mt. Olympus; later Family Health
magazine ran a profile of medical researcher Rosalyn Yalow headlined “She
Cooks. She Cleans. She wins the Nobel Prize.”[5]
By the late 1960s, however,
the tone of science journalism was changing. On a political level, the Vietnam
War and Watergate fostered a mistrust of authority figures in general, while
several events in science such as Three Mile Island, the Challenger explosion
and the Bhopal, India, gas leak fostered a mistrust of the scientific
establishment in particular. The dominant journalistic approach changed from
regarding science with awe to putting science in its social, historical and
economic context, and exposing the very human flaws and failings of scientists.
It was during this time that reporting about medical and environmental controversies
began to fill news pages; issues such as the effect of fluorocarbons on the
ozone layer, the likelihood of saccharin to cause cancer and the discovery of a
toxic waste dump in Love Canal all surfaced in the late 1970s.[6]
In the 1980s this perspective continued. One of the best examples of science
journalism designed to show the flaws of a scientist was Chicago Tribune
reporter John Crewdson’s investigation of AIDS researcher Robert Gallo, in
which Crewdson alleged that Gallo had not isolated a new AIDS virus but found
the same virus as French researchers.[7]
If the Cold War era heralded
the benefits of science and the Vietnam era warned about its pitfalls, the
1990s have brought on a third type of science journalism, one that very few
journalists or scholars have written about. This third era of science
journalism, which I will call the 21st Century era, takes no
moralistic stance toward science at all; rather, it simply asks, “How does this
apply to me?” Science is seen not as good or as evil but simply as the place
where new medical treatments and new tools and technologies that can affect the
lives of everyday people are invented. The more information we can get out
about these treatments and technologies, many professional journalists argue,
the better people will be able to decide how to use them.
It is my contention that
just as the Cold War philosophy of science journalism followed governmental
emphasis on science’s good and the Vietnam philosophy of science journalism
followed many conspicuous science disasters, the 21st Century era of
science journalism is following the trend away from government funding of
science and toward private research. As a result, science coverage in
newspapers has not disappeared, but has changed to emphasize the parts of
science that have immediate practical application. While many daily newspapers
once had a weekly science page or section which contained stories about basic
scientific research, only a handful do now; yet most newspapers have health and
medicine sections that emphasize “consumer health,” or news about how to eat
right, stay in shape and treat various illnesses or injuries. Meanwhile,
newspapers across the country are currently launching “personal technology”
sections to help keep consumers up to date on the dizzying pace of change in
the computer industry, as well as on other technologies such as cell phones,
pagers and flat TV.
This trend toward consumer
news is both positive and negative for science journalism. On the positive
side, science has made its way out of its assigned place in the science section
and into the substance of every part of the newspaper. For example, a business
story about the merger of two computer companies has to explain how the deal
will bring about new technologies for using the Internet. Likewise, a story
about stem cell research must explain what stem cells are and why they are
important, while story about a city council vote on whether to approve a
proposed shopping center has to show how development is affecting the underlying
water table and explain how this might damage the water supply. Pick up almost
any issue of practically any U.S. newspaper and you will find that science is
embedded on just about every page.
Yet the negative side of these changes is that journalism is losing sight of basic science. Areas such as astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, geology and archaeology are covered only if there is a major breakthrough and often not even then. When they are covered, it is often by journalists who have no background in the field, and so have no idea what is important or even what questions to ask. The result is stories that do not put the event at hand in any type of context, and so either overhype or underplay its significance. Finally, these science stories tend to run not on any special section or page, but inside the general nation and world news pages, where they are forced to compete for space with all the other news of the day. In this way, newspapers of the 1990s are depriving their readers of the full breadth of developments in the world of science.
In this study, I set out simply to discover the state of science journalism in American newspapers today. To do this, I divided the topic of science journalism into four areas -- general science, health and medicine, technology and the environment – and looked at them in both quantitative and qualitative ways. General science news included stories on topics such as astronomy, physics, chemistry, geology and archaeology. Health and medical news included stories on topics such as research that might one day affect human health, new discoveries in medicine such as new drugs or other treatments, or new diet and fitness trends. Technology news included stories about technological devices such as personal computers, cell phones and high definition television. Environmental news included stories about the planet Earth, whether local or global, and explored topics such as pollution, deforestation and the ozone hole.
In the first part of the
project, I examined thirty newspapers, ten of circulation 100,000 to 200,000,
ten of circulation 200,000 to 300,000, and ten of circulation 300,000 to
500,000.[8]
I surveyed one week’s worth of each paper, noting every science, health,
technology or environment story, as well as how many column inches it was,
whether it was staff or wire-written, whether it had photos or graphics, and
several other variables. To be chosen for this study, a story had to include
some type of scientific information somewhere in its content. For example, in
medical news a story about falling profits at an HMO would not count, but one
about why the HMO was paying for one treatment but not another would; in
technology news a story about Internet stocks driving the rise of the Dow would
not count, but one about a new type of computer search engine would; and in
environment news a story about the city council approving a new development
would not count, but one that explained the new development’s effect on the
city water supply would. I then compiled a database of these findings and used
the statistical program SPSS to analyze them.[9]
In the second part of this study, I traveled to twelve newspapers to talk with
editors and reporters who covered science, health, technology and the
environment. In this way, I was able to put the statistics I found into context
and to identify several trends.
Though I will expand on each
of these areas in the body of this report, here are the general results. 1)
Health and medical news is by far the most common type of science news. It is
the most common type of science news to make the front page, the inside pages,
and to be put into its own section. Most newspapers have at least one health or
medical reporter, often more than one, although their beats can vary from
covering medical research to an emphasis on health and fitness to one on the
health-care industry. The philosophy of most medical news is “consumer health,”
namely, supplying information about new treatments or trends that can lead to
the improved health of the individual reader. Newspaper staff writers generally
shun stories about the latest research in scientific journals, leaving these
stories to the wires; instead they concentrate on topics such as how lasers are
being used in medical treatments or why more and more people are being
diagnosed with sleep apnea. Many health sections include advertising from area
hospitals, doctors’ offices and fitness clubs.
2) Technology is the second
most common type of science news and the most likely to have its own special
section or designated pages. Most newspapers have either recently started or
are currently starting their own technology section or pages; these sections
generate revenue for the paper by attracting advertising from many computer and
other high-technology firms. Technology stories deal mainly with “personal
technology,” or consumer purchase and use of computers and the Internet, though
some include information about other technologies such as cell phones, digital
pagers and flat TV. A few stories deal with what is called the “culture of
technology,” looking at issues such as what it’s like to start your own
computer company or how people manage to remember an ever-rising number of
secret passwords for their accounts.
3) The third type of science
news concerns the environment. Here stories are much more likely to be locally
oriented than nationally or internationally oriented, and to be written by a
staff member rather than retrieved from the wires. Environmental news is the
most likely to run on the front page or the local section of the paper; it is
the least likely to be included in a special section of the paper. Reporters
for many papers, especially smaller ones in the 100,000 to 200,000 circulation
range, see environmental news as a premiere beat. Many papers are willing to
give environmental reporters large amounts of time to put together a major
enterprise pieces. Some of these series have won Pulitzers; others have helped
spur changes in state legislation.
4) News about general science
lags far behind the other three types of science news. In the survey, the
average length of a general science story was shorter than any other type,
despite the fact that readers have less knowledge in areas such as physics or
astronomy and so need more background information. While 14 of the 30 papers I
surveyed had a special weekly section or page for science news, in practice
most of those papers ran much more news about health than science. Three of the
papers I visited had recently transferred their science writers to other beats;
only one had actually hired a science writer but even there tension was
present. As a result, most general science news comes from the wire services
and is relegated into the already overstuffed space for nation and world news.
In the conclusion of this report I will explore some reasons health, technology
and environmental news is doing so well but general science news is suffering,
and I will suggest what can be done to remedy this problem.
III. Quantitative Results
An SPSS statistical analysis
of science stories in one week’s worth of 30 newspapers ranging in circulation
from 100,000 to 500,000 supports the conclusion that medical, technology and
environmental news are all flourishing while general science news is suffering.
In short, medical news is flourishing simply because of sheer numbers; it is by
far the most common type of science news in the paper. Technology news is
abundant because it is the mostly likely to be put into a special section or
page and to attract advertising. Environmental news is doing well because it is
the most likely to be staff written and the most likely to go onto A1. But
general science news is lagging because it is at or near the bottom of all
these trends.
As Table 1 shows, a simple
count of each type of science story in all 30 papers reveals that health
stories were most numerous, followed by technology stories; many fewer articles
were about general science or the environment. Meanwhile, Table 2 shows that of
the total of 1352 stories, science stories accounted for 167, or 12.4 percent,
health stories for 596 or 44.1 percent, technology for 451 or 33.4 percent, and
environment for 138 or 10.2 percent.
Table 1: Simple bar graph:
Type of science story
Story type
|
Frequency
|
Percent
|
Valid Percent
|
Cum. Percent
|
|
Science |
167 |
12.4 |
12.4 |
12.4 |
|
Health |
596 |
44.1 |
44.1 |
56.4 |
|
Technology |
451 |
33.4 |
33.4 |
89.8 |
|
Environment |
138 |
10.2 |
10.2 |
100.0 |
|
Total |
1352 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
|
Although environmental stories are less numerous than stories about general science, this statistic is somewhat misleading. As Tables 3 and 4 show, environmental news was the only one of the four types of science news in which a majority of the stories were staff written. In environmental news, 74 of 138 stories, or 54 percent, were staff written; by comparison, 47 of 167 general science stories (28 percent), 164 of 596 health stories (28 percent), and 167 of 451 technology stories (37 percent) were staff written.
Table
3: Clustered bar graph: Story type vs. staff/wire

|
Story Type |
Staff |
Wire |
Other |
Total |
|
Science |
47 |
111 |
9 |
167 |
|
Health |
164 |
416 |
16 |
596 |
|
Technology |
167 |
274 |
10 |
451 |
|
Environment |
74 |
61 |
3 |
138 |
|
Total |
452 |
862 |
38 |
1352 |
Another key
difference between general science and environment news is the number of times
the stories appear on A1, shown in Tables 5 and 6. [10]
Of the stories that made it to the front pages of the 30 newspapers, only seven
were general science stories while 18 were environmental stories, almost three
times as many; in other words, 4 percent of the total number of 167 general
science stories made it onto A1, whereas 13 percent of all 138 environmental
stories did. In this same count, 52 medical stories made it to the front, over
seven times as many general science stories; however, because these newspapers
ran such a large amount of medical news, that figure represents only 9 percent
of the total number of 596 health-related stories. Technology news is in a
similar situation; here 19 stories made it to the front, only 4 percent of the
total of 451 stories.
Table 5: Simple bar graph:
Types of science stories on A1
Table 6: Frequency: Types of science stories on A1
|
Story Type |
Frequency |
Percent |
Valid Percent |
Cum. Percent |
|
Science |
7 |
7.3 |
7.3 |
7.3 |
|
Health |
52 |
54.2 |
54.2 |
61.5 |
|
Technology |
19 |
19.8 |
19.8 |
81.3 |
|
Environment |
18 |
18.8 |
18.8 |
100.0 |
|
Total |
96 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
|
Another indication that general science news is at a disadvantage is the average column-inch length of the stories. Table 7 shows that general science stories were shorter than the others, despite the fact that readers have little knowledge about science and so a certain number of column inches are required simply to explain the background. One reason general science stories are so short is that most run inside the paper’s A section, which is typically responsible for all national and international news of the day. These pages usually have the tightest space in the paper because a large number of stories must fit there and because many advertisers want to be located as close to the front as possible. Yet as Table 8 shows, 109 of 167 science stories, or 65 percent, ran inside the A section; this compares to 284 of 596 health stories (48 percent), 99 of 451 technology stories (22 percent), and 33 of 138 environment stories (48 percent).
Table 7: Means: Average column inches for each story type
|
Story
Type |
Mean
Col. Inches |
Number |
Std.
Deviation |
|
Science |
15.4 |
167 |
9.39 |
|
Health |
18.8 |
594 |
12.91 |
|
Technology |
19.9 |
450 |
11.88 |
|
Environment |
19.0 |
138 |
11.47 |
|
Total |
18.8 |
1349 |
12.10 |
If health and technology stories are not running inside the A section, where are they going? As Table 8 indicates, the most popular place for medical stories is the features section while the most popular place for technology stories is the business section. This statistic points to the consumer basis of each type of story; medical news is oriented toward personal health and well-being, and so often falls under the province of the features department, while technology news is often oriented toward personal devices such as home computers and so often falls under the province of the business desk.
Table 8: Crosstabulation: Story type vs. location in
paper
|
Story Type |
A section |
Local |
Business |
Features |
Editorial |
Total |
|
Science |
109 |
22 |
9 |
20 |
7 |
167 |
|
Health |
284 |
37 |
15 |
240 |
20 |
596 |
|
Technology |
99 |
11 |
199 |
136 |
6 |
451 |
|
Environment |
66 |
41 |
2 |
13 |
16 |
138 |
|
Total |
558 |
111 |
225 |
409 |
49 |
1352 |
Beyond running as a part of
other sections, however, health and technology stories are increasingly running
on their own stand-alone sections or pages. As Table 9 indicates, only 6.3
percent of stories in a stand-alone science, health, technology or environment
section concerned general science, while 48.9 percent of such stories were
health-related and 42.5 percent were technology related. General science
stories fared only slightly better on special pages located within other
sections, such as a weekly science page tucked inside the A section or a set of
technology pages tucked inside the business section. As Table 10 indicates,
general science accounted for 14.4 percent of all stories on special pages; yet
here again twice as many health-related stories and almost four times as many
technology stories ran on special pages.
Table 9: Types of stories in stand-alone sections
|
Story Type |
Frequency |
Percent |
Valid
Percent |
Cum. Percent |
|
Science |
14 |
6.3 |
6.3 |
6.3 |
|
Health |
108 |
48.9 |
48.9 |
55.2 |
|
Technology |
94 |
42.5 |
42.5 |
97.7 |
|
Environment |
5 |
2.3 |
2.3 |
100.0 |
|
Total |
221 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
|
Table 10: Frequency: Types of stories on special pages
inside other sections
|
Story Type |
Frequency |
Percent |
Valid
Percent |
Cum. Percent |
|
Science |
25 |
14.4 |
14.4 |
14.4 |
|
Health |
50 |
28.7 |
28.7 |
43.1 |
|
Technology |
92 |
52.9 |
52.9 |