Impact of online comments on role perception and emerging practices in science journalism

1. The impact of online comments on
role perception and emerging
practices amongst science
journalists
Marie Boran

2. Once upon a time the role
of the science journalist was
EPIC
 Exclusivity (sole mediators between
scientist and public, no competition)
 Privilege (only ones with access to
scientific papers, conferences, interviews
with scientists)
 Informers (transmission communication
model)
 Clout (agenda-setters, framed science in
society)
Marie Boran

3. The role of “good old
fashioned” science journalism
 Reporter
 Conduit
 Watchdog
 Agenda-setter
 “history embedded in pedagogy and
dependence on scientific expertise.”
(Secko et al. 2011)
Marie Boran

4. Social media is
challenging
journalistic norms
 “The people formerly known as the
audience” – (Rosen 2006)
 “The venerable profession of journalism finds
itself at a rare moment in history, where for
the first time, its hegemony as gatekeeper
of the news is threatened not just by new
technology and competitors, but,
potentially, by the audience it serves.” –
(Willis and Bowman 2003)
 Participatory journalism (also known as
produsage, UGC, citizen journalism):
comments are by far the most common
form
Marie Boran

5. Emerging roles in this new digital
space (Fahy & Nisbet, 2011)
 Conduit: explains, translates from experts -> non-specialist publics
 Public intellectual: high degree of specialisation, distinct perspective, social
implications
 Agenda-setter: identifies, calls attention to important research
 Watchdog: holds scientists & institutions to scrutiny
 Investigative reporter: in-depth journalistic investigations, “good old fashioned”
journalism
 Civic educator: informs a non-specialist audience about science, its risks, methods,
aims, etc.
 Curator: Gather science news, adds informed opinion, commentary, evaluative
 Convener: Connects scientists and publics, issue-driven
 Advocate: specific worldview, on behalf of issue or idea e.g. sustainability
Marie Boran

6. A profession divided on the
usefulness of online
comments
 Traditionalists vs. ‘convergers’ who are more
willing to interact with their audience (Robinson
2010)
 ‘Segregationist’ vs. ‘integrationist’ (Quandt and
Heinonen 2009)
 Beneficial yet crappy (Bergstrom and Wadbring
2014)
Marie Boran

7. The Discomfort Zone
 “I try – and sometimes fail – to maintain
constructive discourse in the comments … And
as a result it’s different. It’s a discomfort zone …
I’m not here to provide you with a soft couch
and free drinks if you’re an enviro or if you are a
conservative. It’s a place to challenge yourself.”
- Andrew Revkin, Dot Earth blog at the New York
Times.
Marie Boran

8. What usually happens:
Marie Boran

9. Where my research fits in:
 We know how journalists feel about online comments and
commenters (several interview and survey-based studies
to back this up)
 Helps define new roles and practices of science
journalism online …to a certain extent
 No quantitative data on how much and in what way
science journalists interact with their audience
 Data gathering: the Guardian Open Platform (API)
 Assess to what extent this is constructive discourse, as
Revkin advocates
 Typology of science commenters
 Either compare over time or between science topics
Marie Boran