Science journalists face unique challenges because they are often seen only as translators of jargon-filled research, and as such are open to challenges about the accuracy of their reports.

People in other sectors, such as business, sport, and politics, realise that the media is an independent entity with its own job to do, but academics and research institutions sometimes see media simply as a loudspeaker for transmitting their messages to the public.

As such, they can try to control the message, for example, by asking to review and approve journalists’ copy, or by putting arbitrary restrictions on when and how something should be reported.

Such actions often create unnecessary friction between journalists and scientists, which stems largely from a lack of understanding of how media works, and what journalists do and won’t do.

The EFSJ Statement on independent science journalism, in the hyperlink and copied in below, aims to describe some of the rights and freedoms science journalists have and routinely exercise, with the aim of better informing the expectations scientists and others have of them.

EFSJ Statement on Independence, Rights and Freedoms of Science Journalists

“Freedom of the press, if it means anything at all, means the freedom to criticize and oppose,” George Orwell.

Scientists and journalists share the need for freedoms — academic and media freedoms — to do the best possible work, and hopefully benefit humanity.

Both science and journalism can be deployed for good or bad, and at their best are characterized by a tireless and idealistic search for truth. However, when the two communities interact, there is scope for misunderstandings because of differences in their practices and expectations.

Scientists and policymakers sometimes want to authorise parts or all of journalists’ copy before publishing, which can exert undue influence of free and independent media reporting on science.

They are also a target of a vast PR system that aims to set the news agenda and frame the stories in a way that is favourable to the sources of those stories.

With that in mind, this statement is aimed at reaffirming the rights and freedoms that science journalists have in reporting on research (Responsibilities for ethical journalistic conduct are outlined elsewhere, for example in the national journalism associations codes of conduct, such as the NUJ code of conduct). The statement was initially drafted by ABSW and later reviewed by EFSJ. It is not meant to be exhaustive or prescriptive, but informative and aspirational, helping journalists do their job, and their sources understand how media work.

Independence from science

Science journalists are journalists, and as such, they report objectively and independently of the agenda of their sources.

The role of science journalists is not to promote research output, but to scrutinise and place it in a wider context. This can involve reporting on science’s shortcomings, its limitations and failings, as well as its biases and conflicts.

Science journalists’ most important responsibility is to their audiences, not to their sources.

Science journalists are free to hold power structures and people in power to account.

They are free to scrutinise sources of funding and their underlying ideologies and agendas.

They are free to reveal potential or actual conflicts of interests involved in the research.

They are free to express uncertainties and the incomplete nature of scientific evidence.

Reporting

Science journalists and editors find their own stories, and are free to disregard scientific PR.

They are free to choose which stories they tell, and when and how to tell them.

They don’t have to agree to embargoes nor honour the ones they haven’t explicitly signed up to; embargoes are agreements, and cannot be imposed unilaterally.

When they do agree to participate in the embargo system, they are not obliged to follow it if they come across stories independently or if the information is already publicly available.

They don’t have to submit their questions in advance of an interview.

They judge which parts of an interview to use based on their commitment to the reader rather than to please the interviewee.

They are free to seek comment from whoever they see fit and they do not have an obligation to include everyone they talked to, or everyone involved in research.

Shaping stories

Science journalists and editors decide how to frame their stories and what level of detail to include.

They don’t have to send any part of their notes, quotes or story to their sources for checking or approval.

They are free to decide which societal voices are relevant to include in their stories.

They, together with publishers, retain the final editorial control of their stories and anything that gets published or aired.

They follow their media’s style guide when mentioning titles and names of people, institutions and research programmes.

https://efsj.eu/2025/01/17/efsj-statement-on-independence-rights-and-freedoms-of-science-journalists/