Effects of Two Journalistic Practices in Reporting Conflicting Health-Related Scientific Evidence on Journalists' and Scientists' Credibility

• In Event: Science and Discourse Studies in Health Communication

Abstract

This study investigated the effects of two journalistic practices on journalists' and scientists' credibility when conflicting health-related scientific evidence is reported. The two practices were presentation format (one-story format vs. two-story format) and hedging (reporting study limitations vs. not reporting study limitations). When conflicting findings are reported, journalists can use either one-story format, using one story to report the conflict, or two-story format, using two stories with each story representing one side of the conflict. Hedging is one practice journalists use when they decide to report limitations of scientific studies. An online experiment (N = 290) found that one-story format (vs. two-story format) increased journalists' competence but decreased scientists' competence, which suggests a competence transfer between journalists and scientists, and the transfer depended on people's news reading frequency.

Author

• Hui Zhang, Colorado State University