Abstract

In an attempt to qualify changes to science news reporting due to the impact of the

internet, we studied all science news articles published in Danish national newspapers in

a November week in 1999 and 2012, respectively. We find the same amount of science

coverage, about 4% of the total news production, in both years, though the tabloids

produce more science news in 2012. Online science news also received high priority.

Journalists in 2012 more often than in 1999 make reference to scientific journals, and

cite a wider range of journals. Science news in 2012 is more international and political

oriented than in 1999. Based on these findings we suggest science news, due partly to

the emergence of online resources, is becoming more diverse and available to a wider

audience. Science news is no longer for the elite but has spread to virtually everywhere

in the national news system.

Keywords

Science news, web-based information and communication technologies, quantitative

content analysis, online and print newspapers

1. Introduction

On July 4 2012, CERN physicists announced the discovery of a possible Higgs boson.

A few days prior to the announcement, rumours began to spread on Twitter and soon

became “truly global” (De Domenico et al., 2013: 4). Social media, news feeds, and

CERN’s own webcast, made sure that the news about the Higgs boson candidate, one of

1

the most elusive particles in the history of modern science, reached millions of users,

readers, and viewers across the globe. As the CERN Communication Group, slightly

surprised, observed, the Higgs-like boson received rock star treatment, making its

appearance in unexpected media, such as the most popular tabloid newspaper in the

United Kingdom, The Sun, where the Page 3 model “reflected” on the discovery, and in

the tweets of celebrities such as MC Hammer (Kahle, 2012).

Although in many respects atypical, the production and circulation of news about the

Higgs-like boson demonstrate the impact of the internet on science reporting and the

flow of science news. The number of science communication channels has amplified,

and science news has become omnipresent. In “the electronic embrace of the internet,”

science reporting seems characterized by the emergence of new producers of

information, new channels for distributing information, and new audiences, all of which

not only provide new opportunities for news media, research institutions, scientific

journals, and concerned citizens, but also challenge traditional news values and

practices (Trench, 2007).

The purpose of this study is to compare quantity, triggers, sources and demographics

of science news before and after web-searching, social media and online media became

pervasive in professional journalism. As Danish researchers, we conveniently focus on

Denmark, a small country where the number of national newspapers is low. Even with

limited resources, it is possible to collect and code all of the news items relating to

2

science that have been published in Danish media over an extended period of more than

a few days. Partly for the same reason, Denmark has been home to a unique quantitative

and longitudinal study of general news. The continuing research project A News Week

in Denmark coded all news items published in a given November week in 1999 and

again in 2008 and 2011, aiming to trace the circulation of news in Danish media (Lund,

2013; Lund et al., 2009).

2. Trends in newspaper coverage of science

Science news in the new media ecosystem

The rise of online environments for news has been accompanied by several,

contradictory changes in the way that traditional news media like newspapers process

news stories. At the level of management, editorship, reporting and marketing,

newspapers, throughout the 1990s and 2000s, still struggled to make best use of the web

(Boczkowski, 2005; van der Wurff and Lauf, 2005). Still today, many newspapers are

undergoing financial problems, while at the same time having to produce additional

round-the-clock content for their online platforms.

There are no precise accounts of how newspapers in their coverage of science

respond to the challenge of producing more news on multiple platforms in an

environment characterized by rapid technological development and increased

competition. The emergence of numerous web-based resources for science journalists,

3

such as online news services provided by high-ranking scientific journals, specialized

science news agencies and academic institutions, surely have made it easier for science

journalists to access science stories without leaving the office or even picking up the

phone. In an age of tight resources, Williams and Clifford (2012: 42) suggest, this

would tempt science journalists, as other journalists, to pick the “low-hanging fruits” in

the guise of readymade news stories and consequently lead to fewer independently

researched science stories in the news. Granado (2011), surveying European science

journalists working for general news media and news agencies, conclude that, indeed,

science journalists are becoming more dependent on the services provided by scientific

journals and in their daily work spend a lot of time on the internet. Similarly, British

science journalists in interviews have conjectured that the idea that “the web is never

full” generally encourage online science reporters to increase news production at the

expense of news quality (Willams and Clifford, 2009). Fahy and Nisbeth (2011: 783),

on a more positive note, see no reason to predict uniform decline in the standards of

science news, but rather develop a typology for the plurality of roles that science

journalists are expected to play in the new “science media ecosystem”.

Content-wise, the advent of online news platforms so far appears to have had little

impact on science news in general. Although there are only very few studies available,

all of which focus on special scientific topics, they all find that online science news

items tend to differ but slightly from their offline counterparts (Gerhards and Schäfer

4

2010; Habel et al., 2009; Hyde 2006; Wilson et al., 2009). To take an example, Hyde

(2006) found that online news articles about genetic cloning, produced from 1996 to

1999, tended to include fewer quoted sources than printed articles in the sample;

however, the difference was partly explained by the fact that the print news stories were

as much as 20-70% longer than their online stories (Hyde, 2006: 239). With respect to

their language, tone and emphasis on the possible future benefits that may be associated

with cloning, online and print articles were found to be strikingly similar.

Longitudinal studies of science news

Longitudinal studies provide valuable information on long-term changes in the amount

and characteristics of science news (Bauer et al., 2006; Bauer et al., 1995; Bucchi and

Mazzolini, 2003; Clark and Illman, 2006; Elmer et al., 2008; Krieghbaum, 1941; Logan

et al., 2000; Pellechia 1997). Although it is difficult to compare results across most of

such studies, since with a few exceptions they all employ different protocols for

sampling and coding articles, most conclude that the amount of science news in the

media have increased since the 1980s.

The first longitudinal study of science in the news probably was Krieghbaum’s

(1941) analysis of 97 American newspapers from 1939 to 1941, showing that about 5%

of non-advertising space was dedicated to science reporting. Surprisingly, almost the

same percentage of science news was found about 50 years later in the study performed

by Bauer et al. (1995), who included 6.000 articles from seven daily British newspapers

5

from 1946 to 1986. Like Krieghbaum (1941), Bauer et al. (1995) defined science news

in broad, “catholic” terms and measured the amount of science news relative to the

effective number of news pages exclusive of advertising space. They found a slight

increase in the amount of science news starting in the early 1980s.

In Italy, where the British study was replicated by Bucchi and Mazzolini (2003), the

amount of science news found in the leading Italian newspaper Il Corriere della Sera

grew dramatically from about 1% in the period from 1946 to 1950 to 21% in the late

1980s, reaching 29% by the early 1990s. Bauer et al.’s (2006) comparative study of

science news in the Daily Telegraph (Great Britain) and in the Rabotnichesko

Delo/Duma (Bulgaria) from 1946 to 1995 (1992 for the Telegraph) concluded that the

intensity of science coverage in both newspapers could be modelled by a waved cubical

curve. The curve peaked in the early 1960s, reached a low by the end of the 1970s (the

Telegraph) and early 1980s (the Rabotnichesko Delo), and then continued to rise

throughout the 1980s and into the 1990s. In the most recent longitudinal study of

science news in European newspapers, Elmer et al. (2008), looking specifically at three

nationwide newspapers in Germany in two periods, 2003-2004 and 2006-2007, reported

an overall increase of science reporting by 48%. Even though they employed a stricter

definition of science news than the British/Bulgarian and the Italian studies, they found

the absolute increase in science news outside the science sections to be a staggering

136% (Elmer et al., 2008: 883).

6

On the other side of the Atlantic, similar, although more modest, growth in the

absolute and relative amount of science news has been detected. Pellechia (1997), in her

study of science news reporting in the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune and the

Washington Post, found that all three newspapers had increased their emphasis on

science news from 1966 to 1990. The absolute number of science sections rose from 18

in the period 1966-1970 to 56 in 1986-1990, and the percentage of science articles from

0.42% to 2.04% (p. 57). A later study of all science-related content in the New York

Times’ science section from 1980 to 2000, performed by Clark and Illman (2006),

observed a continuation of this upward trend. They reported that the amount of editorial

science content in Science Times had more than tripled in the period, with the largest

increase occurring from 1995 to 2000 (Clark and Illman, 2006: 504).

Sources and triggers

Traditionally, science journalists as well as general journalists tend to favour national

events as triggers for their news stories. Bauer et al. (1995), for example, found that

more than two-thirds of the British news devoted to science in the period from 1946 to

1986 was based on national events. As science journalists increasingly adapt web-based

tools for getting and sharing information about events in science all over the globe, the

national emphasis in science news stories may tend to be replaced by a more

international outlook. From around 2000, using the web to search for material and get in

7

touch with sources became standard practice for science journalists across the globe

(Trench, 2007).

Many longitudinal studies of science news have looked specifically at newspaper

articles that are triggered by the completion of scientific research printed in journals.

Studies have found that journal articles account for about half of the science news found

in US and European newspapers (Clark and Illman, 2006; de Semir et al., 1998;

European Commission, 2007; Suleski and Ibaraki, 2010). However, Weitkamp (2003)

in an earlier study from 2000 and 2001, when online tools were not predominant, found

only 15% of science news in the United Kingdom to be triggered by a journal article.

Recently, Kiernan (2014) in a content analysis of the New York Times’ science section

from 1998 to 2012 found an increase in the use of journals as well as in the number of

different journals cited, attributing the observations to the increased online availability

of journals.

Elmer et al. (2008: 882) made a useful distinction between scientific triggers, i.e.,

events within the world of research, such as publication of papers, congresses,

announcements from scientific institutions, etc.; non-scientific triggers, such as

epidemics, political decisions, etc.; and combined scientific and non-scientific triggers,

such as rocket launchings or policy-making related to scientific issues. They found that

about half of the news articles in dedicated science sections were triggered by scientific

8

events, whereas scientific triggers only accounted for 12-15% of the science news in

other sections of the newspapers (Elmer et al., 2008: 883).

Throughout the later part of the twentieth century, universities increasingly have

adopted a strategic approach to science news, releasing press information in order to

enhance the visibility of research activities that are seen as crucial to their particular

“brand” and to promote general corporate values of science (Bauer and Gregory, 2007;

Borchelt and Nielsen, 2014; Nelkin, 1995). Some commentators see the strength of

science public relations as a sign of weakness in science journalism (see, for example,

Göpfert 2007). Others note that press releases may serve as a source of distortion in the

flow of science news, for example by increasing the likelihood of “media hype”

(Brechman et al., 2009; Bubela and Caulfield, 2004; Caulfield and Condit, 2012;

Vestergård, 2011). The actual percentage of science news based on press releases from

scientific institutions is difficult to determine, partly due to the fact that journalists

rarely cite press releases (Bubela and Caulfield, 2004; Williams and Clifford, 2009).

One study reported that medical journalists tend to agree that the availability of press

releases increases their likelihood of reporting research (van Trigt et al., 1994). Other

studies have found that scientific articles accompanied by press releases are more likely

to appear as science news in newspapers (de Semir et al., 1998; Entwistle, 1995;

Stryker, 2002).

9

Science news in Denmark

In 2003 the Danish Government introduced a new Act on Universities, establishing

public communication of science and technology and knowledge transfer as a third

mission of the university (Nielsen, 2005). Kjærgaard (2008), looking at news about

nanotechnology published in Danish newspapers between 1996 and 2006, suggests that

the framing of science news is closely linked to the national agenda provided by

government policy-making and research initiatives. Nanotechnology, mainly due to its

novelty as a research field and the hype attached to it, admittedly is a special case, but

Kjærgaard’s (2008) conclusion about the embeddedness of science news in regional and

national news contexts appears to be applicable across countries (for other studies of

nanotechnology in the news, see Anderson et al., 2005; Kulve, 2006; Stephens, 2004).

The science media ecosystem in Denmark increasingly uses experts with academic

credentials as sources of information and commentary (Albæk et al., 2003). Albæk et al.

(2003) analysed 1,286 articles sampled in one month in 1961, 1971, 1981, 1991 and

2001, respectively, to find that, in absolute and relative terms, the number of articles

mentioning researchers has grown. In particular, social scientists have come to play a

dominant role. As in other countries, knowledge and information seem to flow regularly

and smoothly from Danish researchers and research institutions to the media (Albæk,

2011; Peters et al., 2008).

10

As mentioned, Lund et al. (2009) and Lund (2013) mapped the flow of news in the

general media ecosystem in Denmark. Their methodology was used as the foundation

for the present study, and so, their results provide an important context for our findings.

All news items appearing in Danish news media in a November news week in 1999,

2008, and 2011, respectively, were collected and coded. Surprisingly, given that the

number of news-producing journalists has remained steady over the years, the total

amount of news increased from just below 32,000 articles in 1999 to just above 75,000

in 2008 (Lund et al., 2009: 9). One of the reasons why Danish journalists have become

so much more productive in terms of the number of articles they put out is that the

amount of non-original material, defined as news stories originating directly from

another news media or news agency, also increased. The tendency to publish

“readymade news” was most discernible online. A comparable figure resulted from van

der Wurff and Lauf’s (2005) comparative study of newspapers in 16 countries, where it

was found that 70% of the content in online news articles stemmed from news agencies.

Drawing on the above literature, we focus on certain characteristics of science news

in Danish newspapers in 1999 and 2012, such as the total amount of science news in

print and online, types of trigger events for science news, references to scientific

journals and sources, length of articles, amount of “readymade news” and more. The

year 1999 is identical to the first year in which the study of general news-flow in

Denmark was carried out, and 2012 was the most recent year available at the time of

11

sampling. Importantly, the two years 13 years apart provide insights into the situation

before-and-after the emergence of online newspapers in Denmark. Comparing our

results from the 1999 and 2012 samples, respectively, we hope to be able to discern

traces of recent changes to the small science media ecosystem in Denmark.

3. Sampling and coding method

This study deals with nine national newspapers in Denmark, all of which can be

accessed and searched on the leading Danish provider of media intelligence, InfoMedia:

Jyllands-Posten (online: jyllands-posten.dk), Politiken (online: politiken.dk), Berlingske

(online: b.dk), Information (online: information.dk), Kristeligt Dagblad (online:

kristeligt-dagblad.dk), BT (online: bt.dk), Ekstrabladet (online: eb.dk), MetroXpress

(online: mx.dk), and Weekendavisen (online: weekendavisen.dk). All but

Weekendavisen (literally The Weekly Paper) are published on a daily basis. BT and

Ekstrabladet are the Danish tabloids, while MetroXpress (established in 2001) is a free

newspaper. The remaining six constitutes the quality press in Denmark. We also

included the dedicated, online science news service Videnskab.dk. Jyllands-Posten was

the first news organization in Denmark to publish an online edition in 1994; the

remaining newspapers had an online presence by the turn of the millennium, except for

MetroExpress (online edition opened in 2007).

In 1999 there was just one science section in all of the nine newspapers, published on

a weekly basis in Berlingske. In 2012 the number was near five: two sections in

12

Weekendavisen, two weekly ones in Jyllands-Posten and Politiken dedicating a couple

of pages in its Sunday edition to science.

Using InfoMedia, which does not include online articles from 1999, we sampled

science articles from the printed editions of the newspapers in the period 15-21

November 1999, and all science articles, printed as well as online ones, in the

corresponding period 12-18 November 2012. We recognize that using seven

consecutive days instead of a constructed week reduces the generalizability of our

results (Krippendorff, 2013). However, using consecutive days has a number of

advantages for this study. First of all it allows us to track the developments of stories

over multiple days and locate sources and triggers not present in one isolated article.

Also, we can account for the number of duplets in the form of identical articles

published online and in print by the same media. Using identical weeks to the Lund et

al. (2009) study also allows for direct comparison. Krippendorff (2013) does not

explicitly warn against all use of consecutive weeks, only cautions not to base too

general claims on this method. Riffe (1993) cites numerous reliable studies using

consecutive weeks.

We define science news as editorial content focusing on scientific knowledge,

findings, methods, processes, opinions, events or institutions within all scientific fields.

Our broad approach to what constitutes science news is similar to other studies such as

Bauer et al. (2006), Bauer et al. (1995), and Elmer et al. (2008). We operationalized our

13

science news definition using the following search terms to extract articles from

Infomedia: researcher, science, journal, research, knowledge, survey, study, expert,

professor and university (in Danish: forsker, videnskab, tidsskrift, forskning, viden,

undersøgelse, studie, ekspert, professor, universitet—note that the Danish term for

science, “videnskab,” as the German “Wissenschaft,” includes all faculties). In 1999

Infomedia did not include articles from Kristeligt Dagblad, which had to be searched

using microfilm. In addition to the automated search, all news headlines from all

selected newspapers were screened manually on lists generated by Infomedia to ensure

that all science news indeed had been collected. We then went through all articles,

removing those few ones that did not fit our definition of science news. Pragmatically,

if neither the headline, nor the subheading, nor the introduction made reference to

scientific aspects, the article was discarded. A total of 693 articles (44 duplets, 15 % of

online science news was identical to print editions) were selected and coded.

Each article was coded manually using ten categorical variables in addition to basic

information about the name and type of the newspaper (quality press or tabloid) and the

article’s page number, section, length, publication date and platform (print or online)

(see Table 1).

Table 1: Coding frame

Variable Categories Clarifying definitions

14

Academic field Natural sciences, social sciences, humanities, health, engineering, science in general

Natural sciences: Physics, chemistry, astronomy, biology etc.Social sciences: Political science, economy, law, sociology etc.Humanities: History, communication, culture, linguistics, archaeology, religion etc.Health: Medicine, psychology, sport, gastronomy etc.Engineering: Inventions, technological etc.Science in general: Research policy, research ethics etc.Multiple fields: Applied if a primary academic field is not identifiable

Triggers Non-scientific, scientific, non-scientific and scientific

Scientific: Journal article, scientific conference, opinion expressed by scientist(s) etc.Non-scientific: Natural events, policy making, public events etc.Non-scientific and scientific: Rocket launch, research policy initiatives etc.

Geographical origin of trigger

Danish, Foreign, Danish and foreign

Danish: Research from Danish institutions, events in the Danish science community etc.Foreign: Research from foreign institutions, international events etc.Danish and foreign: International research with Danish contribution or international events with a specific Danish news angle

Type of scientific triggerNot applied if trigger is non-scientific

Journal article, new research without journal reference, conference, report or release, other

Journal article: Peer review articles published in journalsNew research without journal reference: New research without explicit journal referenceConference: Scientific conferencesReport or release: Publication or announcement of non-peer reviewed surveys and articles, PhD theses, book release, videos etc.

Number of interview subjects

Subjects named and quoted in the article that have a scientific affiliation

Function of interview subjects

Presenting own research, commenting on other issues, other

Presenting own research: The topic of the article directly related to subject’s own field of researchCommenting on other issues: The topic of the article not directly related to subject’s own field of research

Academic field of interview subjects

Same as “academic field”

Nationality of interview subjects

Same as “geographical origin of trigger”

Media source Original, Danish Original: No media source identified, indicating

15

media, foreign media, news agency, other

that this may be an original news story not previously published by other news mediaDanish/foreign media: The story is based on an existing news item found in Danish or foreign media

The code “academic field” characterizes the academic field most prominent in the

article. To code academic fields, we classify disciplines according to main faculties

most commonly used in Denmark: natural science, health science, social science and the

humanities. The code “trigger” captures the type of events that demonstrably led to the

publication of the article. If the article makes explicit reference to scientific events, such

as the publication of new research, it is coded as “scientific trigger.” In this case, the

supplementary code “scientific trigger” is used to retrieve more detailed information.

The code “geographical origin of the trigger” is used to recover information about

whether the article originates from Danish or international events, or both. The number

of named and quoted interview subjects with scientific affiliation is coded, as well as

their nationality. The code “media sources” captures stories that have been produced by

other media or news agencies, but not press releases produced by universities or

scientific journals.

One author [NN, name suppressed due to peer review] examined each of the articles,

while another [NN, name suppressed due to peer review] co-coded 10%, the amount

required for testing inter-coder reliability (Krippendorff, 2013). A calculation of

16

Krippendorff’s alpha coefficient resulted in inter-coder reliability values between 0.81

and 0.93, which is generally acceptable.

4. Results

Since the consecutive days sampling method used in this study has a potential bias due

to in-between week differences, we searched our material for specific events that may

have resulted in unusually high or low science coverage in our two November weeks.

One such event, the so-called “Dandy case” was found in the 1999 sample. However,

this case appears to have affected only our “academic field” variable. When we

eliminate articles about this event, the values of all other variables do not change

significantly.

Table 2: Results 1999 and 2012a

1999 2012Print 2012

Web 2012

Number of news articles 5697 11437  5303 6076Number of science news articlesb 211 4% 482 4% 184 3% 298 4%Average word count per article 549 505 557 472

Academic fieldNatural sciences 36 17% 69 14% 22 12% 47 16%Social sciences 37 18% 129 27% 55 30% 74 25%Humanities 30 14% 102 21% 43 23% 59 20%Health 56 27% 159 33% 53 29% 106 36%

17

Engineering 10 5% 13 3% 4 2% 9 3%Science in general 41 19% 6 1% 4 2% 2 1%Multiple fields 1 0% 4 1% 3 2% 1 0%Total 211 100% 482 100% 184 100% 298 100%

TriggersScientific 125 60% 246 51% 91 49% 155 52%Nonscientific 75 36% 229 48% 89 48% 140 47%Nonscientific and scientific 9 4% 7 1% 4 2% 3 1%Totalc 209 100% 482 100% 184 100% 298 100%

Geographical originDanish 148 72% 313 65% 117 64% 196 66%Foreign 48 23% 151 31% 57 31% 94 32%Danish and foreign 10 5% 18 4% 10 5% 8 3%Totalc 206 100% 482 100% 184 100% 298 100%

Scientific triggerJournal 8 6% 96 39% 35 38% 61 39%Unpublished new research 25 20% 67 27% 24 26% 43 28%Conference 4 3% 2 1% 1 1% 1 1%Other scientific report or release 25 20% 50 20% 17 19% 33 21%Other 63 50% 31 13% 14 15% 17 11%Total 125 100% 246 100% 91 100% 155 100%

Interview subjectsNumber of subjects 165 491 182 309Number of subjects per article 0,8 1,0 1,0 1,0No subjects 83 41% 119 25% 52 28% 65 22%One subject 82 41% 253 52% 88 48% 165 55%Two subjects 28 14% 97 20% 39 21% 60 20%More subjects 8 4% 13 3% 5 3% 8 3%Totalc 201 100% 482 100% 184 100% 298 100%

Nationality of subjectsDanish 140 85% 405 82% 153 83% 254 82%

18

Foreign 24 15% 86 18% 31 17% 55 18%Totalc 164 100% 491 100% 184 100% 309 100%

Media originOwn research 164 81% 279 58% 139 76% 139 47%Other media 13 6% 113 23% 27 15% 87 29%News agency 26 13% 84 17% 15 8% 69 23%Other 0 0% 6 1% 3 2% 3 1%Totalc 203 100% 482 100% 184 100% 298 100%

a Chi-square tests were all significant at p<.05 or lower.b Relative frequency based on total number of news items. CI (alpha=0.05): 1999= 3.0-4.4%, 2012=2.8-4.4%. Videnskab.dk was excluded from the calculation of relative frequency for Web 2012, as they only publish online science news and therefore risk skewing the result.c Some articles from 1999 could not be coded in all categories, resulting in sums lower than total number of articles.

Table 3: High quality papers versus tabloids

HQ 1999

Tabloid 1999

Tabloid print 2012

HQ print 2012

Web HQ 2012

Web tabloid 2012

Number of science news articles 199 12 22 145 127Average word count per article 548 560 267 608 484

Academic fieldNatural sciences 32 16% 4 33% 1 5% 20 14% 20 16%Social sciences 36 18% 1 8% 2 9% 47 32% 42 33%Humanities 30 15% 0 0% 4 18% 37 26% 33 26%Health 52 26% 4 33% 12 55% 33 23% 29 23%Engineering 10 5% 0 0% 1 5% 3 2% 2 2%Science in general 39 20% 2 17% 0 0% 4 3% 1 1%Multiple fields 1 8% 2 9% 1 1% 0 0%Total 199 100% 12 100% 22 100% 145 100% 127 100%

TriggersScientific 116 58% 9 75% 12 55% 69 47% 54 43%Nonscientific 72 36% 3 25% 10 45% 72 50% 72 57%

19

Nonscientific and scientific 9 5% 0 0% 4 3% 1 1%Other 2 1%Total 199 100% 12 100% 22 100% 145 100% 127 100%

Geographical originDanish 140 72% 8 67% 11 50% 94 65% 90 71%Foreign 44 23% 4 33% 7 32% 46 32% 32 25%Danish and foreign 10 5% 4 18% 5 3% 5 4%Total 194 100% 12 100% 22 100% 145 100% 127 100%

Scientific triggerJournal 8 7% 0 0% 1 25% 27 40% 18 33%Unpublished new research 20 18% 5 56% 3 25% 20 29% 18 33%Conference 4 3% 0 0% 0 0% 1 1% 1 2%Other scientific report or release 23 20% 2 22% 3 25% 10 15% 12 22%Other 59 52% 2 22% 1 25% 10 15% 5 9%Total 114 100% 9 100% 12 100% 68 100% 54 43%

Interview subjectsNumber of subjects 158 7 16 151 153Number of subjects per article 0,8 0,6 0,7 1 10 sources 75 40% 8 67% 8 36% 40 28% 14 11%1 source 80 42% 2 17% 12 55% 65 45% 77 61%2 source 27 14% 1 8% 2 9% 35 24% 32 25%More sources 7 4% 1 8% 0 0% 5 3% 4 3%Total 189 100% 12 100% 22 100% 145 100% 127 100%

Nationality of sourcesDanish 133 84% 7 100% 13 81% 126 83% 129 84%Foreign 25 16% 3 19% 25 17% 24 16%Total 158 100% 7 100% 16 100% 151 100% 153 100%

Media originOwn research 154 81% 10 83% 11 50% 118 81% 62 49%Other media 11 6% 2 17% 6 27% 20 14% 26 20%News agency 26 14% 0 4 18% 5 3% 39 31%Other 0 0 1 5% 2 1% 0 0%

20

Total 191 100% 12 100% 22 100% 145 100% 127 100%

Amount of science news

We find that the absolute number of articles more than doubled from 211 in 1999 to 482

in 2012. In relative terms, excluding Videnskab.dk that publishes only science news, the

amount of science news relative to the total news production remained steady at 3.7%,

or rather 3.0-4.4% in 1999, 2.8-4.4% in 2012 (alpha = 0.05). We found that in 2012

more articles were published online than in print (298 online, 184 in print), which

means that the absolute rise in the amount of science news can be solely accredited to

the emergence of online newspapers. In particular, by 2012 the tabloids were publishing

more than three times as many science stories online as in their printed editions.

With respect to the academic fields covered, we observe small shifts from 1999 to

2012. The social sciences, the humanities and the health sciences received more

coverage in 2012 (the tabloids in particular favoured health news) compared to 1999,

whereas there was a decline in the relative frequency of articles covering the

engineering and natural sciences. The fact that the category of science in general

decreased dramatically from 1999 to 2012, we put down to the Dandy case mentioned

above.

21

Nonscientific versus scientific triggers

The number of science news articles triggered by events outside of science increased in

relative importance from 36% to 48%, while scientific triggers decreased from 60% to

51%. Combined non-scientific and scientific triggers remained low at 4% and 1%,

respectively.

Use of scientific journals

We find that scientific journal articles are more often used as triggers for science news

in 2012 compared to 1999. In 1999, just 6% of the science news articles included

references to scientific journals; in 2012, the corresponding figure was 39% (of all

articles triggered by a scientific event). We specifically note that, in 1999, only

scientific research published in a few, well-known, high-prestige journals, namely

Science, Nature and JAMA, would trigger science news in Danish newspapers. In 2012,

articles from a wide variety of journals from Toxicology through Sexual Medicine to

Nature Materials, Paediatrics and PLOS ONE were used to trigger science news

stories. We sampled and coded just twelve science news articles in total in the two

Danish tabloids in 1999, none of which made explicit reference to scientific journals. In

2012, the tabloids would mention scientific articles as triggers in 25% (print) and 44%

(online) of their science stories triggered by a scientific event.

Counterweighing the increasing use of scientific journals was the decrease

in other scientific triggers from 50 % in 1999 to 13 % in 2012. The value “Other”

22

covers feature stories, descriptions of new lab initiatives, research projects,

controversies, and other coverage of science in the making.

National vs. foreign triggers

In 1999, 72% of all science news articles were triggered by a Danish event; in 2012, the

figure was 65%. The corresponding figures for foreign trigger events were 23% and

31%, respectively. More than 80% of all interview subjects with a background in

research were affiliated with Danish research institutions. This holds for our 1999 and

2012 samples. Thus, somewhat contrary to our expectations, science news in Danish

newspapers remains closely connected to the national research system and national

agendas. However, when we looked only at news articles specifically triggered by

scientific events, we did see a growth in the use of international science events as

triggers: The amount of articles triggered by national science events was 70% in 1999

and 54% in 2012, while the same numbers for articles triggered by international science

events were 22% and 41%, respectively.

Demographic of science news

The average length of science news articles was 549 words in 1999 and 505 in 2012

(about 8% in difference). The difference mainly is due to the emergence of online

articles, which tend to be shorter. The average length of online articles in 2012 was 472

words, while printed articles in 2012 averaged 557 words. A science news article in a

23

quality press newspaper (print edition) had 608 words in 2012, but just 548 words in

1999.

Along similar lines, we find that the number of interview subjects is about the same

in 1999 as in 2012. This goes for printed as well as online articles. The number of

articles using no interview subjects with a scientific affiliation was 41% in 1999 and

25% in 2012, whereas the same numbers for articles with one interview subject were

59% and 75%.

Amount of original material

In agreement with Lund et al. (2009), we find that there are fewer original science news

articles in 1999 compared to 2012. In 1999, original science news articles accounted for

81% of all articles, and in 2012 the same figure was down to 58%. About 53% of online

science news articles in 2012 were found to be based on previously published news

stories from other media sources. Especially online tabloid news was found to only

contain 29% original material. We find another tendency to be prevalent in quality

press: More than 80% of all science news articles printed in high quality newspapers in

1999 and 2012 were based on original material. Of all the non-original science news

articles in 2012, 23% could be attributed to other media and 17% to news agencies.

Foreign media seemed to have grown in importance as sources of inspiration for Danish

journalists: In 2012, 8% of all science news articles cited foreign media, up from just

2% in 1999. Among the most quoted international media, we find the Norwegian

24

science portal Forskning.no, the online media Livescience and the online edition of

British media such as The Guardian, The Daily Mail, The Telegraph and BBC.

Videnskab.dk is credited as media source in 9% of all 2012 science news articles, which

makes it the most-used source of information and a good example of the potential

impact of a Government-sponsored, online outlet for science news stories.

Discussion

Longitudinal studies of science news in other European countries, i.e., Great Britain,

Bulgaria, Italy and Germany, have found an increase in the amount of science news in

the later decades of the twentieth century and into the 2000s. These studies looked only

at printed science news articles, and none are as recent as the present study. We could

not confirm the global trend of increased science news publication in the Danish news

media. Relative to the entire news production in Denmark, the percentage of science

news was the same in our two sample periods, 15-21 November 1999 and 12-18

November 2012, namely about 4%. However, Lund (2013) did encounter a peak in the

news production in 2008, and Bauer et al (1995) described the historical intensity of

science coverage as a waved cubical curve. Therefore, we speculate that Danish science

coverage could have peaked right before the financial crisis in 2008.

The growing importance of online news media for science news in Denmark means

that science stories are becoming available to new audiences, in particular those who

prefer tabloid newspapers to quality ones. Our results show that the two Danish

25

tabloids, Ekstrabladet and BT, featured very few science stories in their printed 1999

editions. In the 2012 sample, the number of science stories in the two tabloids was

considerably higher, and their online editions carried by far most of them.

Unfortunately, tabloids rarely feature in studies of science news. If the increased

presence of science stories in tabloid media, due to the rise of online news

environments, is more than a Danish phenomenon—and we would expect so—tabloids

certainly merit more attention from science communication scholars.

Like Elmer et al. (2008), we note that science news quite often is triggered by non-

scientific events. However, the most noticeable difference in triggers for science news,

we find, is the more pronounced tendency to use scientific publications as triggers for

science news in 2012 compared to 1999. We speculate that this has to do with the

increased availability of scientific journals and papers online, but also, more

importantly, with the emergence of online news services, such as EurekAlert and

AlphaGalileo, dispatching press releases providing journalists with easy access to

information about new scientific publications.

We also suggest the availability of online material influenced the observed

differences between the amount of original vs. non-original science stories featured in

1999 and 2012, respectively. The number of original science news was higher in 1999

than in 2012, and in 2012 online newspapers carried the least amount of original

material. This could be due to the availability of ready-made science news online, which

26

is easy to cite and use. In the 2012 sample, original in-depth articles appear more

frequently in the print editions compared to online. We conclude that newspapers have

begun to differentiate between their print and online science news services with the

printed editions featuring most of the original (and longer) science news stories, a

finding which is comparable to Lund’s (2013) results. This differentiation deserves

more attention in future studies.

It has been argued that due to the emergence of web-based information and

communication technologies, the science media ecosystem has become intrinsically

global. On the other hand, news systems traditionally are primarily national in their

outlook. Our 1999 and 2012 results substantiate these two somewhat conflicting trends.

First of all, the geographic origin of all trigger events, the origin of scientific triggers,

and the use of media sources in 2012 are more international compared to 1999,

indicating that journalists more often have to negotiate the traditional news value of

cultural proximity up against online availability of scientific material from international

sources. However, the nationality of interviewed sources was predominantly Danish in

both 1999 and 2012. One interpretation is that the media emphasize a Danish “spin” on

science news through the use of local sources– regardless of the geographical origin of

the story.

Though the generalizability of the comparative results from 1999 and 2012 is low,

we do suggest our study points towards certain trends within the science news culture.

27

In 1999 science news were predominantly found in elite newspapers and based on

national scientific events. In 2012 science news was broadly available online and in

tabloids, triggered by scientific as well as non-scientific, often political, events, and

more frequently based on international sources. Therefore, as exemplified by the

breaking of the discovery of the Higgs particle, we suggest the variety of audiences

exposed to science news has increased with consequences for the public understanding

of science that remain understudied. These empirical findings correspond with the idea

of an ongoing medialization of science stating that scientific debates in the media have

become more pluralized, diversified and egalitarian (Schäfer, 2008).

References

Albæk, E. (2011). The interaction between experts and journalists in news journalism.

Journalism, 12, 335-348.

Albæk, E., Christiansen, P. M., & Togeby, L. (2003). Experts in the Mass Media:

Researchers as Sources in Danish Daily Newspapers, 1961-2001. Journalism and

Mass Communication Quarterly, 80, 937-948.

Anderson, A., Allan, S., Petersen, A., & Wilkinson, C. (2005). The Framing of

Nanotechnologies in the British Newspaper Press. Science Communication, 27, 200-

220.

Bauer, M. W., Ragnarsdottir A., Rudolfsdottir, A., & Durant, J. (1995). Science and

Technology in the British Press, 1946-1990. London: Science Museum.

28

Bauer, M. W., & Gregory, J. (2008). From journalism to corporate communication in

post-war Britain. In M. W. Bauer & M. Bucchi (Eds.), Journalism, Science and

Society: Science Communication between News and Public Relations (pp. 33-52).

New York and London: Routledge.

Bauer, M. W., Petkova, K., Boyadjieva, P., & Gornev, G. (2006). Long-Term Trends in

the Public Representation of Science across the ‘Iron Curtain’: 1946-1995. Social

Studies of Science, 36, 99–131.

Blach-Ørsten, M., Willig, I., & Burkal, R. (2013). Undersøgelse af citatpraksis ift.

kreditering af mediekilder i nyheder på danske netsteder. Roskilde: Roskilde

University. Retrieved from

http://rudar.ruc.dk/bitstream/1800/13422/1/Rapport_om_citatpraksis_dec_2013.pdf

Boczkowski, P. J. (2005). Digitizing the News: Innovation in Online Newspapers.

Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Borchelt, R., & Nielsen, K. H. (2014). Public relations in science: Managing the trust

portfolio. In M. Bucchi & B. Trench (Eds.), Handbook of Public Communication of

Science and Technology, second edition (pp. 58-69). New York and London:

Routledge.

Boykoff, M. T, & Mansfield, M. (2008). 'Ye Olde Hot Aire'*: reporting on human

contributions to climate change in the UK tabloid press. Environmental Research

Letters, 3, article no. 024002.

29

Brechman, J., Lee, C.-J., & Cappella, J. N. (2009). Lost in Translation? A Comparison

of Cancer-Genetics Reporting in the Press Release and Its Subsequent Coverage in

the Press. Science Communication, 30, 453–74.

Bubela, T. M., & Caulfield, T. A. (2004). Do the Print Media ‘Hype’ Genetic Research?

A Comparison of Newspaper Stories and Peer-Reviewed Research Papers. Canadian

Medical Association Journal, 170, 1399–1407.

Bucchi, M., & Mazzolini, R. G. (2003). Big Science, Little News: Science Coverage in

the Italian Daily Press, 1946-1997. Public Understanding of Science, 12, 7–24.

Carver, R. B., Rodland, E. A., & Breivik, J. (2013). Quantitative Frame Analysis of

How the Gene Concept Is Presented in Tabloid and Elite Newspapers. Science

Communication, 35, 449-475.

Caulfield, T., & Condit, C. (2012). Science and the Sources of Hype. Public Health

Genomics, 15, 209–17.

Clark, F., & Illman, D. L. (2006). A Longitudinal Study of the New York Times

Science Times Section. Science Communication, 27, 496–513.

De Domenico, M., Lima, A., Mougel, P., & Musolesi, M. (2013). The Anatomy of a

Scientific Rumor. Scientific Reports, 3. oi:10.1038/srep02980

de Semir V., Ribas C., & Revuelta G. (1998). Press Releases of Science Journal Articles

and Subsequent Newspaper Stories on the Same Topic. JAMA, 280, 294–95.

30

Elmer, C., Badenschier, F., & Wormer, H. (2008). Science for Everybody? How the

Coverage of Research Issues in German Newspapers Has Increased Dramatically.

Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 85, 878–93.

European Commission (2007). European Research in the Media: What Do Media

Professionals Think? Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved from

http://ec.europa.eu/research/conferences/2007/bcn2007/journalists_en.pdf

Fahy, D., & Nisbet, M. C. (2011). The Science Journalist Online: Shifting Roles and

Emerging Practices. Journalism, 12, 778–93.

Gerhards, J., & Schäfer, M. S. (2010). Is the Internet a Better Public Sphere?

Comparing Old and New Media in the USA and Germany. New Media & Society,

12, 143-160.

Göpfert, W. (2007). The Strength of PR and the Weakness of Science Journalism. In M.

W. Bauer & M. Bucchi (Eds.), Journalism, Science and Society: Science

Communication Between News and Public Relations (pp. 215-226). London:

Routledge.

Granado, A. (2011). “Slaves to journals, serfs to the web: The use of the internet in

newsgathering among European science journalists.” Journalism, 12, 794-813.

Habel, M. A., Liddon, N., & Stryker, J. E. (2009). The HPV Vaccine: A Content

Analysis of Online News Stories. Journal of Women’s Health, 18, 401-407.

31

Holsti, O. R. (1969). Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and Humanities. Reading,

Mass.: Addison-Wesley.

Hyde, J. (2006). News Coverage of Genetic Cloning When Science Journalism

Becomes Future-Oriented Speculation. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 30, 229-

250.

Kahle, K. (2012, 23 July). The Higgs Boson: Treated like a Rock Star. CERN Bulletin,

issue 30-31. Retrieved from http://cds.cern.ch/journal/CERNBulletin/2012/31/News

%20Articles/1462248

Kiernan, V. (2014). Source diversity among journals cited in Science Times. Public

Understanding of Science, 0963662514542908.

Kjærgaard, R. S. (2008). Making a Small Country Count: Nanotechnology in Danish

Newspapers from 1996 to 2006. Public Understanding of Science, 19(1), 80-97.

Krieghbaum, H. (1941). American Newspaper Reporting of Science News. Kansas

State College Bulletin, XXV(5), 1-73.

Krippendorff, K. (2013). Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. Third

edition. London: SAGE.

Kulve, H. T. (2006). Evolving Repertoires: Nanotechnology in Daily Newspapers in the

Netherlands. Science as Culture, 15(4), 367-382.

32

Logan, R. A., Zengjun, P., & Wilson. N. F. (2000). Science and Medical Coverage in

the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post – A Six-Year Perspective. Science

Communication, 22(1), 5-26.

Lund, A. B. (2013). Mangfoldighed i dansk dagspresse. Copenhagen: Møller forlag.

Lund, A. B., Willig, I., & Blach-Ørsten, M. (2009). Hvor kommer nyhederne fra? Den

journalistiske fødekæde i Danmark før og nu. Aarhus: Ajour.

Nelkin, D. (1995). Selling Science: How the Press Covers Science and Technology.

New York: W.H. Freeman.

Nielsen, K. H. (2005). Between understanding and appreciation: Current science

communication in Denmark. Journal of Science Communication, 4(4). Retrieved

from http://jcom.sissa.it/archive/04/04/A040402/

Pellechia, M. G. (1997). Trends in Science Coverage: A Content Analysis of Three US

Newspapers. Public Understanding of Science, 6(1), 49-68.

Peters, H. P., Brossard, D., de Cheveigné, S., Dunwoody, S., Kallfass, M., Miller, S., &

Tsuchida, S. (2008). Science-media interface: it's time to reconsider. Science

Communication, 30, 266-276. doi:10.1177/1075547008324809

Potter, W. J., & Levine‐Donnerstein, D. (1999). Rethinking Validity and Reliability in

Content Analysis. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 27(3), 258-284.

33

Riffe, D., Aust, C. F., & Lacy, S. R. (1993). The Effectiveness of Random, Consecutive

Day and Constructed Week Sampling in Newspaper Content Analysis.

Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 70(1), 133–139.

Schäfer, M. S. (2008). From Public Understanding to Public Engagement: An Empirical

Assessment of Changes in Science Coverage. Science Communication.

Schaefer, Mike S. (2012). Taking Stock: A Meta-Analysis of Studies on the Media’s

Coverage of Science. Public Understanding of Science 21 (6): 650–63.

Stephens, L.F. (2005). News Narratives about Nano S&T in Major U.S. and Non-U.S.

Newspapers. Science Communication, 27(2), 175-199.

Stryker, J. E. (2002). Reporting Medical Information: Effects of Press Releases and

Newsworthiness on Medical Journal Articles’ Visibility in the News Media.

Preventive Medicine, 35(5), 519-530.

Suleski, J., & Ibaraki, M. (2010). Scientists Are Talking, but Mostly to Each Other: A

Quantitative Analysis of Research Represented in Mass Media. Public

Understanding of Science, 19(1), 115-125.

Trench, B. (2007). How the Internet Changed Science Journalism. In M. W. Bauer &

M. Bucchi (Eds.), Journalism, Science and Society: Science Communication between

News and Public Relations (pp. 133-142). New York and London: Routledge.

Trench, B. (2009). Science Reporting in the Electronic Embrace of the Internet. In R.

Holliman, E. Whitelegg, E. Scanlon, S. Smidt, & J. Thomas (Eds.), Investigating

34

Science Communication in the Information Age: Implications for Public Engagement

and Popular Media (pp. 166-179). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Uebersax, J. S. (1987). Diversity of Decision-Making Models and the Measurement of

Interrater Agreement. Psychological Bulletin, 101(1), 140-146.

Vestergaard, G. L. (2011). From Journal to Headline: The Accuracy of Climate Science

News in Danish High Quality Newspapers. Journal of Science Communication, 10

(02). Retrieved from http://jcom.sissa.it/archive/10/02/Jcom1002%282011%29A03/

van der Wurff, R., & Lauf, E. (Eds.) (2005). Print and Online Newspapers in Europe: A

Comparative Analysis in 16 Countries. Amsterdam: Transaction Publishers.

van der Wurff, R., Lauf, E., Balcytiene, A., Fortunati, L., Holmberg, S. L., Paulussen,

S., & Salaverria, R. (2008). Online and print newspapers in Europe in 2003.

Evolving towards complementarity. Communications – European Journal of

Communication Research, 33, 403-430.

van Trigt A. M., de Jong-van den Berg, L. T., Haaijer-Ruskamp, F. M., Willems J., &

Tromp T. F. (1994). Journalists and their sources of ideas and information on

medicines. Social Science & Medicine, 38(4), 637-643.

Weitkamp, E. (2003). British newspapers privilege health and medicine topics over

other science news. Public Relations Review, 29(3), 321–333.

Williams, Andy & Sadie Clifford (2009). Mapping the Field: Specialist Science News

Journalism in the UK National Media. Cardiff: Cardiff University School of

35

Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies. Retrieved from

http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/jomec/resources/Mapping_Science_Journalism_Final_Repo

rt_2003-11-09.pdf

Wilson, A. Bonevski, B., Jones, A., & Henry, J. (2001). Media Reporting of Health

Interventions: Signs of Improvement, but Major Problems Persist. PLoS ONE, 4,

e4831.

36