The use of Internet in newsgathering among European science journalists
111
were confronted with 12 types of organizations/websites they had to classify using
a seven-point credibility scale, from 1 (not credible) to 7 (highly credible). Results
for this question can be seen in table 33.
Std.
N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
Science journals’ websites 96 2 7 5.92 1.083
University websites 96 2 7 5.71 .917
International organizations 96 1 7 5.24 1.254
Big news organizations 95 2 7 4.91 1.082
Government websites 95 1 7 4.24 1.397
General interest portals 94 1 6 3.59 1.273
Industry websites 95 1 6 3.11 1.162
Political organizations 96 1 7 3.04 1.313
Corporate websites 94 1 6 2.98 1.182
Usenet newsgroups 90 1 5 2.82 1.097
Activists’ websites 96 1 7 2.77 1.294
Chats. message boards 92 1 4 1.71 .778
Table 33 - Credibility of news sources on-line
Science journals and university websites are the most credible on-line sources for
European science journalists, followed by international organizations (like the UN
or the EU), big news organizations (like CNN, Associated Press or BBC) and
government websites. These five types of sources got more than 4 points in our
scale of credibility, which means they are in the first half of the list.
Consequences of the use of Internet for science journalism
In the last questions of this survey, respondents were asked to classify several
statements in a seven-point Likert agree-disagree scale, in order to evaluate the
consequences of the use of Internet for science journalism. The statements were
divided in three different groups: consequences for the quality of science
journalism, consequences for the reporting tasks and consequences in the focus of
112
that reporting. Results for the three first statements can be verified in figures 26 to
28.
60
50
40
30
Number
of
cases
20
10
0
V
strongly
disagree
Agree
N
agree
nor
disagree
V
strongly
agree
Disagree
Strongly
agree
Figure 26- ‘The Internet has made my job easier’
40
30
20
Number
of
cases
10
0
Agree
N
agree
nor
disagree
Strongly
disagree
V
strongly
disagree
Disagree
V
strongly
agree
Strongly
agree
Figure 27 - ‘The Internet has improved the quality of my job’
113
30
20
Number
of
cases
10
0
Agree
N
agree
nor
disagree
Strongly
disagree
V
strongly
disagree
Disagree
V
strongly
agree
Strongly
agree
Figure 28 - ‘The Internet has improved science journalism in general’
In what concerns the quality of science journalism, respondents have no doubts
that Internet has made the job of reporting science easier and better. Not so
unanimous were the answers about the consequences of Internet on reporting
practices. Figures 29 to 31 show the results for these questions.
30
20
Number
of
cases
10
0
Agree
N
agree
nor
disagree
Strongly
disagree
V
strongly
disagree
Disagree
V
strongly
agree
Strongly
agree
Figure 29 - ‘The Internet is making science news more diverse’
114
40
30
20
Number
of
cases 10
0
Agree
N
agree
nor
disagree
Strongly
disagree
V
strongly
disagree
Disagree
Strongly
agree
Figure 30 - ‘The Internet is making journalists go out of the newsroom more’
30
20
Number
of
cases 10
0
Agree
N
agree
nor
disagree
Strongly
disagree
V
strongly
disagree
Disagree
V
strongly
agree
Strongly
agree
Figure 31 - ‘The Internet is making science journalism focus on breaking news’
There is a correlation between the GNI per capita and the answers to this last
question: journalists from more developed countries think the Internet is making
science journalism focus more on breaking news, as we can see in table 34
(Pearson R = - 0.205, p = 0.026).
115
Disagree / Strongly disagree /
Very strongly disagree
<22,000
USD
GNI per capita
22,000-28,000
USD
>28,000
USD Total
4 (20) 6 (14.3) 10 (35.7) 20
Neither agree nor disagree 3 (15) 9 (21.4) 6 (21.4) 18
Agree / Strongly agree / Very 13 (65) 27 (64.3) 12 (42.9) 52
strongly agree
Total 20 42 28 90
(percentages in brackets)
Table 34 - ‘The Internet is making science journalism focus on breaking news’ according to
GNI per capita
Some authors have suggested that the Internet might have helped the prevalence
of American science in the media (Holliman 2000). The last two questions of this
survey were aimed at evaluating this assumption by asking directly to European
science journalists what they thought of the issue. Results can be checked in
figures 32 and 33.
30
20
Number
of
cases
10
0
Agree
N
agree
nor
disagree
Strongly
disagree
V
strongly
disagree
Disagree
V
strongly
agree
Strongly
agree
Figure 32 - ‘The Internet is helping to publicize more European science’
116
40
30
20
Number
of
cases
10
0
Agree
N
agree
nor
disagree
Strongly
disagree
V
strongly
disagree
Disagree
V
strongly
agree
Strongly
agree
Figure 33 - ‘The Internet is helping to publicize more American science’
Very different results for very similar questions. A large majority of European
science journalists (71.1 percent) has no doubts that the Internet is helping to
publicize more American science, but splits when the same question is asked
about European science (41.1 percent disagree, strongly disagree or very strongly
disagree; 37.8 percent agree; strongly agree or very strongly agree with the given
sentence). Again it is the GNI per capita of the countries were the journalists
work that makes all the difference, as we can see in table 35 (Pearson R = -0.203,
p = 0.03).
Disagree / Strongly disagree /
Very strongly disagree
<22,000
USD
GNI per capita
22,000-28,000
USD
>28,000
USD Total
2 (10) 2 (4.8) 6 (21.4) 10
Neither agree nor disagree 1(5) 3 (7.1) 7 (25) 11
Agree / Strongly agree / Very 17 (85) 37 (88) 15 (53.6) 69
strongly agree
Total 20 42 28 90
(percentage in brackets)
Table 35 - ‘The Internet is helping to publicize more American science’ according to GNI
per capita
117
Principal component analysis (PCA) is a classical statistical method widely used
in data analysis and compression. In general terms, PCA provides a way to reduce
a complex data set to a lower dimension to reveal the sometimes hidden,
simplified structure that often underlie it (Shlens 2005).
We performed a PCA for items in question 29 of the survey. This analysis shows
three main components: the first is related with how the Internet has improved the
jobs of science journalists and their outcome; the second is related with what we
call “slow science news”; and the third with the dimension of “fast science news”.
From the PCA results, we then built three indexes, which show the mean of the
answers given by respondents to the most correlated items with each of the
components.
When looking for the relations between these components and other variables, we
find that the perception of the importance of Internet for the quality of the science
journalists’ job is clearly related with age and GNI per capita: younger
journalists, as well as journalists working in less developed countries, have a more
positive image of the importance of the Internet in their daily routines.
At the same time, there is a relation (the stronger of this analysis) between “fast
science news” and GNI per capita, as again science journalists from less
developed countries seem to feel more pressure from management to focus on
breaking news.
118
Quality
Components
1 2 3
Quality of job 0.896 0.200 0.010
Easiness of job 0.880 -0.104 0.139
Improvement of science journalism 0.724 0.437 -0.141
Slow science news
Getting out of the newsroom -0.014 0.790 -0.081
Diversity of science news 0.342 0.715 0.026
More European science 0.076 0.618 0.462
Fast science news
More American science
More breaking news
0.082
-0.049
0.127
-0.098
0.820
0.768
Explained variance 27.9 22.3 19.0
Total explained variance: 69.3%
Quality
Slow
news
Fast
news
Mean Mean Mean
Gender Male 5,55 3,71 4,90
Female 6,14 3,89 5,08
p=0,017 p>0,05 p>0,05
Age 25-34 years 6,27 3,89 4,91
35-44 years 5,51 3,42 4,54
45-54 years 5,82 4,00 5,25
55-64 years 5,13 3,76 5,27
p=0,007 p>0,05 p>0,05
Gross National Income GNI <22,000 USD 6,50 4,20 5,40
22,000-28,000 USD 5,45 3,54 5,26
>28,000 USD 5,69 3,81 4,20
p=0,002 p>0,05 p<0,001
Education Finished High School 5,13 3,75 5,25
Some university 6,23 3,70 4,55
A university degree 5,98 4,08 5,17
A Master's degree 5,33 3,57 4,62
A PhD 5,81 3,25 4,96
p>0,05 p>0,05 p>0,05
Total 5,76 3,78 4,95
Scale: 1=very strongly disagree; 7=very strongly agree
Table 36 (a and b) - Internet importance (Principal Component Analysis)
119
5. Results of the interviews
This chapter will present the results of a series of 12 interviews with science
journalists working on staff in national daily newspapers and news agencies in the
European Union. As explained in chapter 3, the interviewees were chosen from a
group of 97 journalists who previously answered an Internet survey with
questions on their characterization, constraints, habits and the use of Web in their
daily routines.
In order to get a sample of interviewees as heterogeneous as possible in what
concerns the use of Internet on a daily basis, the 97 journalists who answered the
survey were separated into three groups: The first with journalists who said they
were using the Internet for less than three hours per day, the second with
journalists who said they were using the Internet from three to four hours per day,
and the third with journalists who said they were using the Internet for more than
four hours per day. From each of these groups, four journalists were randomly
chosen to be interviewed.
The main objective of these interviews was to probe deeper on the journalists’ use
of Internet, in order to understand how they perceive this new technology and how
they relate with it while on their job. Some questions about the frequency of use
were already completed in the last part of the survey and so it seemed wise to
concentrate in other aspects of their contact with the Web.
The first part of the chapter will deal with the perception European science
journalists have of Internet as a tool for their job. The second will enlighten the
consequences Internet has brought to the work of science journalists in European
newsrooms.
120
5.1. The Internet as a tool for science journalists
As we have seen in the previous chapter, European science journalists spend an
average of 3.5 hours per day on the Internet while on their job. Most of this time
is spent on article research, looking for reference material, reading on-line
publications and contacting sources.
All of the interviewed journalists are using the Internet for more than five years –
one of them mentioned eight years –, which means they already have a good
experience of this tool for newsgathering. Even the journalists who said they were
on the Internet for less than 3 hours per day, use e-mail and the Web everyday for
different tasks, and consider it indispensable for their job.
The science journalists interviewed for this project state they are using the Internet
quite often, mainly because it is an easy and very fast source of information.
I use [it] actually everyday. It is essential for my work. One of the
advantages is that it is a quick way of getting to know what is going
on in the scientific world. [Interview 6]
The main advantages are that you can get information, and hopefully
appropriate information, very, very rapidly. It is much more easy and
accessible than some years ago. [Interview 9]
At the same time, science journalists see Internet as a good way to contact sources
who would be very difficult to reach just a few years ago. A simple query on a
search engine can give journalists the names and contacts of specialists in almost
any field, something they couldn’t obtain so easily fifteen years ago.
In the 1980s, for instance, a journalist would have to spend a few hours trying to
find an expert on fireflies, who could comment on an article recently published in
a scientific journal. This search would consume a lot of his time and, every so