Science journalists spend a lot of time explaining work that is still in a position where it can be challenged as part of the scientific process, often to audiences who expect neat conclusions. That tension shapes how reporting actually happens, and it quietly shapes what journalists expect from the scientists they speak to. Journalists tend to expect scientific spokespeople to recognise that distinction, because it shapes whether a piece helps readers understand the work, or merely compresses it into something thinner than it should be. Journalists also expect scientists to be able to talk about uncertainty without trying to smooth it away. Reporting sits alongside that process, not after it, which means conversations with scientists tend to happen while questions are still open rather than once they have been resolved sufficiently to be communicated.

Source: The Guardian January 29, 2026 09:02 UTC