An article published in the Journal of Science Communication describes a “pressure cocktail” which “can result in misrepresentation of science that could lead to harmful health behaviors and public misunderstandings and distrust in science.”
This metaphorical drink has three ingredients that boil down to the societal pressure put on scientists, science communicators and journalists to produce notable and interesting content. Often, content lacking a perceived “real-world” impact are shadowed by articles with flashier headlines, even if both cover the same subject.
However, these flashier headlines typically embellish the truth and result in sensationalism, the act of exaggerating to make something seem grander than its reality. This can result in scientific content being misconstrued or a disappointed reader, both of which have consequences on a journalist's trustworthiness.
“Some media outlets, in an effort to attract attention, subjectively selected or oversimplified the expert’s viewpoint with sensationalized headlines, leading to a loss of the expert’s credibility,” a 2025 study stated.
Poor credibility inherently leads to a feeling of distrust. To exaggerate, oversimplify and sensationalize reporters give audiences valid reasons to distrust intellectuals and experts — and are actively contributing to the rising trend of anti-intellectualism.
Anti-intellectualism is the general distrust of experts and intellectuals. Richard Hofstadter’s 1963 “Anti-intellectualism in American Life” traces the roots of this movement back to as early as 1828. Today, scholars suggest the movement is once again on the rise.
During the pandemic, the news played a vital role in updating and informing U.S. residents concerning the status of the virus. As a result, coverage of the COVID-19 Pandemic produced a wealth of research and study on scientific communication, in part to see if it had an influence on perceptions of the virus.
The Pew Research Center found, In general, trust in scientists and science went down during the pandemic, and distrust grew. Based on this, it can be assumed that the news contributed to a newfound level of distrust that is still lingering today.
A 2014 study attempted to identify the source of sensationalism, specifically in health-related science news.
“Exaggeration in news is strongly associated with exaggeration in press releases,” the study concluded. “Improving the accuracy of academic press releases could represent a key opportunity for reducing misleading health related news.”
Articles conceived through press released information become secondary sources that lack direct connection to the scientist or expert behind the information, a factor that potentially could lead to sensationalism.
To reduce sensationalism, a 2001 study claims there must be a reduction in miscommunication between journalists and scientists. This suggests that the reporter should keep in constant communication with experts, and confirm factual accuracy of all claims either through research or interviews.
Science communicators and journalists have a responsibility to be transparent with audiences. Without transparency, journalists risk losing their credibility and indirectly contribute to the rise of anti-intellectualism.
Alexandra Hopkins is a junior studying journalism at Ohio University. Please note the views expressed in this column do not reflect those of The Post. Want to talk to Alexandra? Email her at ah875121@ohio.edu.
