Science Journalism on Controversial Fields: Contextualizing Audience Expectations and (Dis)Approval of the Watchdog Role

Journalism research differentiates between various conceptions of roles and societal functions that journalism is expected to perform. Previous research has mainly examined journalists’ role perceptions, while audience views remain underexplored. However, in the context of science journalism on controversial scientific fields such as climate change or Covid-19, audience insights are particularly relevant given that media coverage may shape public perceptions of science and influence crisis responses. This study combines semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions to investigate what functions audiences expect from science journalism on controversial scientific fields, focusing on context-dependent (dis)approval of the watchdog role. Findings indicate that audiences expect science journalism to fulfill both traditional and science- or crisis-specific functions. Regarding the watchdog role, participants emphasized journalists’ task of uncovering misconduct and scientific norm violations in research underlying policy decisions. However, participants also viewed watchdog journalism as a balancing act as there are many forms of inappropriate critical reporting that might foster distrust in science and media. The findings are discussed regarding their implications for journalism practice and the role of watchdog science journalism in shaping public perceptions of controversial science.