Information media can act as both an amplifier and a dampener to scientific discourse. Social media platforms such as Twitter(X), Instagram, TikTok, and others have all affected the discourse surrounding scientific discoveries. Studies have shown that scientific literacy can help the public be more supportive of important research and can lead to support for evidence-based decision-making (Bowen & Borda, 2009). However, as exemplified by the current situation in the United States, the devaluing of science and research programs can lead to significant policy changes that affect the scientific community and have knock-on effects for the public. Under President Trump, funding has been cut to numerous scientific programs that have a direct effect on human and planetary wellbeing, in areas like health, climate change, and equity, endangering the future of this important research (Glenza, 2025). Understanding how science is affected by information media and how the consumer interprets what media produces about science is key to addressing current issues in the Canadian media system before they negatively affect important research.
As technology has evolved, information dissemination has also changed. As characterized by Howell and Brossard (2021) “new news media” are social media and the recent developments on these platforms have affected how we as people communicate and share our opinions. “Old news media” are traditional news formats, mostly print and broadcasting (Howell & Brossard, 2021). Old news media, such as radio, television, and newspapers, usually deliver authoritative expert interviews and scientific information to the public. The information published has a high degree of credibility and accuracy. However, old news media also have limitations. Traditional media operate on one-way communication (Godwin, 2023). News content produced by journalists or broadcasters is sent out to the public, but the public cannot directly comment or engage in what is being reported (Godwin, 2023). New media types differ from traditional avenues of dissemination by being based on a conversational dynamic. Users can comment on any current political event on social media platforms and can choose their own perspective on a single news event. Diversity, interactivity, and timeliness are some of the advantages offered by new news media. However, the surge of social media has brought a series of problems that cannot be ignored. The rapid nature of digital reporting often leads to a focus on sensational headlines and short-form content (Howell & Brossard, 2021). Social media have and continue to race ahead of both news organizations and official lines of communication, leaving less time for thorough fact-checking. At the same time, due to the timeliness of the dissemination of new news media, some eye-catching false information is likely to be disseminated faster, misleading the public either deliberately or accidentally (Godwin, 2023). Meanwhile, as the information in new news media may not be authoritative and can be mixed with personal subjective comments, false stories conceived and disseminated on digital platforms are often regarded as real news by audiences and widely spread (Rojas Torrijos & Garrote Fuentes, 2025)
While all news media strive to inform the public on science and recent developments, it is imperative to ensure the scientific information is communicated in its entirety. Science gains knowledge through a series of processes and methodologies that often require extensive back and forth interactions. Often, such processes are carried out considering specific variables and within certain assumptions. However, news media often fail to communicate and make known what these processes and conditions are. This process can be time-consuming in a world where both traditional and new formats of dissemination are in a race to be the first to break the news. The goal of educating the public can often be left by the wayside in comparison to obtain as many clicks and as much engagement as possible (Bowen & Borda, 2009). What makes publishing about the scientific process difficult is that news organizations often have to break through the barrier of scientific lingo, terminology, and language in order to convey what the findings of a given research piece are (Steinke, 1995). The scientific process can be difficult for people to understand, but without knowing what that process entails only leaves room for speculation (Slater et al., 2021). What this revolves around is the public’s scientific literacy, and what we as a country can do to improve it.
While scientists can control the first level of dissemination, results can be picked up and interpreted in a variety of ways by audiences. That interpretation is filtered through diverse media. “(Mis)informed about what? What it means to be a science-literate citizen in a digital world” by Howell and Brossard (2021) outlines the current environment of the United States of America’s scientific literacy. While this paper concerns itself with the American post-Covid culture and lack of science education, its findings are broadly appliable for science media around the world. The biggest takeaway from this article is not that scientific literacy will produce the same opinion but that different opinions should be well informed and grounded in relevant supported sciences (Howell & Brossard, 2021). Questioning the status quo of scientific practice is an important part of progress and is not new to the practice of bringing science into policy. For example, the United States and Canada both have histories of practicing eugenics and even if it is now considered a pseudoscience, it was once believed to be an actual science that affected Canadian policy up until the 1970s when the Alberta Eugenics Board was finally dissolved due to lack of support (de Bruin & Robertson, 2019). Science being questioned and challenged by a concerned public and scientific community are crucial parts of scientific culture to improve policy-making in ethical and rigorous ways. Scientific literacy is meant to combat the wild conspiracies produced on various platforms, whether that be via traditional news formats like Fox News supporting claims of “transgender mice,” or conspiracy theories about Covid-19 spread on Facebook (Casiano, 2025).
Both new and old media have two sides: old news media tend to convey authoritative and accurate information, but they are monolithic and less interactive. New media formats are interactive, timely, and diversified, but the content of the information may contain both misinformation and disinformation. Whether it is current affairs or scientific discoveries, the ability to obtain valid and truthful information helps to further the understanding of a given population. Understanding how science is conducted and understanding how we consume it can aid researchers in developing better strategies for presenting their findings to the public. The goal is never to remove the ability to converse but to create an environment where discussion can happen without becoming sensationalized.
References
Bowen, J. P., & Borda, A. (2009). Communicating the public understanding of science: The Royal Society website. International Journal of Technology Management, 46(1/2), 146-164. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.2009.022682
Casiano, L. (2025, March 5). DOGE says seven grants for trans animal testing canceled, audits expanded: “Shady expenditures happening.” Fox News. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/doge-says-seven-grants-trans-animal-testing-canceled-audits-expanded-shady-expenditures-happening
de Bruin, T., & Robertson, G. (2019). Eugenics in Canada. In The Canadian Encyclopedia https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/eugenics
Glenza, J. (2025, February 11). Judge blocks Trump from cutting billions in medical research funding. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/11/judge-blocks-trump-medical-research-cuts
Godwin, N. U. (2023). Traditional vs new media: An examination of news consumption patterns amongst media users. World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 18(3), 1658-1663. https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2023.18.3.0972
Howell, E. L., & Brossard, D. (2021). (Mis)informed about what? What it means to be a science-literate citizen in a digital world. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(15), e1912436117. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1912436117
Rojas Torrijos, J. L., & Garrote Fuentes, Á. (2025). The factuality of news on Twitter according to digital qualified audiences: Expectations, perceptions, and divergences with journalism considerations. Journalism and Media, 6(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.3390/journalmedia6010003
Slater, M. H., Scholfield, E. R., & Moore, J. C. (2021). Reporting on science as an ongoing process (or not). Frontiers in Communication, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2020.535474
Steinke, J. (1995). Reaching readers: Assessing readers’ impressions of science news. Science Communication, 16(4), 432-453. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547095016004004
Authors: Sumner Murray, Xizhuo Wang, and Mike Cudjoe
This blog post is part of a series of posts authored by students in the graduate course “Information in Public Policy and Decision Making” offered at Dalhousie University.
Tags: Information Use & Influence; News; Science Communication; Student Submission
