🐱 Trolling Is Taking a Toll on Science Journalism

CatParty


  • Like journalists who cover other polarising beats, science journalists say they are being targeted with digital provocations and hate and report their newsrooms are doing little to protect them.
  • One reporter said in an interview that she has become less inclined to cover topics that she feels are likely to draw the ire of online trolls: “To be very honest, the harassment works to a degree.”
  • Journalists are particularly exposed on social media, where they may not have the formal backing of their news organisation, and could be subjected to pile-on harassment.
  • There are insufficient resources to assist journalists with legal and security issues, especially for freelancers, reporters working remotely and those working for organisations with limited resources.

For the past several years, we’ve watched with rising concern as journalists in the United States and abroad have been increasingly subjected to online harassment. As journalism professors specialising in science reporting and violence against the press at George Washington University, we have researched, observed, and written about the rising trend in anti-press attacks through email, instant messages, social media, and other digital channels. Sadly, online attacks and threats have become the new normal in many newsrooms, with the result being that journalists are subject to a form of mob censorship.

Late last year, we began conducting a series of in-depth interviews – 10 in total – to learn specifically how online harassment is affecting journalists who cover science. We spoke with science journalists and editors, asking them about the types of digital attacks they have received, as well as the content of those attacks, among other questions. Because these interviews were done as part of a research study, we’ve kept the names confidential in accordance with rules governing research with human subjects.

In aggregate, the story they told was disheartening: Like journalists who cover politics and other polarising beats, science journalists say they are being targeted with digital provocations and hate, and report their newsrooms are doing little, if anything, to protect them.

We spoke with reporters who said they repeatedly received harassing phone calls from readers. In some cases, scary, accusatory messages would arrive by the hundreds on Twitter, Instagram and by email. Women appeared to bear the brunt of these attacks.

What’s especially discouraging is that science journalists can be subjected to messages that show little, if any, regard for facts. Journalists we spoke to said they had been targeted by people who deny the existence of COVID-19 or climate change, or who otherwise uphold anti-science views or believe in conspiracies. One person we spoke with described being messaged in an accusatory tone, “like, I’m just pushing the, the liberal narrative. And that I’m part of the conspiracy about climate change.”

These barrages of digital harassment have toxic consequences. The journalists we’ve talked to say it has made them feel unsafe. For some science journalists, it has contributed to a sense of burnout that may make them consider leaving the profession altogether – or moving to other beats. And for those who stay, it can alter the way they cover the beat.

“To be very honest, the harassment works to a degree,” said one reporter, who added that she has become less inclined to cover topics that she feels are likely to draw the ire of online trolls. “To the degree where it silences me on Twitter and limits the number of stories I want to write on these topics – it works.”

Journalists are particularly exposed on social media, where they may not have the formal backing of their news organisation, and could be subjected to pile-on harassment. Social media has become a key way that journalists cultivate their professional credentials and reputation, and that reputation can suffer an undeserved hit if someone hurls baseless accusations, tries to turn scientific consensus into false controversies, or disparages a journalist because of their gender, ethnicity, religion, race, or other aspect of social identity.

What is being done about this disturbing online harassment of science journalists? Not enough.

The reporters we interviewed say that most employers are woefully unprepared. News outlets might respond to harassment with knee-jerk reactions, like disabling comments on stories or taking down the emails of reporters from their website, but overall, their support remains limited, say the journalists we talked with. “I think a lot of journalistic outlets right now don’t know how to handle this sort of level of harassment,” said one person we interviewed.

Some newsrooms offer general digital safety training, but those may address topics – like how to avoid scams and how to protect personal identity – that aren’t directly geared toward confronting online abuses and attacks.

As a result, reporters can be left to wrestle with the consequences of online harassment by themselves. While there are some resources to assist journalists with legal and security issues, they are not enough. This is especially true for freelancers, reporters who work remotely and journalists who work for organisations with limited resources. Freelancers and journalists who work remotely, in particular, lack physical and institutional spaces like newsrooms where they can discuss and come up with ways to address instances of online harassment. Gig journalism, as it were, has deepened many reporters’ sense of disconnection and aloneness.

Even when these journalists are lucky enough to get limited counsel and support, it can come down to them to make excruciatingly difficult choices about how to respond: Dial back social media presence? Avoid science stories that will be sucked into the vortex of ideological battles? Refrain from quoting scientific institutions and experts at the center of current cultural wars?


It would be misguided to treat these questions as a matter of individual choices made by science reporters. This is a collective problem that requires collective solutions, especially given the current climate of polarisation around science issues. As heated debates over masking, vaccines, and lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic have demonstrated, science does not occupy a pristine space above politics; rather, it is often drawn into the mucky battlefields of cultural wars.

It is up to news organisations to own the problem of online harassment in science journalism. For starters, they need to recognise the scope of the problem and its consequences, listen to reporters’ concerns, and document attacks. It will also be important for them to collaborate with social media platforms to discuss ways to protect journalists, and to develop and fund support networks that can assist journalists who are dealing with harassment.

This problem affects all of us. The public’s right to know suffers when reporters avoid covering scientific topics out of fear. And science journalists bear a heavy burden when they are subjected to a barrage of insults and hate simply for doing their job.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IAmNotAlpharius
I recall a long time ago, wasn't the progressive stack originally a trolling tactic to make tumblr users feel guilt over admonishing a troll? The fact that its evolved into a concept whole heartedly adopted by the "social sciences" is hilarious.
 
I remember when journalists got shot at and had mortars going off next to them and they didn't whine about it. Someone disagrees with these pansy asses and they cry and quit.

scientific consensus

This isn't a thing (at least not how they make it out to be) and they need to to be called out for it. Outside of things like gravity existing, Earth being a spheroid, and that the humanities suck, scientists don't all agree on shit. What they really mean by scientific consensus is ideological consensus.
 
Last edited:
Sadly, online attacks and threats have become the new normal in many newsrooms, with the result being that journalists are subject to a form of mob censorship.
Bullshit. If journos were subject to anything like that, we'd be dragging them out of their offices and lighting them on fire for trying to resurrect GamerGate.
 
Whining about trolling is only going to make the trolls bolder. Just ignore it and it will eventually stop.
This.

The news was better when it was primarily fact dissemination, all other biases and problems aside.

These days, it's the worst I've ever seen it in my lifetime because not only does it still have the same biases and problems, but, it's decided to primarily be a shaper of public opinion and the personal pitchmen of the elite, whose job it is to make us toe the government line, purely for the betterment of all *snicker*. And thats' when they aren't mistaking the purpose of being the media as one of self-promotion for self-promotion's sake, as if the media is their personal Facebook page or something, where they have not only the right to opinions, but, a right to a captive fawning audience and should never suffer a negative comment they can't just delete.

It's why they engage in the endless and unwinnable quagmire that is the War on Trolls.

They can't just win factual arguments, they have to win all the emotional ones too, in fact, those now take priority.

And modern "journalists" raised in a hopelessly coddled atmosphere of trophies-for-everyone and feels-over-reals, and who are terminally online in heavily-policed social media communities where any group dissonance is rapidly quashed, they are unequipped with the cognitive tools to understand the dichotomy of sincere opinion made in support of the argument and troll opinion made just to tick you off.

You can't win the internet, you can only turn it against you.

You can't beat trolls, if you engage them, you have already lost.

Unfortunately, the modern Journo not only has defective IFF that can't tell the difference between a Troll and an unconvinced opponent, but also has a monstrous ego that won't let them take an "L" and no practical skills to actually win arguments aside from whining for someone to pull the other person's plug.

The mental image I consistently get when journos complain about their lot is of a person jumping into a river and trying to beat back the current with their hands, and being first shocked, then dismayed, and then finally in tears that it won't do what they want.
 
Last edited:
This.

The news was better when it was primarily fact dissemination, all other biases and problems aside.

These days, it's the worst I've ever seen it in my lifetime because not only does it still have the same biases and problems, but, it's decided to primarily be a shaper of public opinion to make us all toe the government line for the betterment of all *snicker*.

It's why they engage in the endless and unwinnable quagmire that is the War on Trolls.

They can't just win factual arguments, they have to win all the emotional ones too, in fact, those now take priority.

And modern "journalists" raised in a hopelessly coddled atmosphere of trophies-for-everyone and feels-over-reals are unequipped with the cognitive tools to understand the disagreement dichotomy of actual opinion/troll, much less pick a fight with the trolls, mistaking them as being sincere, and win.

There have been critiques on the media since forever that mirror the sentiments of today, the time period of TV mass media and it's image of trustworthy authority is an anomaly in human history. By having such high distrust of the media, we are return to the norm.
 
Speaking as a man of science, I have more vitriol for scientific journalism than your average punter.

I have to listen to these hacks and agenda-driven propagandist tools bend fundamental, irrevocable truths - increasingly shamelessly - and then watch them stand there trying to redefine the concept of a ‘vaccination’; persuade us that men without full female reproductive organs can get pregnant & maintain full gestation, and predicting another date in the seemingly endlessly postponement of fuel depletion/climate disaster.

The big swing for me came with the Foot and Mouth outbreak debacle in the UK during the 2000s, which saw scores of livestock destroyed thanks to dreadfully inaccurate scientific information - journalism driven, natch. Turns out it was another grossly exaggerated fatality modelling from one Neil Ferguson; the same arch-cunt who predicted catastrophic levels of COVID-19 deaths which were of course out by orders of fucking magnitude. Since then, whenever I’ve been skeptical about ‘the science’ in any major event, I have without fail been proven correct.
 
I remember when journalists got shot at and had mortars going off next to them and they didn't whine about it. Someone disagrees with these pansy asses and they cry and quit.



This isn't a thing (at least not how they make it out to be) and they need to to be called out for it. Outside of things like gravity existing, Earth being a spheroid, and that the humanities suck, scientists don't all agree on shit. What they really mean by scientific consensus is ideological consensus.
Journoslime today couldn't carry Robert Sherrod's dirty underwear
 
So let me get this straight, you're intimidated by people who let's be honest probably don't know what the fuck they're talking about? These trolls are just repeating the talking points from some other douche on the internet who may or may not be educated in the subject argued.

Did you fancypants Science Journalists never hear of Galileo? You know the guy who said the Earth revolves around the sun? That was so controversial that the Church "trolled" him and they knew how to fucking troll. For two decades they fucked with him and eventually ruined his career via trial, they banned his books and stopped him from teaching. They then made him live the last 9 years of his life in House Arrest.

So are we saying that people are so weak today that they can't deal with mean randos on Twitter? When there have been men who will fight bitterly for the truth? Or perhaps the science "news" is such fradulent shit that deep down you're scared of facing ridicule for promoting garbage?

I know that I would be highly embarrassed if I masqueraded as a journalist and helped legitimize scams like Theranos or Elon Musk's stupid Hyperloop. Which they've done.
 
Last edited:
Speaking as a man of science, I have more vitriol for scientific journalism than your average punter.

I have to listen to these hacks and agenda-driven propagandist tools bend fundamental, irrevocable truths - increasingly shamelessly - and then watch them stand there trying to redefine the concept of a ‘vaccination’; persuade us that men without full female reproductive organs can get pregnant & maintain full gestation, and predicting another date in the seemingly endlessly postponement of fuel depletion/climate disaster.

The big swing for me came with the Foot and Mouth outbreak debacle in the UK during the 2000s, which saw scores of livestock destroyed thanks to dreadfully inaccurate scientific information - journalism driven, natch. Turns out it was another grossly exaggerated fatality modelling from one Neil Ferguson; the same arch-cunt who predicted catastrophic levels of COVID-19 deaths which were of course out by orders of fucking magnitude. Since then, whenever I’ve been skeptical about ‘the science’ in any major event, I have without fail been proven correct.
Neil Ferguson was also behind the Swine flu panic and the resultant vaccine, Pandemrix, that gave children and NHS nurses an autoimmune form of narcolepsy and cataplexy. They were assured that the vaccine was safe. He should have been hung in 2011, definitely should have been hung in 2021.
 
There have been critiques on the media since forever that mirror the sentiments of today, the time period of TV mass media and it's image of trustworthy authority is an anomaly in human history. By having such high distrust of the media, we are return to the norm.
The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers.- Thomas Jefferson

“The lowest depth to which people can sink before God is defined by the word “Journalist”. If I were a father and had a daughter who was seduced, I should not despair over her; I would hope for her salvation. But if I had a son who became a journalist and continued to be one for five years, I would give him up" - Kirkregaard

And these two quotes are just off the top of my head any thinker of note since 1650 or so has expressed similiar views on the press.
 
Back