Holding science to account: A qualitative study of practices and challenges of watchdog science journalism

Amid growing concerns about fraud, misconduct, and related issues, journalists can play an important role in engaging the public with problematic science. Integrating the Hierarchy of Influences model (Shoemaker & Reese, 1996) and Stages of News Production framework (Domingo et al., 2008), this study examines how such “watchdog” science journalism is practised, facilitated, and challenged in the contemporary science and media landscape. Through framework thematic analysis of 21 semi-structured interviews with journalists who have reported on research integrity issues for Canadian and UK media outlets, it illuminates the time- and labour-intensive nature of this form of journalism, which often requires multiple interviews and extensive document research to reach a sufficient threshold of evidence. As a result, the feasibility of potential stories sometimes plays a bigger role in whether they are reported than their public importance, especially in resource-poor newsrooms. Added to this are challenges related to uncompliant sources, unavailable evidence, legal risks, and story saleability in a metrics-driven media landscape. Collectively, the findings underscore the precarity of a form of journalism which has arguably never been more important, but also never more under threat.