Public Trust in Science Journalism: Comparative Insights From Germany, Italy, and Lithuania

Key Takeaways

• Trust in science remains fragmented, not uniformly declining
• German journalists benefit from strong public‑service science desks
• Italian and Lithuanian markets lack dedicated resources, rely on freelancers
• Online click metrics limit long‑form science reporting
• Journalists view themselves as trust brokers, seeking co‑creative formats

Summary

A new study of 87 journalists from Germany, Italy and Lithuania finds that public trust in science is not collapsing but remains fragmented and context‑dependent. German science desks benefit from strong public‑service support, while Italy and Lithuania struggle with limited resources and freelance‑driven coverage. Journalists describe themselves as “knowledge brokers” who must balance factual accuracy with political, social and emotional audience expectations. The research highlights the pressure of online click metrics, which curtails in‑depth reporting and fuels misinformation, and calls for systemic media infrastructure to sustain trust‑building efforts.

Pulse Analysis

The comparative study, part of the EU Horizon Europe IANUS project, sheds light on how national media ecosystems influence the public’s perception of scientific authority. In Germany, well‑funded public broadcasters maintain dedicated science desks, enabling journalists to conduct thorough fact‑checking and long‑form investigations. By contrast, Italy’s fragmented market and Lithuania’s modest post‑communist media landscape rely heavily on freelancers and generalist reporters, limiting the depth and consistency of science coverage. This disparity underscores that trust is not a monolithic trend but a mosaic shaped by institutional support and professional networks.

A recurring theme across the three countries is the dominance of online click‑driven metrics, which dictate editorial priorities and marginalize complex topics such as climate change or vaccine safety. When articles fail to generate sufficient digital engagement, they are deprioritized for both online and print platforms, creating a feedback loop that erodes sustained public familiarity with scientific issues. The resulting information vacuum is quickly filled by partisan or pseudoscientific narratives, amplifying polarization and undermining evidence‑based discourse. Journalists therefore find themselves navigating not only factual accuracy but also the emotional and political lenses through which audiences interpret science.

The authors argue that lasting trust requires systemic interventions: stable public‑service funding, dedicated science desks, investigative grants, fact‑checking units, and continuous professional training. Moreover, journalists are evolving into “trust brokers,” embracing co‑creative formats like interactive podcasts, Q&A sessions, and community‑driven reporting to foster dialogue rather than one‑way transmission. These innovations signal a shift toward participatory science communication, where transparency, humility, and audience engagement become central to rebuilding confidence in scientific institutions. Policymakers and media owners should heed these insights to reinforce the infrastructure that enables rigorous, trustworthy science journalism.