Experts point out that in a media landscape dominated by a news language focused on sensationalism, ratings, and interaction, scientific information often remains limited to attention-grabbing headlines, and they state that the superficial presentation of science focused on attracting attention can lead to a departure from scientific rigor.
Emphasizing that it should be a priority to convey science not only in an ‘understandable’ but also in a ‘correct’ manner, Communications Specialist Dr. Assistant Professor Denizcan Kabaş said, “For scientists to be featured in the media in a qualified way requires great responsibility. This visibility carries the risk of their personal images or popular culture becoming a part of it.”
Dr. Assistant Professor Denizcan Kabaş noted that turning science into a commercial product due to rating concerns poses a danger both in terms of scientific ethics and the public understanding of knowledge.
Dr. Assistant Professor Denizcan Kabaş from Üsküdar University Faculty of Communication evaluated the dynamics of contemporary science communication, drawing attention to the delicate balance between the democratization of knowledge and the commercialization of science.
The Disadvantages of Reducing Scientists to a ‘Pop Star’ Identity…
Dr. Assistant Professor Denizcan Kabaş stated that scientists' presence in the media can be considered one of the effective ways to convey information to the masses, saying, “Because through this visibility, more people can more easily grasp the facts that science presents. However, a fine line must be balanced here between popularizing science and making scientific depth more understandable. In societies where general awareness of science is limited, such popularization movements can introduce scientists to broader audiences, but if their effect is not long-term, they cannot provide lasting transformation. From this perspective, reducing scientists to a ‘pop star’ identity can lead to the instrumentalization of science and the loss of its dynamic for social change.”
Personal Image Should Not Overshadow Science!
Dr. Kabaş stated that scientists becoming more visible in the media can contribute to the popularization of scientific knowledge, but this depends on the media's approach, and continued:
“In a media landscape dominated by a news language focused on sensationalism, ratings, and interaction, scientific information usually remains limited to only attention-grabbing headlines. The superficial presentation of science, focused on attracting attention, can undermine the culture of critical thinking. Moreover, it can distance from scientific rigor. In this regard, it should be a priority to convey science not only in an ‘understandable’ but also in a ‘correct’ manner. Attention should be paid to these situations in the true popularization of scientific knowledge. Furthermore, for scientists to be featured in the media in a qualified way requires great responsibility. This visibility carries the risk of their personal images or popular culture becoming a part of it. Therefore, the academic depth of the scientist, their relation to the subject, ethical values, and the accuracy and simplicity they offer while popularizing science, are decisive for successfully managing this process.”
To Be Popular or to Remain Impartial?
Dr. Assistant Professor Denizcan Kabaş, stating that media visibility has the potential to both strengthen and weaken the academic reputation of scientists, said, “When presented correctly, this visibility contributes to the dissemination of scientific knowledge and the increase of trust in science. The statements made by scientists through the media are highly valuable for emphasizing the importance of science and presenting complex issues in a language that broad audiences can understand. Media visibility also carries risks such as the superficialization or sensationalization of information. From a scientist's perspective, the tension between being popular and remaining impartial can threaten the objectivity of their scientific stance. In this regard, the construction of merely a media-savvy scientist figure will lead to scientific knowledge being shaped through personal perceptions and charisma.”
Advantages and Disadvantages of Entertaining Presentation of Science…
Dr. Assistant Professor Denizcan Kabaş, stating that presenting science in an entertaining way can be an effective method to convey scientific information to broader audiences, said, “Well-designed entertainment-focused narratives can reduce the complexity of scientific topics, but oversimplification or distortion of information for the sake of attention-grabbing headlines can lead to a misunderstanding of science. In such cases, the consequences can become quite damaging. While the effort to popularize science makes it more accessible and understandable, the preservation of scientific accuracy and ethical values is vital. Sensational presentations or information suitable for a fast-consumption culture can both damage the reputation of scientists and diminish public trust in science. This situation can result in the desire for entertainment treating science as a commercial product.”
The Quest for Popularity Can Lead to Information Pollution!
Dr. Assistant Professor Denizcan Kabaş, stating that social media plays an important role in the communication scientists establish with the public, continued:
“Social media provides both a faster dissemination of scientific information and an opportunity to create creative content that makes relatively complex topics understandable. From the audience's perspective, direct access to experts and the ability to see the work and ideas of various scientists on a subject are also important. However, scientists building their personal brands can threaten academic freedom and critical perspectives. The trust relationship created by superficially bearing the definition of a scientist can lead to various problems, as seen in many recent examples. Content that deviates from academic depth can overshadow scientific accuracy, and the pursuit of popularity can lead to information pollution. Considering the algorithmic operation of the social media environment, we can say that it generally circulates more sensational and attention-grabbing content. Therefore, it should also be kept in mind that social media has the potential to gradually change the language and function of science, in addition to improving scientific communication.”
Popularized Scientists Being Associated with Commercial Interests Can Damage Trust
Dr. Assistant Professor Denizcan Kabaş, underlining that the perception of scientists as popular figures has the potential to increase public trust in science, but this situation should not be solely transformed into a pursuit of popularity, said, “In the socialization of knowledge, trust in the message carrier is of vital importance. For this trust relationship to be maintained, scientists must adopt a transparent, impartial, and open-to-criticism stance. Scientists who become popular in the media being associated with political or commercial interests will damage trust and, furthermore, will push the scientific environment into the exact opposite atmosphere.”
Scientists Should Be Provided Support on Effective Communication Techniques
Dr. Kabaş also emphasized that communication specialists should take on the role of a bridge to ensure that information is conveyed to large audiences in an understandable and effective manner, stating, “Communication specialists are important for providing support to scientists on effective communication techniques and encouraging the presentation of scientific information to the media in the correct format. Properly structured messages can strengthen the perception of science in society and enable scientists to play a more effective role in reaching audiences.”
Scientists Should Not Be Drawn Into Controversial Topics for Ratings
Dr. Assistant Professor Denizcan Kabaş, noting that turning science into a commercial product due to rating concerns poses a danger both in terms of scientific ethics and the public understanding of knowledge, stated the following:
“While media produces quickly clickable, easily interactive, and attention-grabbing content, scientists sometimes become part of this system and can sensationalize their findings. However, this situation can damage the fundamental principles of science. Media organizations can draw scientists into controversial topics for ratings, fueling partisanship and polarization. This process may increase the discredit of science in public perception rather than its credibility. To overcome this, scientists and media professionals need to strike a balance. It is important for science to reach broad audiences, but ethical principles and scientific accuracy must not be compromised in this process. Scientists should develop their communication skills and assume an educational role for the public by preserving context in the content they present to the media. The media, on the other hand, should approach with a responsible publishing understanding for society, rather than being rating-focused. This interaction between science and media, when managed carefully, can transform into an instrument of enlightenment for society; otherwise, it harms both science and the public's trust in information.”