The number of specialist science journalists in Australia has dropped from around 35 to less than five over the period 2005-2017.
Popular programming that focuses on science tends to not actually be all that popular. Bringing in new audiences who aren't already up to speed on science topics is a challenge.
From mistrust in experts to fake news, it has never been more important for scientists to talk directly to the public.
In part three of our series on reporting science, we look at what's news, different types of science stories and red flags to watch out for.
Health reporting requires asking the right questions and doing quality research. But specialist skills are also handy, especially when it comes to knowing the language and processes of science.
Quirks of human psychology can pose problems for science communicators trying to cover controversial topics. Recognizing what cognitive science knows about how we deal with new information could help.
Now that we're in a post-truth world, a timely report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine highlights evidence for what works and what doesn't when talking about science.
Changes to the ABC's science show Catalyst follow recent criticism of some of its journalism. But will the new format still give a voice to Australian science, or will some issues lose out?
The ABC failed its own accuracy test when it broadcast claims of health risks associated with wireless devices such as mobile phones.
The public loses when their only choices are inaccessible, impenetrable journal articles or overhyped click-bait about science. Scientists themselves need to step up and help bridge the divide.
A recent closed meeting about building synthetic genomes raised suspicions about just what scientists were planning, away from the public eye.
Are there sex differences in the human brain? The answer is more nuanced than yes or no.
Sometimes big research news bypasses the usual scientific publishing process. Here's why that's not good for scientists or the public.
The media prefers positive stories to the traditional doom and gloom of climate coverage.
Nobel Prize-winning science is almost by definition arcane and complex. While these esoteric fields have their moment in the spotlight, does it matter if the rest of us understand?
It's a problem when much of what winds up in scientific journals isn't replicable, for various reasons. The research community is taking baby steps toward addressing the "reproducibility crisis."
What's behind a plant scientist's research getting reported in over 4,000 media outlets? Here's her post-game analysis.
Making science 'sexy' leads us to keep looking in the wrong place for the things science could do for us.
Science has a reputation for vigorous hypothesis-testing in the search for truth. But when errors make it into scientific journals, the hallowed self-correction process seldom lives up to the ideal.
Most science communication appeals to those who already love science. It's harder, but important, to reach out to the disengaged too.