Reporting on creationism was one of the hottest debates during the WCSJ in London. Science journalists from all around the world listened to the views of James Randerson, environment website editor at the Guardian newspaper and Michael Reiss, academic of science education and a priest in the Church of England. 

The main question of the session “Balance not needed? Science journalism and the reporting of creationism” was if it was true that science journalists give more space or weight to the scientific view when reporting about creationism. 

One of the highlights was the dynamic participation of the audience of journalists. Lots of questions and passionate answers were made during the event. For example, a reporter said that science journalists have a duty to promote the scientific method. And other journalists warned that it is crucial to always keep asking questions.

Michael Reiss, who in 2008 had to resign his position at the Royal Society of the UK because he had said that creationism could be treated in science classes, said that science journalists manage to make it clear that within a scientific community creationism is rejected. 

But Reiss, who works at the Institute of Education at the University of London, said that it is important to show respect to people who think different about the origin of life. “What I would like is that people feel comfortable without thinking that their views are denigrated because they accept the scriptures literally,” he told me after the session ended.

Christine McGourty, who chaired the session, is a radio and television science correspondent of the BBC. She pointed out that science journalists write their stories based on facts, evidence and the scientific method. So as a science journalist, it is right to represent the view that has more evidence behind it more strongly.

“There are some similarities between science and journalism. Both try to get to the facts. So I would say that the consensus is that creationism is not something that we need to represent very strongly as science journalists until creationists come to us with a lot of facts and evidence, which we will be very happy to report then,” told me McGourty.

James Randerson of The Guardian agreed with McGourty. He said although in journalism it is important to report with balance and show both sides equally, there are some issues in which balance doesn´t work, like when reporting about creationism. 

He said that creationism arguments are ‘simply scientifically wrong’. So it is not right that a science journalist present them as an assumed point of view, with the same weight of a scientific view in a controversy.

Randerson said that it is really important to keep questioning every detail of a story. That it is part of science journalist´s job: to be a ‘true watchdog’.

Laura García Oviedo