Abstract:  Contemporary science communication increasingly unfolds within hybrid media ecosystems where scientists, institutional communicators, journalists, and audiences interact under rapidly changing conditions. In these ecosystems, universities and other research organisations have become highly visible communicative actors, supported by growing investments in strategic science communication. At the same time, science journalism faces economic precarity, shrinking newsroom capacity, and growing reliance on institutional sources. These developments have fuelled long-standing debates about hype, churnalism, and the erosion of journalism’s watchdog function, often framed as ethical or professional failings. However, these tensions between institutional science communicators and science journalists can also be seen as the structural consequences of contemporary science communication rather than as interpersonal conflicts or normative shortcomings. We conceptualise this relationship through two analytical lenses. A high-tension perspective foregrounds risks to journalistic independence, critical scrutiny, the watchdog role, and public trust under conditions of media asymmetry and the expansion of institutional authority over the public communication of science. A low-tension perspective highlights functional interdependence, role complementarity, and the ways institutional communication can enable science journalism in constrained media environments. Rather than treating these perspectives as competing accounts, we use them to illuminate different normative stakes within the same ecosystem. We thus propose a framework for constructive interdependence that acknowledges blurred boundaries and role overlap while actively protecting the integrity of independent scrutiny, and argue that safeguarding journalism’s watchdog role should be understood as a shared responsibility across communicators, institutions, and intermediaries. While we wrote this piece primarily for science communication scholars, we hope that the proposed framework offers science journalists, institutional science communicators, and research funders four concrete principles for protecting independent scrutiny as science communication ecosystems continue to change.

Keywords:  churnalism; institutional science communication; journalism; science communication; science journalism; science PR; professional roles

Published:   3 September 2026

Issue:   Vol 14 (2026): Journalism as a Science Watchdog: Theories, Practices, and Implications (In Progress)