The Art of Communicating a Public Health Crisis: How Journalism Can Help Rebuild Trust in Science
In the wake of the largest measles outbreak in recent US history, there’s a growing divide between Americans’ who trust in science and those who don’t. The 2026 STAT Summit, held in Boston on October 14-15, provided some suggestions for how journalists can understand and communicate the wider systems and incentives that are shaping this sentiment.
Despite appearances to the contrary, Americans report a higher rate of trust in science than the global average according to the Wellcome Global Monitor report. However, the trust gap in the US is wider than the international average. The report also found that people were more likely to trust science if they felt it benefited them personally. STAT’s analysis of the Wellcome Global Monitor data found that in America the divide of trust falls alongside demographic and economic indicators, suggesting the unequal distribution of the benefits of science is at least partially responsible for the divide.
The conversation on public trust featured in several of the summit’s panels. Here are four takeaways for journalists covering public health.
Where is the divide?
While 52% of Americans report trusting science “a lot,” the gap between those who think science benefits most people is wider than other high income countries. The STAT’s analysis of the global data found only 34% of Americans living in rural areas agreed that science benefits most people compared to 62% of urban residents. A similar gap exists between education levels. Considering that rural areas in this country have limited access to healthcare, this may suggest that people are less likely to trust science if they don’t feel its benefits.The failure of the healthcare system for many Americans has compounded the disconnect. Dr. Katelyn Jetelina, epidemiologist and science communicator argued that “every single person in MAHA grassroots was failed by the systems.” Nicholas Florko, STAT’s trust-in-science reporter, highlighted the growing recognition that these people’s stories need to be encountered with responsibility and compassion. Journalists play a key role in implementing a public health conversation that meets people where they are.
Interrogating systems and incentives
Challenging the assumption that vaccine-hesitant parents are just “selfish” and “dumb,” Dr. Jennifer Reich, sociologist and author of “Calling the Shots, Why Parents Reject Vaccines” highlighted the pressures American parents experience today and how this pressure makes vaccine hesitancy a logical outcome for them. In a cultural context that still sees health as an outcome of morality, Reich highlights how parents are expected to make perfect decisions regarding their child’s health and education “We put pressure [on them]. When they come to the hospital we ask mothers what they did wrong,” said Dr. Reich at the summit. In a separate interview she noted that, “we never ask parents to worry about other people’s children, and from that perspective, rejecting vaccines that don’t feel particularly relevant to you or your children seems actually quite logical”.
A recent Pew Research survey found that almost half of working parents report having difficulties finding childcare they are able to afford and 67% of mothers feel they can’t give enough of themselves at home and work. Responding to that, Reich proposed that “Instead of saying everyone is selfish we should change the conversation so that we can create systems that support everyone.” Communicating scientific content better will not solve the wider cultural anxieties alone. Health care journalists’ work identifying, documenting and denouncing the systemic failures that contribute to mistrust is fundamental to regain support for public health.
Communicating Uncertainty
There is growing recognition that the large extent of vaccine hesitancy during the COVID-19 vaccine rollout was in part due the lack of transparency regarding uncertainty by public health officials. Instead of making clear the limits of the scientific knowledge regarding the limitations and adverse effects of the vaccines, public health policies kept changing without explanation, leaving the public to grow suspicious and lose trust in experts. In news and media the limits of scientific knowledge are often left out of news reports despite ample evidence that disclosure of uncertainty enhances the perceived trustworthiness of the communicator. On this Jetelina said “People trust you more when you say I don’t know.” As journalists report on developing public health crises and treatment developments, interrogating experts and capturing the limitations of their knowledge is fundamental in our reporting.
Finding common ground
Part of the paradigm shift necessary to rebuild public trust is to recognize the common ground there is between movements such as MAHA grassroots and public health advocates. Jetelina differentiates between MAHA leadership, that is actively fighting against scientific institutions, and the grassroots supporters who are asking good-faith questions based on anxieties shared by many Americans. Concerns about clean food, chronic illness, safe schools, and air quality are all areas that public health experts are working to address. “MAHA are very good at organizing and they are very good at storytelling. What they are not good at is evidence” said Jetelina, who challenged the audience to imagine what it might look like when we marry good evidence with storytelling and organizing.
Jetelina argued that science communication during an emergency is an art form. It requires acute awareness of the needs and anxieties of the public as well as transparency in its response. Journalists can be fundamental to the effort to rebuild public trust in science, because their work meets people where they live, contextualizes their stories within wider systems, and holds institutions accountable.
