This article is based on my MA dissertation, completed under the supervision of Dr. David Secko at Concordia University in Montreal.

Pouria Nazemi

Abstract

The digital age has redefined science journalism, yet the evolution of journalistic models in online environments remains an area of active research. This study examines how YouTube videos on CRISPR Cas-9 reflect and shape contemporary science journalism. Through qualitative content analysis (QCA) of 743 YouTube videos (2014–2019) and an in-depth analysis of 91 high-engagement videos, this study identifies the persistence of traditional journalistic frameworks, the emergence of hybrid models, and the role of audience participation in shaping narratives. The findings suggest that while YouTube fosters new forms of science communication, it remains heavily influenced by conventional journalistic paradigms. These insights contribute to ongoing discussions on the transformation of science journalism in digital spaces and its implications for public engagement with emerging technologies.

Introduction

Science journalism has traditionally been defined by structured storytelling, reliance on expert sources, and a commitment to objectivity (Secko, Amend, & Friday, 2013). The rise of digital media platforms, particularly YouTube, has introduced new variables into this ecosystem. Unlike traditional print or broadcast media, YouTube videos incorporate multimodal storytelling, facilitate direct audience interaction, and blur the lines between professional and citizen journalism (Allan, 2011; Amend, Capurro, & Secko, 2014). Despite these affordances, the extent to which digital platforms foster genuinely novel models of science journalism remains debated. This study investigates how CRISPR Cas-9 coverage on YouTube aligns with or challenges established models of science journalism, offering insights into the evolving nature of science communication.

Methodology

A mixed-method approach was adopted to analyze science journalism models in CRISPR Cas-9 YouTube content. Data was collected through a Python-based search probe and manually verified, yielding a dataset of 743 videos. A subset of 91 videos, selected from three peak publication periods (December 2018, April 2019, December 2019), was analyzed using QCA to identify narrative structures, thematic focus, and journalistic models. Engagement metrics, including view count, likes, and comment interactions, were also examined to assess audience participation.

Findings

Science Journalism Models in the Digital Age

1. Persistence of Traditional Models: Despite YouTube’s interactive potential, 68% of analyzed videos adhered to the science literacy model, emphasizing expert-driven content with minimal audience interactivity (Brossard & Scheufele, 2013). These videos were typically produced by universities, research institutions, or established science communicators, reinforcing traditional top-down knowledge dissemination.
2. Emergence of Hybrid Models: Approximately 21% of videos displayed characteristics of the contextual model of science journalism, incorporating ethical, social, and political dimensions of CRISPR Cas-9 (Secko, Amend, & Friday, 2013). These videos engaged in more nuanced storytelling, presenting diverse perspectives rather than focusing solely on scientific advancements.
3. Audience Participation and the Participatory Model: While 11% of analyzed videos integrated aspects of participatory science journalism, where audience comments influenced content updates and video narratives, true audience co-creation remained limited (Domingo & Heinonen, 2009). Despite high engagement metrics, most audience interactions were passive, centered around likes and views rather than substantive discourse.

Discussion

The findings suggest that while digital platforms offer new opportunities for science communication, they do not necessarily disrupt existing journalistic paradigms. Instead, YouTube primarily extends traditional models into new formats. The persistence of expert-led narratives highlights the enduring authority of institutional sources, while the contextual model’s presence indicates a gradual shift towards more integrated discussions of science in society. However, the participatory model remains underdeveloped, suggesting that user interactivity on YouTube does not yet equate to meaningful audience co-production of scientific knowledge (Bruns, 2008).

Conclusion

This study demonstrates that YouTube’s role in science journalism is one of evolution rather than revolution. While new affordances allow for expanded storytelling techniques and increased audience interaction, fundamental journalistic structures remain intact. Future research should explore how algorithmic curation influences journalistic models and whether participatory journalism can gain a stronger foothold in digital science communication. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for shaping the future of public engagement with science in an increasingly digital landscape.

References

Allan, Stuart. News Culture. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2011.

Amend, Elyse, Paola Capurro, and David Secko. “From Inverted Pyramid to Annotated Narrative: The Challenge of Implementing New Writing Structures in Science Journalism.” Journalism 15, no. 5 (2014): 664–680. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884914529201.

Brossard, Dominique, and Dietram A. Scheufele. “Science, New Media, and the Public.” Science 339, no. 6115 (2013): 40–41. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1232329.

Bruns, Axel. Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage. New York: Peter Lang, 2008.

Domingo, David, and Ari Heinonen. “Weblogs and Journalism: A Typology to Explore the Blurring Boundaries.” Nordicom Review 30, no. 1 (2009): 3–15.

Nazemi, Pouria. Communicating CRISPR Cas-9 Through Online Videos on YouTube. Master’s thesis, Concordia University, 2021.

Secko, David, Elyse Amend, and Tim Friday. “Four Models of Science Journalism: A Synthesis and Practical Assessment.” Journalism Practice 7, no. 1 (2013): 62–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2012.691351.