Conflicts of Interest Between Systemic and Corruptive: A Conceptual Compass for Watchdog Science Journalists

Cheyenne Moon Peters, Tobias Kreutzer and Holger Wormer
Additional contact information
Cheyenne Moon Peters: Department of Science Journalism, TU Dortmund University, Germany
Tobias Kreutzer: Department of Science Journalism, TU Dortmund University, Germany
Holger Wormer: Department of Science Journalism, TU Dortmund University, Germany

Media and Communication, 2026, vol. 14

Abstract: Watchdog science journalism is essential to scrutinise the structural and financial conditions of scientific research. As a crucial part of this system, experts play a pivotal role in shaping knowledge, guiding policy, and influencing societal decisions. Their credibility is embedded in a complex web of relationships that brings about different conflicts of interest (COIs). Yet, journalists’ ability to uncover entanglements and ensure accountability is limited by often incomplete disclosure and conceptual vagueness of what exactly constitutes a COI. Using (bio-)medical research as an example, we develop a multidimensional typology of COIs, based on an extensive review of academic literature and disclosure frameworks in science, practice, and policy-making. To our knowledge, this is the most comprehensive mapping of structural, social, and material factors in a single overview to date. While not all these interdependencies are inherently problematic for a functioning research system, they still require journalists to navigate them and carefully evaluate their significance. To facilitate this, the framework also serves as both a matrix and a corrective for potential AI-based systems detecting COIs. Even though transparency and critique are central to watchdog science journalism, journalists should also be careful not to undermine public trust in science generally. Conflicts have to be evaluated carefully but without portraying science funding as inherently corrupt—thus feeding narratives of science-related populism. By foregrounding the systemic nature of COIs, this perspective supports reflection on professional norms, strategies, and principled decision-making in investigative reporting—also regarding journalism’s own entanglements with individual and third-party interests.

Keywords: conflicts of interest; expert credibility; funding transparency; science journalism; watchdog journalism (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2026
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.cogitatiopress.com/mediaandcommunication/article/view/12299 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:cog:meanco:v14:y:2026:a:12299

DOI: 10.17645/mac.12299

Access Statistics for this article

Media and Communication is currently edited by Raquel Silva

More articles in Media and Communication from Cogitatio Press
Bibliographic data for series maintained by António Vieira () and IT Department ().