Democracy relies on the idea that public opinion shapes and limits what policymakers do. But this connection is especially shaky when it comes to foreign and security policy since voters don’t have easy or direct access to information about leaders’ decisions in these areas. That’s why the media plays a key role-not just informing people but also passing public views along to those in power. Still, the media isn’t just a simple messenger sending facts out or opinions up. Reporters decide what stories get told and how, which shapes how both the public and policy insiders understand international events (Holsti Reference Holsti2004; Mc Combs and Shaw Reference Mc Combs and Shaw1972). This matters a lot in international affairs because most people-including many experts, IR scholars, and policymakers outside top government levels-don’t get firsthand info about what’s happening abroad. Even officials who know more than journalists often can’t fully control what makes the news. So sometimes journalists end up “making” the news instead of just reporting it (Merkley Reference Merkley2020).
Researchers have long studied how public opinion, media coverage, and elite policymakers interact. More recently, they’ve realized that since media acts both as a conveyor of information and as an independent actor, it’s a great way to get academic ideas out to practitioners and the general public. Over the past 15 years, foundations, universities, and scholars have launched many projects aimed at connecting IR academics with journalists directly while reshaping research so it fits better into mass media formats. For instance, the Carnegie Corporation of New York supported Bridging the Gap (Bt G), an initiative encouraging academic voices in public debates on international issues. Bt G offers workshops teaching IR scholars how to write op-eds, blog posts, policy briefs-and generally work with reporters-to make their research more accessible (Carnegie 2023).
There’s growing proof that academics across fields are getting their ideas into press outlets more often-and that’s promising for shaping public attitudes as well as elite views (Lynch Reference Lynch2016). While many point out declining trust in experts overall (Nichols Reference Nichols2017), journalists still regularly seek out expert opinions for their stories. Albӕk, Christiansen, and Togeby (Reference Albӕk, Christiansen and Togeby2003) argue this trend of using academic sources has grown sharply over recent decades due to changes in society, journalism itself, and academia. Camille Limoges put it well when quoted by Boyce: “We believe less and less in experts … (but) we use them more and more.”
These expert quotes can really matter though: studies from IR fields like Guisinger & Saunders (Reference Guisinger and Saunders2017) or Maliniak et al. (Reference Maliniak et al., 2024) plus climate change research show that expert messages help raise awareness about scientific facts among the public while shaping what policies they prefer (Bolsen & Druckman Reference Bolsen & Druckman2015; Maliniak et al., 2020; Malka et al., 2009; van der Linden Reference Van der Linden2015). When experts strongly agree on something-that consensus really influences how people think about issues (Kerr & van der Linden Reference Kerr & van der Linden2021; van der Linden Reference Van der Linden2015).
Because of all this influence potential through media exposure, IR professors have good reason to want their work seen by wider audiences-but we don’t know much about when journalists actually help with this process. To dig into this question back in 2019 we surveyed reporters who cover global affairs and U. S foreign policy about their thoughts on IR experts-their role in reporting-and how often they turn to scholarly work during their reporting process. We asked if there are hurdles stopping them from using academic research fully; whether social media matters for journalist-scholar interaction; how they compare IR experts’ influence against other disciplines’; plus we ran an experiment testing if reporters report differently depending on whether experts mostly agree or disagree.
This article has two main goals: first is to give real data-based insight into how foreign policy journalists engage with IR academics-a topic surprisingly unexplored by political scientists trying to connect theory with practice. Our survey is one-of-a-kind in showing exactly how these reporters do their jobs regarding academic knowledge-how much impact scholarly work actually has-and if common strategies used by academics today truly boost reach or influence.
Second is testing claims from existing studies around expertise & journalism: Are journalists really dependent on experts? Do they prefer social science sources? And do they honestly represent expert agreement-or fudge things towards ‘balance’?
What we found supports those claims quite well.
First off: foreign policy reporters regularly seek out IR scholars for quotes or background info-the media clearly acts as a key channel carrying academic insights forward.
Also confirming prior literature is that these reporters lean heavily towards social science specialists over other types.
But interestingly enough we didn’t find evidence backing up some assumptions-for example that academics themselves push stories onto media leading journalists to cite them mainly because researchers promote their own work.
Lastly though there’s bad news too-just like journalism overall tends toward “false balance,” foreign policy press also downplays expert consensus while giving outsized attention to dissenters even when most scholars back a particular view strongly.
The rest of this piece breaks down into four parts: First we’ll skim existing studies exploring what role mass media play concerning expertise usage.
Then we’ll detail our survey approach including who answered it.
Next we’ll share what we learned through data analysis.
Finally we’ll wrap up discussing why our findings matter-both for debates around expert knowledge’s place in foreign affairs reporting-and efforts by IR academics wanting stronger connections between scholarship & policymaking.
Experts Meet Media
In democracies especially, the press helps keep leaders tuned into citizens’ concerns while equipping voters with info needed for accountability. But political scientists agree-it isn’t just passively reflecting facts but actively shaping opinion based on choices about story prominence or framing(e. g., Entmann Reference Entman2007; Mc Combs & Shaw Reference Mc Combs & Shaw1972).
No surprise then that IR researchers target journalists eager to influence U. S foreign policy narratives. Media outlets act as conduits spreading academic arguments widely, and influencing both ordinary folks’ perceptions AND decision-makers alike. Yet despite lots written about media’s part shaping U. S diplomacy(see Baum&Potter Review), little focus exists within political science/IR examining scholar-journalist dynamics nor exactly HOW expert voices impact coverage. Footnote 1 Meanwhile communication studies highlight two big questions:The extent reporters rely on experts/expertise&media portrayal of consensus among said experts.
Most agree journalist citations of specialists skyrocketed over last half-century. Examples include TV network news increasing use threefold between late ’70s-’80s, and campaign season coverage featuring seven times higher citations than previous elections(Chan1998). Danish study finds same “explosive growth” during ’90s although slows later(Albӕk et al.). Despite growing skepticism towards authority(Nichols17), presence of academy voices continues rising notably(Niemi&Pitkänen16, Barnhurst03, Bauer&Gregory07).
Academic researchers specifically appear increasingly often too. Between mid-’80s TV programs featured mostly doctors, lawsyers, and academicians over practitioners. More recently researchers dominate election campaign articles far above politicians/commentators/think-tank reps combined(Albӕk11).
Why such jump? Probably partly due to rise among scholars aiming beyond ivory towers(Lynch16). Also broader forces push universities/professors toward relevance demonstration(Albӕk03). Two added reasons stand out:a surge toward specialized technical knowledge requiring translation, anda professionalizing press focused on objectivity. With rise TV reporting+skepticism around official statements, journalists shifted away from basic event description toward deeper explanatory accounts. Also called “social science journalism”(Hess81), this means relying heavily on external expertise. Citing authorities lets reporters look balanced accurate credible protecting against criticism(Fleerackers23, Carlson20).
Social scientists lead citation rates compared others. Across subjects, social sciences are cited far more relative university personnel numbers(Jonker&Vanlee23). Even covering inherently political topics, social scientists aren’t necessarily all-experts but remain go-to figures anyway(Albӕk11).
Two main reasons explain why social scientists dominate journalist sourcing. Firstly, journalism training has strong roots inside social sciences(Barnhurst&Mutz97). Secondly, many stories center around politics/policy rather than pure science meaning social scientist commentary fits best(Reinemann&Wike03 cited Hopmann10). Thus remarks shift focus from pure research results towards political analysis(Albӕk03, Wien14).
How those portrayals happen matters greatly. Page et al.(87) showed expert cues shape opinion. This holds true through latest studies(Maliniak24, J Johnston16, Lewandowsky12, Vander Linden15).
Problematic is widespread tendency where Media misrepresents levelofexpert agreement favoring controversyinstead. False balanceappearswhenjournalistshighlightminoritycriticsasiftheyequalmajorityconsensus(Long15, Boykoff07, Boykoff04, Koehler16).
Causesinclude commercial pressuresto chase drama/audiencepreferencesfor”both sides”(Patterson93, Bennett07, Iyengar91, Merkley20), and journalistic commitmenttoobjectivity requiring “balanced”presentation evenwhereexpertsunite(Schudson01, Fleerackers23, Durham98, Munoz Torres12. Conrad99 notes quoting dissentersoftenadds cautionary perspective notcontroversy.).
Falsebalanceseverelydistortspublicviewscreatingconfusionaboutscientificfactslikeclimatechange(Corbett04)orvaccines(Dixon13)
Thispaperasks:
1. Doforeignpolicyreportersrelyon IRscholarsandscholarship? Howmuchandwhydotheyciteexperts?
2. Dojournalistsfavor Social Scienceoverotherfields?
3. Dojournalistsaccuratelyrepresentexpertagreementorseekbalanceinstead?
Next, weexplainoursurveymethodology.
Aboutthe Survey
The Teaching Researchand International Policy(TRIP)Projectat William& Maryranour Journalist Surveyfrom Aprilto June2019(Entringeretal. Reference Entringer, García Blanes, Gillooly, etc.,2025). Weused Qualtricsforhosting. Thefollowingdescribesrespondentsampling, response, data, timeframe, etc.
Wecollectedforeignpolicyjournalistcontactsusingthreesources. Pew Reportlistedtopnewsoutletsincluding New York Times, WSt Journaletc. Diddigital, radiopodcasts, broadcastcablenetworks. Second, included Chicago Council Foreign Relationssurveyjournalists. Then Leadership Libraryhelpedfindmorewith”internationalaffairs”,”defense”. Duplicateswereremoved. Contactinfofoundvia Linked In, personalwebsites, etc.
Thisgaveus1059contacts. Weemailedthemwithendorsementby David Sangerand Eric Schmitt. Noincentives. Participantswere183(response17%). Samplematchedlargerpopulation(age/gender/education. Table1showsdetails.)
Table1Demographiccharacteristicsofrespondents
Results
Ourresultshave twosections: first, onhowjournosuse IRexpertsandresearch. Second, wecheckiftheyfairlyshowexpertagreementordominate”dissent”.
Useof IRExpertsin Media
Theoryandevidenceagreejournalistsexpertuseishigh. Andnowwedrilleddownbyaskinghowoftenatwhichtimeswhyforeignpolicyreportersconsultacademics. Althoughwecan’ttrackchangeovertimeorncomparefield-by-fieldbasedonsingledata, wecandrawinitialconclusionsaboutusageandreasoning, somecomparedtosocialsciencesvsothers.
Overallengagement:
Wefoundhighinteractionbetweenforeignpolicyreportersand IRscholarsconfirminggeneralclaims. Furthermore, favoringsocialscienceexpertsisclear. Notably, wefoundtheydon’tciteacademicsmainlybecauseacademicspushthestoriesthemselves.
Citation Frequency:
Ahuge93%saytheyusetheiresearchfewtimesayearormore. About37%saiddailyorfewtimesweekly. Similaranswerscameforthequestiononacademicresearchspecificallyinthefirldofinternationalrelations. Butpercentageusingsocialscienceresearchdailywas~6pointshigherwhilethoseusing IRresearchafewtimesweeklywas~5pointshigher. Thesefiguresmatchotheryears’reports(Wihbey17 etc)(See Figure1)
SOCIALSCIENCEEXPERTS:
SURPRISINGLYENOUGHFOREIGNPOLICYREPORTERSOFTENWITHSOCIALSCIENCETRAININGSTILLTURNTOPEERSSOMEDEGREEMORE. E. G13+%HELDPOLISCI18+%INTLAFFAIRSWHILEFEWINSCIENCE/BUSINESSFIELS. MOSTCOMMONAREJOURNALISM25%, OTHERS18%. ASFIGURETWOSHOWSSOCIALSCIENTIFICISCITEDHIGHLYACROSSDISCIPLINES. EXCEPTANTHROPOLOGY/SOCIOLOGY. USEDLESSBYNATURALSCIENCESSMALLBUSINESSPSYCHOLOGYFARESPOORLYTOO. MAGAZINE/RADIOJOURNALISTSVALUEOTHERFIELDSLIKEBUSINESSANDPSYCHMORETHANOTHERS.(SEEFIGURES234)
