How the ‘slow burn’ of civic science media powers real political change
When we imagine political change, we tend to picture something spectacular. A sea of protesters outside the Capitol, a thunderous speech on the Senate floor, a court ruling that redraws the future in a single headline. But real change almost never comes in a moment of climax. It builds slowly, awkwardly, through the relentless work of ordinary people who organize, agitate, and refuse to let up.
Nearly every transformative shift in American life—civil rights, environmental protections, labor rights—has followed the same pattern: citizens pushing from the bottom up, not policies trickling from the top down.
But showing up once or firing off a well-meaning email to a senator isn’t enough. Change requires sustained pressure, grounded in accurate information and shaped by the voices of those directly affected. That’s where civic science media comes in.
In a time when misinformation spreads faster than facts and trust in scientific institutions is fraying, civic science media offers a promising way forward: not by doubling down on expertise delivered from on high, but by stitching trust back together at ground level.
In the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, skepticism toward science has grown—not just among fringe conspiracy theorists, but across a broad swath of the public. A recent study found that 27 percent of Americans have little or no confidence in scientists. That’s a warning sign.
Much of this distrust stems from a feeling that science has become detached from everyday concerns, communicated in language that feels foreign or dismissive. Traditional science journalism often speaks at the public, not with it. It presents findings as unchallengeable truths, not as evolving understandings that benefit from scrutiny, context, and public input.
This disconnect is dangerous, particularly in a democracy that depends on informed civic participation. If people don't trust science, how can they trust the policies that stem from it?
Civic science media flips the script. It’s an approach rooted in dialogue rather than delivery. It invites scientists, journalists, and communities into the same room to collaborate on the questions that matter most to people’s lives.
It isn't about simplifying science or bending to public opinion. It’s about recognizing that communities bring their own knowledge and concerns to the table. It's about meeting people where they are, listening first, and reporting in a way that reflects the complexity and nuance of both the science and the society it serves.
Imagine a town grappling with toxic air from a nearby factory. Traditional reporting might quote a scientist, cite a study, and move on. Civic science media would do more: attend the town halls, talk to the residents, and let their experiences shape the questions being asked of researchers. The result isn’t just a better story—it’s a more empowered public.
Political change is hard. It takes time. It takes repetition. It takes people who are willing to write the second letter, show up to the third meeting, and knock on the fifth door. But that kind of persistence only works if it’s informed, and if people believe the information they’re relying on.
That’s the goal of the civic science media. It’s not just a new way to report on science. It’s a new way to power civic engagement—and, ultimately, to make democracy work better for all of us.