On social media, every news post is accompanied by a striking photo. For journalists, images are a powerful tool not only to draw attention, but also to pique the curiosity of potential readers, present the story, and, of course, generate clicks to the website article. Research indicates that photos evoking emotion and those featuring people and faces are particularly effective in engaging people on social media. However, in science news, photos of researchers aren’t always readily available.
Many science news stories are sourced from press releases, and sometimes there is no personal contact with scientists, complicating the acquisition of personalized photos. Moreover, ensuring all rights are cleared to use images provided alongside a press release is often a time-consuming affair. As a result, journalists and social media editors often have to resort to stock photos from image banks like Getty or Shutterstock.
While stock photos can be a convenient illustrative tool, it is important to exercise caution. Studies show that the perceived credibility of stock photos is lower than that of photos taken by editorial photographers [1]. Misrepresentations of scientific concepts, such as a DNA strand turning in the wrong direction, stereotypical images of scientists in white coats in laboratory settings, and the lack of suitable images to illustrate, for example, social sciences are some of the challenges of using stock photos.
Our own research on images used in COVID-19 and vaccination news revealed that two-thirds of the images used by Flemish news outlets on social media originated from image banks. These images, including syringes being drawn, pharmaceutical vials, and scientists ready to administer a vaccine, were often staged, potentially raising questions among readers about representativeness and authenticity. Additionally, several images were reused by different media outlets.
Studies show that the perceived credibility of stock photos is lower than that of photos taken by editorial photographers
Another concern is the gender and diversity bias in image banks [2]. Our COVID-19 research database contains photos portraying 73 healthcare providers and scientists, but none of these people has dark skin.
It doesn’t always have to be people or stock photos in science news. Beautiful space photos from the James Webb Space Telescope, visualizations of neural networks in Alzheimer’s research, or abstract representations of artificial intelligence frequently appear on social media. However, it is noteworthy that many articles barely refer to these images. This raises the question of whether the authors of the news articles themselves truly understand the meaning of the image. It also leaves the reader to ponder whether the photo is an immediate outcome of the research or rather an illustration deliberately chosen by the journalist.
Thus, the selection of images for social media science news remains something to be vigilant about, especially given the rapid changes on social platforms. For example, in November 2023, X changed the way links are displayed. Previously, users would click on the headline to get to the article, the link is now hidden in the photo, and there is no dedicated field for the headline. Social media editors of news outlets face the challenge of not only choosing appealing elements, but also ensuring that these images authentically reflect the scientific reality, a task for which they have received no formal training.
References
Mortensen, McDermott & Ejaz (2023) Measuring photo credibility in journalistic contexts: Scale development and application to staff and stock photography. Journalism Practice, 17(6), 1158-1177.
Chichester, Jewell, LePrevost & Lee (2023) The cost of diversity: An analysis of representation and cost barriers in stock photo libraries for health education materials, 2021. Health Promotion Practice, 15248399221150788..
Comments