Is science journalism dying? Comparing a 'science crash' 40 years ago to today

In the 1980s, two popular science magazines disappeared from circulation, leading to a "science crash" and concerns about the relevance of the science media. However, a few years earlier, the industry had been hailed as a "science boom." The same worries are resurfacing 40 years later, as science and environmental reporting staff have been cut at many newspapers and magazines.

In late June 2026, Scientific American was sold to new owners who immediately laid off 15 staff members and reduced salaries for others. This follows layoffs at The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, National Public Radio, and CBS News. One science writer expressed concern that he was writing a eulogy for science journalism, while another stated that the field has become "a greatly diminished journalistic enterprise in this country."

The moral panic surrounding science journalism has likely been exaggerated in the past, as many science journalists have called for more and better coverage for over a century, despite increased coverage. Bruce Lewenstein analyzed the 1986 science boom crash and concluded that an audience existed for science journalism, though it might not have been as large as some had hoped.

The current concerns seem to be a mix of cyclical worries that recur during setbacks and new, more troubling developments. With only 11 prominent popular science magazines remaining out of 29 created in the U.S. since the 19th century, and several closures since 2000, there are clear signs that many science media efforts have failed over time.