We are torn apart by various “Truths”

Public debates about science are frequently described as crises of trust fueled by
misinformation and politicization. At the same time, survey data from Germany
and other European countries indicate that overall trust in science has remained
relatively stable since the COVID-19 pandemic. This discrepancy raises questions
about the adequacy of trust-centered approaches to science communication. Based
on nineteen focus group discussions with sixty-three science journalists and com-
municators in Germany, this paper examines how journalists interpret and handle
controversial scientific issues. Rather than conceptualizing trust as an outcome or
deficit, the analysis focuses on processes of epistemic valuation through which sci-
entific information is assessed, prioritized, and legitimized in public discourse. The
findings show that conflicts surrounding COVID-19 research, transgender medicine,
and climate science are shaped less by informational deficits than by competing
value frameworks. The paper highlights the role of science journalists as epistemic
intermediaries operating under conditions of polarization.