Historically, scientists and journalists have followed closely a set of ground rules that govern their interactions, leading to a "negotiation of newsworthiness" when it comes to science. Yet this co-production of coverage often leads to what Andrew Revkin calls the "tyranny of the news peg," defining news in science as the release of a new journal study or discovery. Absent in this type of coverage is exactly what many readers need: scientific context and forward looking policy discussion.
In order to break the tyranny of the news peg, journalists and scientists have to establish new ground rules. If context is missing in coverage, it's usually not the reporter's fault. Indeed, journalists can only include the necessary scientific, social, ethical, and policy background if scientists, their organizations, and journal editors are willing to supply it.
Over at Framing Science, I use a recent article by Andrew Revkin on the global warming-hurricane link to provide deep background on how this new direction in the "negotiation of news" might work.