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 communicators 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 scientific 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.