The face(t)s of biotech in the nineties: how the German press framed modern biotechnology

Abstract

The following article deals with the different images of modern biotechnology created by the German press in the last decade of the twentieth century. To describe these images we have chosen the theoretical concept of framing, which in general denotes the idea that the media deal with certain issues in different ways and that therefore the coverage offers different perspectives to the reader. We understand a frame as a certain pattern of a text that is composed of several different text elements. We assume that some of these text elements group together systematically in a specific way, thereby forming a certain pattern that can be identified across several texts in a sample. These patterns we call frames. By means of cluster analysis we are able to identify not only predefined but also newly emerging frames and the way framing of an issue changes over time. This methodological approach allows us to give a dynamic overview of how the German press dealt with biotechnology in the early and late nineties.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Dietram A. Scheufele , “Framing as a theory of media effects,” Journal of Communication 49 (1999): 103-122.

Bertram Scheufele, “'Scattered' or related—clarifying the framing concept by integrating related approaches?” in Kommunikation über Grenzen und Kulturen, ed., Hans Bernd Brosius (Konstanz: UVK Medien, 2000), 381-396.

Hans Bernd Brosius and Peter Eps , “Framing auch bei Rezipienten?”, Medienpsychologie 7 (1995): 169-183.

Patti M. Valkenburg , Holli A. Semetko , and Claes H. de Vreese , “The effects of news frames on readers' thoughts and recall,” Communication Research 26 (1999): 550-569 (at 550).

Todd Gitlin , The Whole World is Watching, p. 6.

William A. Gamson and Andre Modigliani , “The changing culture of affirmative action,” in Research in political Sociology, ed., R. G. Braungart and M. M. Braungart (Greenwich, CT: Jai, 1987), 137-177, at 143.

Sharon Dunwoody , “The media and public perceptions of risk: how journalists frame risk stories,” in The Social Response to Environmental Risk, p. 78.

Bertram Scheufele , “'Scattered' or related,” p. 381.

Robert M. Entman , “Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm,” p. 52.

10.

Ibid.

11.

Ibid, p. 53.

12.

Markus Schöberl, Frames in der Risikoberichterstattung. Unpublished master's thesis (University of Münster, Germany: Department of Communication Science, 1995). (For a copy, please contact M. Kohring).

13.

Douglas M. McLeod and Benjamin H. Detenber , “Framing effects of television news coverage of social protest,” Journal of Communication 49 (1999): 3-23.

14.

Robert M. Entman , “Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm,” p. 51.

15.

Dietram A. Scheufele , “Framing as a theory of media effects,” p. 103.

16.

Bernard Berelson , Content Analysis in Communication Research. Reprint from 1952 (New York: Hafner, 1971), at p. 19.

17.

To our knowledge, this approach was first proposed and performed by Schöberl, who dealt with frames in media coverage on risk issues. Schöberl's aim was mainly to describe frames without defining them beforehand.

18.

Since our analysis of biotechnology coverage started with the year 1973, the other important German newsmagazine, Focus, which was founded in 1993, could not be included. The tageszeitung was a candidate for this analysis because it is known as a so-called alternative quality paper with distinctively different perspectives on society, especially political events.

19.

The reliability of the content analysis was computed by examining the percentage of concurring codes (before transformation into dichotomous variables) of two independent coders. The correspondence for three theme variables was together, 58 percent; for the actors, 60 percent; for the two benefit variables, 77 percent; and for the two risk variables, 80 percent.

20.

Jürgen Hampel , Georg Ruhrmann , Matthias Kohring , and Alexander Görke , Germany, in Biotechnology in the Public Sphere: A European Sourcebook, eds., John Durant , Martin W. Bauer , and George Gaskell (London: Science Museum, 1998), 63-76.

21.

Jürgen Hampel , Uwe Pfenning , Matthias Kohring , Alexander Görke , and Georg Ruhrmann , “Biotechnology boom and market failure: two sides of the German coin,“ in Biotechnology 1996-2000: The Years of Controversy, eds., George Gaskell and Martin W. Bauer (London: Science Museum, 2001), 191-203.

22.

The Ward method can be considered a good technique for identifying suitable cluster solutions. The number of clusters was determined by using the so-called elbow criterion. See Jürgen Bortz, Statistik für Sozialwissenschaftler (Berlin: Springer, 1993).

23.

Jürgen Hampel , Uwe Pfenning , Matthias Kohring , Alexander Görke , and Georg Ruhrmann , “Biotechnology boom and market failure: two sides of the German coin.”

24.

Ibid.