Mass media are important sources of science information for many adults. However, this study, which reports a content analysis of science stories in 100 US newspapers, found that while 70 newspapers carried science stories, the majority of these stories contained little scientific explanation. Ten percent or less of content was comprised of elucidating (definitions of terms) and/or quasi-scientific explanations (explications of relationships among scientific concepts). The study also investigated the effect of production-based variables on scientific explanation. Stories in feature and science sections contained more explanation than did stories in news sections, perhaps indicating that science stories in feature and science sections have more of an explanatory mission. Additionally, the more time a writer had to compose a story, the more explanation in the story. This result suggests that writing explanations is cognitively demanding. Interestingly, longer stories did not contain significantly more scientific explanation than shorter stories.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Atwater, T. , 1988, Reader interest in environmental news. Newspaper Research Journal, 10, 31-38.
2.
Howard, H. H. , Blick, E., and Quarles, J. P., 1987, Media choices for specialized news. Journalism Quarterly, 64, 620-623.
3.
Quarantelli, E. L. , and Wenger, D., 1991, A cross-societal comparison of disaster news: reporting in Japan and the United States. Risky Business: Communicating Issues of Science, Risk, and Public Policy, edited by L. Wilkins and P. Patterson (New York: Greenwood Press), pp. 97-111.
4.
McLeod, J. , Glynn, C. J., and Griffin, R. J., 1987, Communication and energy conservation. Journal of Environmental Education, 18, 28-37.
5.
Winett, R. A. , Leckliter, I. N., Chinn, D. E., Stahl, B., and Love, S. Q., 1985, Effects of television modeling on residential energy conservation. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 33-44.
6.
Brown, M. L. , and Potosky, A. L., 1990, The Presidential effect: the public health response to media coverage about Ronald Reagan's colon cancer episode. Public Opinion Quarterly, 54, 317-329.
7.
Durant, J. R. , Evans, G. A., and Thomas, G. P., 1989, The public understanding of science. Nature, 340, 11-14.
8.
Mayer, R. E. , 1983, What have we learned about increasing the meaningfulness of scientific prose?Science Education, 67(2), 223-237.
9.
Shapiro, M. A. , 1986, Analogies, visualization, and mental processing of science stories. Mass Communication Review Handbook (Vol. 9), edited by M. J. McLauglin (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage), pp. 339-355.
10.
Duit, R. , 1991, On the role of analogies and metaphors in learning science. Science Education, 75(6), 649-672.
11.
Long, M. , Steinke, J., Kalter, J., Schwaab, A., Savagian, A., Jaffer, N., Shim, J., and Wenzel, W., 1991, Explanation in newspaper science section news articles. Paper presented at the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication convention, Boston, MA.
12.
Rowan, K. , 1990, Cognitive correlates of explanatory writing skill. Written Communication, 7, 316-341.
13.
Tuchman, G. , 1978, Making News (New York: Free Press).
14.
Friedman, S. M. , 1986, The journalist's world, Scientists and Journalists: Reporting Science as News, edited by S. M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, and C. L. Rogers (New York: Free Press), p. 23.
15.
Siegfried, T. , 1992, Newspapers. When Science Meets the Public, edited by B. V. Lewenstein (Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science), p. 113.
16.
Steinke, J. , 1992, The science newswriting process: a study of science writers' cognitive processing of information. Paper presented at the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication convention, Montreal, Canada.
17.
Stocking, H. S. , and Gross, P. H., 1989, How Do Journalists Think? (Bloomington, IN: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills).
18.
Scientists' Institute for Public Information , 1990, Newspaper science sections still on the rise. SIPIScope, pp.26-27.
19.
The master list of daily newspapers without weekly science sections was obtained by deleting those with weekly science sections from the Gale Directory of Publications and Broadcast Media, 1991 (Detroit, MI: Gale Research).
20.
The list of dailies with science sections was obtained from the 1989 SIPIScope survey of daily newspapers.
21.
The four circulation categories are those used by Editor and Publisher.
22.
Tuchman, G. , 1978, Making News (New York: Free Press).
23.
Dennis, E. E. , and McCartney, J., 1979, Science journalists on metropolitan dailies. Journal of Environmental Education, 10, 9-15.
24.
Bader, R. , 1990, How science news sections influence newspaper science coverage: a case study. Journalism Quarterly, 67, 88-96.
25.
American Heritage Dictionary, 1985 (second college edn), (Boston: Houghton Mifflin).
26.
Rowan, K. , 1988, A contemporary theory of explanatory writing. Written Communication, 5, 23-56.
27.
Rowan, K. , 1992, Strategies for enhancing comprehension of science. When Science Meets the Public, edited by B. V. Lewenstein (Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science), pp. 131-143.
28.
Adler, E. , 1991, Hooked on Starches? It's possible. Kansas City Star, 19 May.
29.
Fenly, L. , 1990, Science looks into vitamin E. San Diego Union, 7 May.
30.
Itule, B. D. , and Anderson, D. A., 1991, News Writing and Reporting for Today's Media (New York: McGraw-Hill).
31.
Siegfried, T. , 1992, Newspapers. When Science Meets the Public, edited by B. V. Lewenstein (Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science), pp. 113-124.
32.
Wilkie, T. , 1991, Does science get the press it deserves?International Journal of Science Education, 13, 363-372.
33.
Rowan, K. , 1990, Strategies for explaining complex science news. Journalism Educator, 45, 25-31.
