This paper describes a content analysis of science news reporting in three major daily newspapers, the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, and the Washington Post, during the last three decades. It was found that although science articles represent only a small percentage of the total number of articles printed, this percentage has steadily increased with each time period. The results also show that, at least in the newspapers analysed, science coverage does not differ substantially in terms of the range of topics covered, as well as information that has been both included and omitted from science news accounts. Although there were some differences between articles appearing in the different time frames, in general science news reporting has not changed significantly in terms of the comprehensiveness of accounts. An especially significant finding is that articles frequently omitted methodological and contextual information, features most often mentioned as critical for a complete journalistic account of science.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Nunn, C. Z. , 1979, Readership and coverage of science and technology in newspapers. Journalism Quarterly, 56, 27-30.
2.
Miller, J. D. , 1986, Reaching the attentive and interested publics for science. Scientists and Journalists: Reporting Science as News, edited by S. M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody and C. L. Rogers (New York: Free Press), pp. 55-69.
3.
Evans, W. , and Hornig Priest, S., 1995, Science content and social context. Public Understanding of Science, 4, 328.
4.
Nelkin, D. , 1995, Selling Science: How the Press Covers Science and Technology (New York: W. H. Freeman), p. vii.
5.
cited in Steinke, J., 1994, Reaching readers: assessing readers' impressions of science news. Science Communication, 16, 432-453.
6.
Scientists' Institute for Public Information , 1986, Now in 66 dailies: newspaper science sections spreading nationwide. SIPIscope, 14, 1-17.
7.
Lewenstein, B. V. , 1987, Was there really a popular science `boom?'Science, Technology & Human Values, 12, 29-41.
8.
Jerome, F. , 1992, For newspaper science sections: hard times. SIPIscope, 20, 2-4.
9.
Meissner, H. I. , Potosky, A. L., and Convissor, R., 1992, How sources of health information relate to knowledge and use of cancer screening exams. Journal of Community Health, 17, 153-165.
10.
McLeod, J. , Glynn, C. J., and Griffin, R. J., 1987, Communication and energy conservation. Journal of Environmental Education, 18, 28-37.
11.
Rich, J. T. , 1981, A measure of comprehensiveness in newsmagazine science coverage. Journalism Quarterly, 58, 248-253.
12.
Moore, B. , and Singletary, M., 1985, Scientific sources' perceptions of network news accuracy. Journalism Quarterly, 62, 816-823.
13.
Patterson, J. , 1982, A Q study of attitudes of young adults about science and science news. Journalism Quarterly, 59, 406-413.
14.
Scientists' Institute for Public Information , 1993, Science news: what does the public really want?SIPIscope, 20, 1-10.
15.
DiBella, S. M. , Ferri, A. J., and Padderud, A. B., 1991, Scientist's reasons for consenting to mass media interviews: a national survey. Journalism Quarterly, 68, 740-749.
16.
Tichenor, P. J. , Olien, C. N., Harrison, A., and Donahue, G., 1970, Mass communication systems and communication accuracy in science news reporting. Journalism Quarterly, 47, 673-683.
17.
Sullivan, D. F. , 1985, Comprehensiveness of press coverage of a food irradiation proposal. Journalism Quarterly, 62, 832-837.
18.
Glynn, C. J. , and Tims, A. R., 1982, Sensationalism in science issues: a case study. Journalism Quarterly, 59, 127-131.
19.
Long, M. , 1995, Scientific explanation in US newspaper science stories. Public Understanding of Science, 4, 119-130.
20.
Friedman, S. M. , Villamil, K., Suriano, R. A., and Egolf, B. P., 1996, Alar and apples: newspapers, risk, and media responsibility. Public Understanding of Science, 5, 1-20.
21.
Tankard, J. W. , and Ryan, M., 1974, News source perceptions of accuracy of science coverage. Journalism Quarterly, 51, 219-225.
22.
Pulford, D. L. , 1976, Follow-up study of science news accuracy. Journalism Quarterly, 53, 119-121.
23.
Tichenor, P. J. , Olien, C. N., Harrison, A., and Donahue, G., 1970, Mass communication systems and communication accuracy in science news reporting. Journalism Quarterly, 47, 673-683.
24.
Dunwoody, S. , and Scott, B. T., 1982, Scientists as mass media sources. Journalism Quarterly, 59, 52-59.
25.
Dunwoody, S. , and Scott, B. T., 1982, Scientists as mass media sources. Journalism Quarterly, 59, 52-59.
26.
McCall, R. , 1988, Science and the press. American Psychologist, 43, 87-94.
27.
Singer, E. , 1990, A question of accuracy: how journalists and scientists report research on hazards. Journal of Communication, 40, 102-116.
28.
Dunwoody, S. , 1982, A question of accuracy. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, PC25(4), 196-199.
29.
Dunwoody, S. , and Scott, B. T., 1982, Scientists as mass media sources. Journalism Quarterly, 59, 52-59.
30.
Dunwoody, S. , 1982, A question of accuracy. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, PC25(4), 196-199.
31.
Klaidman, S. , 1990, How well the media report health risk. Daedalus, 119(4), 120.
32.
Rowan, K. E. , 1989, Moving beyond the what to the why: differences in professional and popular science writing. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 19, 165.
33.
Goldstein, J. H. , 1986, Social science, journalism, and public policy. Reporting Science: the Case of Aggression, edited by J. H. Goldstein (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum), pp. 1-9.
34.
Evans, W. A. , Krippendorf, M., Yoon, J. H., Posluszny, P., and Thomas, S., 1990, Science in the prestige and national tabloid presses. Social Science Quarterly, 71, 113.
35.
Molitor, F. , 1994, Accuracy in science news reporting by newspapers: the case of aspirin for the prevention of heart attacks. Health Communication, 5, 209-224.
36.
Lordan, E. J. , 1993, Do methodological details help readers evaluate statistics-based stories?Newspaper Research Journal, 14, 13-19.
37.
Perlman, D. , 1974, Science and the mass media. Daedalus, 103, 207-222.
38.
Gorchow, S. , 1990, Preliminary reports: how journalists interpret early findings. Sciphers, 11(1), Summer, 2.
39.
[reprinted from SIPIscope, published by the Scientists' Institute for Public Information, 10, 5-7, 1982].
40.
Bodde, T. , 1982, Biologists and journalists: a look at science reporting. Bioscience, 32, 173.
41.
Millar, R. , and Wynne, B., 1988, Public understanding of science: from contents to processes. International Journal of Science Education, 10, 388-398.
42.
LaFollette, M. , 1995, Editorial: wielding history like a hammer. Science Communication, 16, 235.
43.
Stempel, G. H. III , 1981, Content analysis. Research Methods in Mass Communication, edited by G. H. Stempel III and B. H. Westley (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall).
44.
Burkett, W. , 1986, News Reporting: Science, Medicine, and High Technology (Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press).
45.
Nelkin, D. , 1987, The culture of science journalism. Society, 24, September/October, 17-25.
46.
Perlman, D. , 1974, Science and the mass media. Daedalus, 103, 207-222.
47.
Ogles, R. M. , 1985, An overview of content analysis for communication research. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Communication, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA.
48.
Elliot, W. R. , and Rosenberg, W. L., 1987, Media exposure and beliefs about science and technology. Communication Research, 14, 168.
49.
Mazur, A. , 1981, Media coverage and public opinion on scientific controversies. Journal of Communication, 31, 121-127.
50.
Singer, E. , 1990, A question of accuracy: how journalists and scientists report research on hazards. Journal of Communication, 40, 102-116.
51.
Singer, E. , 1990, A question of accuracy: how journalists and scientists report research on hazards. Journal of Communication, 40, 114.
52.
Caudill, E. , and Ashdown, P., 1989, The New England Journal of Medicine as a news source. Journalism Quarterly, 66, 458-462.
53.
Swinehart, J. W. , and McLeod, J., 1960, News about science: channels, audiences, and effects. Public Opinion Quarterly, 24, 583-589.
54.
Lewenstein, B. V. , 1987, Was there really a popular science `boom'?'Science, Technology & Human Values, 12, 30.
55.
Hinkle, G. , and Elliott, W. R., 1989, Science coverage in three newspapers and three supermarket tabloids. Journalism Quarterly, 66, 353-358.
56.
Cole, B. J. , 1975, Trends in source and conflict coverage in four metropolitan newspapers. Journalism Quarterly, 52, 465-471.
57.
Evans, W. A. , Krippendorf, M., Yoon, J. H., Posluszny, P., and Thomas, S., 1990, Science in the prestige and national tabloid presses. Social Science Quarterly, 71, 105-117.
58.
Hinkle, G. , and Elliott, W. R., 1989, Science coverage in three newspapers and three supermarket tabloids. Journalism Quarterly, 66, 353-358.
59.
Evans, W. A. , Krippendorf, M., Yoon, J. H., Posluszny, P., and Thomas, S., 1990, Science in the prestige and national tabloid presses. Social Science Quarterly, 71, 105-117.
60.
Perlman, D. , 1974, Science and the mass media. Daedalus, 103, 207-222.
61.
Bader, R. G. , 1990, How science news sections influence newspaper science coverage: a case study. Journalism Quarterly, 67, 88-96.
62.
Moyer, A. , Greener, S., Beauvais, J., and Salovey, P., 1995, Accuracy of health research reported in the popular press: breast cancer and mammography. Health Communication, 7, 149.
63.
Scott, W. A. , 1955, Reliability of content analysis: the case of nominal scale coding. Public Opinion Quarterly, 19, 321-325.
64.
Meadows, J. , 1986, The growth of science popularization: a historical sketch. Impact of Science on Society, 144, 341-346.
65.
[reprinted from SIPIscope, published by the Scientists' Institute for Public Information, 10, 5-7, 1982].
66.
Miller, J. D. , 1986, Reaching the attentive and interested publics for science. Scientists and Journalists: Reporting Science as News, edited by S. M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody and C. L. Rogers (New York: Free Press), pp. 55-69.
67.
Burnham, J. C. , 1987, How Superstition Won and Science Lost: Popularizing Science and Health in the United States (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press).
68.
LaFollette, M. , 1995, Editorial: wielding history like a hammer. Science Communication, 16, 236.
69.
Nelkin, D.1995, Selling Science: How the Press Covers Science and Technology (New York: W. H. Freeman), p. 1.
70.
Fahnestock, J. , 1993, Accommodating science: the rhetorical life of scientific facts. The Literature of Science: Perspectives on Popular Scientific Writing, edited by M. W. McRae (Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press), pp. 17-36.
71.
Fahnestock, J. , 1993, Accommodating science: The rhetorical life of scientific facts. The Literature of Science: Perspectives on Popular Scientific Writing, edited by M. W. McRae (Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press), p. 20.
72.
Rowan, K. E. , 1989, Moving beyond the what to the why: differences in professional and popular science writing. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 19, 161-179.
73.
Fahnestock, J. , 1993, Accommodating science: the rhetorical life of scientific facts. The Literature of Science: Perspectives on Popular Scientific Writing, edited by M. W. McRae (Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press), p. 25.
74.
Evans, W. , and Hornig Priest, S., 1995, Science content and social context. Public Understanding of Science, 4, 329.
75.
Evans, W. , and Hornig Priest, S., 1995, Science content and social context. Public Understanding of Science, 4, 330.
76.
Evans, W. , and Hornig Priest, S., 1995, Science content and social context. Public Understanding of Science, 4, 332.
77.
Evans, W. , 1995, The mundane and the arcane: prestige media coverage of social and natural science. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 72, 168-177.
78.
Nelkin, D. , 1995, Selling Science: How the Press Covers Science and Technology (New York: W. H. Freeman), pp. 2-3.
79.
Burnham, J. C. , 1987, How Superstition Won and Science Lost: Popularizing Science and Health in the United States (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press), p. 226.
