Public understanding of risks is likely to be informed by the media. We report a cross-national study looking at how newspapers in Sweden and the United Kingdom characterize a variety of risks, focusing on two months around the 10th anniversary of the Chernobyl accident. Approximately four times as many reports about risks were found in Sweden as in the U.K., possibly reflecting a Swedish safety culture. The Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) crisis dominated reporting in both countries, especially in the U.K. The proportion and pattern of reports on Chernobyl was similar across countries. However, in Sweden, there was an increase in reports about other nuclear hazards after the anniversary, suggesting that generalization of media concern may have occurred. Generally, BSE was discussed using a greater number of characterizations in the U.K., while Chernobyl was reported using more characterizations in Sweden. Reports about hazards tended to be alarmist rather than reassuring, and rarely used statistics to express degrees of risk.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
A. af Wåhlberg and L. Sjöberg, “Risk perception and the media. A review of research on media influence on public risk perception,”Journal of Risk Research (in press).
2.
M. E. McCombs and D. L. Shaw, “The agenda-setting function of the mass media,”Public Opinion Quarterly36 (1972): 176-187.
3.
G. Gerbner and L. Gross, “Living with television: The violence profile,”Journal of Communication26 (1976): 173-179.
4.
A. Tversky and D. Kahneman, “Choices, Values and Frames,”American Psychologist39 (1984): 341-350.
5.
and A. Mazur, “Putting Radon on the Public's risk agenda,”Science, Technology and Human Values12 (1987): 86-93.
6.
R. E. Kasperson , O. Renn, P. Slovic, H. S. Brown, J. Emel, J. Goble, and S. Ratick, “The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework,”Risk Analysis8 (1988): 177-187.
7.
S. Begley , “The contrarian press. How the press decides which issues of environmental risk and food safety to cover,”Food Technology45, no. 5 (1991): 245-246, 255.
8.
and H. Sharlin, “Macro-risks, microrisks, and the media: The EDB case.” In The Social and Cultural Construction of Risk, ed. B. B. Johnson and V. T. Covello, 183-198 (Dordrecht: Reidel, 1987).
9.
and V. T. Covello, P. Slovic, and D. von Winterfeldt, Risk Communication: A Review of the Literature (Washington D.C.: National Science Foundation, 1987).
10.
H. M. Kepplinger , “Impacts upon press coverage about sciences.” In Resistance to New Technology: Nuclear Power, Information Technology and Biotechnology, ed. M. Bauer, 357-379 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995).
11.
A. Triandafyllidou , “The Chernobyl accident in the Italian Press—A media story line,”Discourse and Society6 (1995): 517-536.
12.
W. R. Freudenberg , C. L. Coleman, J. Gonzales, and C. Helgeland, “Media coverage of hazard events—analyzing the assumptions,”Risk Analysis, 16 (1996): 31-42.
13.
M. Ryan , S. Dunwoody, and J. Tankard, “Risk information for public consumption: Print media coverage of two risky situations,”Health Education Quarterly18 (1991): 375-390.
14.
and C. L. Coleman, “The influence of mass-media and interpersonal-communication on societal and personal risk judgments,”Communication Research20 (1993): 611-628.
15.
S. Dunwoody and K. Neuwirth, “Coming to terms with the impact of communication on scientific and technological risk judgements.” In Risky Business: Communicating Issues of Science, Risk and Public Policy, ed. L. Wilkins and P. Patterson, 11-30 (New York: Greenwood, 1991).
16.
G. Ruhrmann , “Genetic engineering in the press: A review of research and results of a content analysis.” In Biotechnology in Public: A Review of Recent Research, ed. J. Durant, 169-201 (London: Science Museum for European Federation of Biotechnology, 1992).
17.
Kepplinger , “Impacts upon press coverage about sciences.”
18.
S. Chaiken and A. Eagly, “Communication modality as a determinant of persuasion: The role of communicator salience,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34 (1983): 605-614.
19.
L. J. Frewer and R. Shepherd, “Attributing information to different sources: Effects on the perceived qualities of information, on the perceived relevance of information and effects on attitude formation,”Public Understanding of Science3 (1994): 385-401.
20.
L. J. Frewer , M. Raats, and R. Shepherd, “Modeling the media: The transmission of risk information in the British quality press,”Journal of the Institute of Mathematics and its Applications to Industry5 (1993/4): 235-247.
21.
A. Nilsson , L. Sjöberg, and A. af Wåhlberg, Ten years after Chernobyl: The reporting of nuclear and other hazards in six Swedish newspapers: Rhizikon: Risk Research Report 28 (Stockholm: Center for Risk Research, 1997).
22.
A. Boholm , “Visual images and risk messages: commemorating Chernobyl,”Risk Decision and Policy3 (1998): 125-143.
23.
L. J. Frewer , C. Howard, and J. I. Aaron, “Consumer acceptance of transgenic crops,”Pesticide Science52 (1998): 388-393.
24.
S. Lichtenstein , P. Slovic, B. Fischhoff, M. Layman, and B. Coombs, “Judged frequency of lethal events,”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory4 (1978): 551-578.
25.
Ruhrmann , “Genetic engineering in the press.”
26.
Frewer, Raats , and Shepherd, “Modeling the media.”
27.
Ruhrmann , “Genetic engineering in the press.”
28.
Chaiken and Eagly, “Communication modality as a determinant of persuasion.”
29.
Begley , “The contrarian press.”
30.
Schanne and Meier, “Media coverage of risk.” Covello, Slovic, and von Winterfeldt, Risk Communication.
