Health issues are increasingly becoming politicized, but little is known about
how politicization takes shape in the news and its effect on the public. We
analyze the evolution of politicization in news coverage of two health
controversies: the uproar over the 2009 mammography screening guidelines and the
2006–2007 debate over mandating the HPV vaccine as a requirement for middle
school–aged girls. We then examine the public response to politicization in the
HPV case, using original data from a survey-embedded experiment that was linked
with news coverage in all fifty states. We find that real-world politicization
is associated with decreases in support for HPV vaccine requirements, state
immunization programs, and confidence in doctors and in government. In addition,
among those less likely to have encountered real-world politicization, we find
marginal evidence that exposure to political conflict decreases support for
state immunization programs and clear evidence that politicization reduces
confidence in doctors. We discuss the implications of these findings and suggest
future avenues of research.
BergWendie A.2010. Benefits of screening
mammography. JAMA303 (2):
168–69.
2.
BolsenTobyDruckmanJames N.CookFay Lomax. 2014. How frames can undermine
support for scientific adaptations: Politicization and the status-quo
bias. Public Opinion Quarterly78 (1):
1–26.
3.
CappellaJoseph N.JamiesonKathleen
Hall. 1997. Spiral of cynicism: The press and
the public good. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
4.
ChongDennisDruckmanJames N.2007. Framing public opinion in competitive
democracies. American Political Science
Review101:637–55.
5.
ColgroveJamesAbiolaSaraMelloMichelle M.2010. HPV vaccination mandates—Lawmaking amid
political and scientific controversy. New England
Journal of Medicine363 (8):
785–91.
6.
DavisMatthew M.FantKathryn. 2005. Coverage of vaccines in
private health plans: What does the public prefer?Health Affairs24 (3):
770–79.
7.
DruckmanJames N.LeeperThomas J.2012. Learning more from political communication
experiments: Pretreatment and its effects. American
Journal of Political Science56 (4):
875–96.
8.
DruckmanJames N.PetersonErikSlothuusRune. 2013. How elite partisan
polarization affects public opinion formation.
American Political Science Review107 (1):
57–79.
9.
FowlerErika
FranklinGollustSarah E.2013. Old news? Why measuring real-world exposure to
competitive framing matters. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association,
11 April–14 April. Chicago,
IL.
10.
FowlerErika
FranklinGollustSarah E.DempseyAmanda F.LantzPaula M.UbelPeter A.2012. Issue emergence, evolution of controversy, and
implications for competitive framing: The case of the HPV
vaccine. The International Journal of
Press/Politics17 (2):
169–89.
11.
GansHerbert. 1979. Deciding what’s news.
New York, NY:
Pantheon.
12.
GollustSarah E.AttanasioLauraDempseyAmandaBensonAllison M.FowlerErika
Franklin. 2013. Political and news media
factors shaping public awareness of the HPV vaccine.
Women’s Health Issues23 (3):
e143–51.
13.
GollustSarah E.AttanasioLauraDwyerAnneFowlerErika
Franklin. Media coverage of the 2009 mammography
recommendations. Unpublished manuscript.
14.
GollustSarah E.DempseyAmanda F.LantzPaula M.UbelPeter A.FowlerErika
Franklin. 2010. Controversy undermines
support for state mandates on the human papillomavirus
vaccine. Health Affairs29 (11):
2041–46.
15.
GostinLawrence O.2011. Mandatory HPV vaccination and political
debate. JAMA306 (15):
1699–1700.
16.
GraberDoris A.2010. Mass media and American politics.
Washington, DC: CQ
Press.
17.
HibbingJohn R.Theiss-MorseElizabeth. 1995. Congress as public enemy: Public
attitudes toward American political institutions.
Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
18.
HuberGregory A.ArceneauxKevin. 2007. Identifying the persuasive
effects of presidential advertising. American
Journal of Political Science51:957–77.
19.
JotterandFabrice. 2006. The politicization of science
and technology: Its implications for nanotechnology.
The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics34 (4):
658–66.
20.
KahanDan M.2013. A risky science communication environment for
vaccines. Science342 (6154):
53–54.
KershRogan. 2009. The politics of obesity: A
current assessment and look ahead. Milbank
Quarterly87 (1):
295–316.
24.
KinderDonald R.2007. Curmudgeonly advice.
Journal of Communication57 (1):
155–62.
25.
KolataGina. 11February2014. Vast study casts doubts on value of
mammograms. New York
Times.
26.
KotzDeborah. 10September2013. Study suggests women in their 40s benefit from
mammograms, but doubts linger. Boston
Globe.
27.
LupiaArthur. 2013. Communicating science in
politicized environments. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences110 (3):
14048–54.
28.
MeissnerHelen I.RimerBarbara K.DavisWilliam W.EisnerEllen J.SieglerIlene C.2003. Another round in the mammography
controversy. Journal of Women’s Health12 (3):
261–76.
29.
MillerAnthony B.WallClausBainesCornelia J.SunPingToTeresaNarodSteven A.2014. Twenty-five year follow-up for breast cancer
incidence and mortality of the Canadian national breast screening study:
Randomised screening trial. BMJ348. doi:10.1136/bmj.g366.
30.
MoyPatriciaPfauMichael. 2000. With malice toward all? The media
and public confidence in democratic institutions.
Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood
Publishing Group.
31.
NaglerRebekah H.2014. Adverse outcomes associated with media
exposure to contradictory nutrition messages.
Journal of Health Communication19 (1):
24–40.
32.
NiederdeppeJeffFowlerErika
FranklinGoldsteinKennethPribbleJames. 2010. Does local television news
coverage cultivate fatalistic beliefs about cancer
prevention?Journal of Communication60 (2):
230–53.
33.
NisbetMatthew C.2009. The ethics of framing science.
In Communicating biological sciences: Ethical and metaphorical
dimensions, eds. NerlichBrigitteElliottRichardLarsonBrendon, 51–73. Burlington,
VT: Ashgate
Publishing.
34.
NisbetMatthew C.2014. Engaging in science policy controversies:
Insights from the U.S. climate change debate. In
Handbook of public communication of science and technology,
2nd ed, eds. BucchiandMassimianoTrenchBrian, 173–85. New York,
NY:
Routledge.
35.
NisbetMatthew C.HugeMike. 2006. Attention cycles and frames
in the plant biotechnology debate: Managing power and participation through
the press/policy connection. Harvard International
Journal of Press/Politics11 (2):
3–40.
36.
National Poll on Children’s Health. 2007.
National poll on children’s health. Available
from http://www.childhealthdata.org.
37.
OliverJ. EricLeeTaeku. 2005. Public opinion and the
politics of obesity in America. Journal of Health
Politics, Policy and Law30 (5):
923–54.
38.
SamuelsonWilliamZeckhauserRichard. 1988. Status quo bias in decision
making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty1 (1):
7–59.
39.
SquiersLinda B.HoldenDebra J.DolinaSuzanne E.KimAnnice E.BannCarla M.RenaudJeanette M.2011. The public’s response to the U.S. Preventive
Services Task Force’s 2009 recommendations on mammography
screening. American Journal of Preventive
Medicine40 (5):
497–504.
40.
TaberCharles S.LodgeMilton. 2006. Motivated skepticism in the
evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of
Political Science50 (3):
755–69.
41.
U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF).
2009. Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive
Services Task Force Recommendation statement. Annals
of Internal Medicine151 (10):
716–26.
42.
WoloshinStevenSchwartzLisa M.2010. The benefits and harms of mammography
screening: Understanding the trade-offs.
JAMA303 (2):
164–65.
43.
WoolfSteven H.2010. The 2009 breast cancer screening
recommendations of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.
JAMA303 (2):
162–63.
