Most content analyses of science news are conducted in large Anglo-American media markets. However, we speculate that the intimacy between sources and journalists in small media markets can influence science coverage. Here, we present a comparative analysis of Danish and British newspaper science news in 2012. We find that in both countries science news amounts to about 4% of the total news flow. We also observe that Danish science news more often than British science news is triggered by political events, gives priority to national stories and includes more coverage of humanities and social sciences. Contrary, British science news is more traditional and favours stories on health and the natural sciences often triggered by a journal article. We attribute these differences to intimacy between the public, media, political and scientific spheres in Denmark partly rooted in a closed corporatist media market compared to an open liberal market in the United Kingdom.
BauerMWAsdisRRudolfsdottirADurantJ (1995) Science and Technology in the British Press, 19461990 (version 2). London: The Science Museum and London School of Economics, Department of Social Psychology.
2.
BauerMWPetkovaKBoyadjievaP. (2006) Long-term trends in the public representation of science across the ‘Iron Curtain’: 1946–1995. Social Studies of Science36(1): 99–131.
3.
BauerMWRamosYJRMassaraniL. (2013) Global Science Journalism Report. London and Brazil: London School of Economics, SciDev.Net, Museu da Vida.
4.
BoczkowskiPJ (2005) Digitizing the News: Innovation in Online Newspapers. Cambridge, MA; London: The MIT Press.
5.
BoykoffMT (2008) The cultural politics of climate change discourse in UK tabloids. Political Geography27(5): 549–569.
BrossardD (2013) New media landscapes and the science information consumer. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America110 (suppl. 3): 14096–14101.
8.
BubelaTMCaulfieldTA (2004) Do the print media ‘hype’ genetic research? A comparison of newspaper stories and peer-reviewed research papers. Canadian Medical Association Journal170(9): 1399–1407.
9.
BucchiMMazzoliniRG (2003) Big science, little news: Science coverage in the Italian daily press, 1946–1997. Public Understanding of Science12(1): 7–24.
10.
CacciatoreMAAndersonAAChoiD-H. (2012) Coverage of emerging technologies: A comparison between print and online media. New Media & Society14(6): 1039-1059.
11.
ClarkFIllmanDL (2006) A longitudinal study of the New York Times Science Times section. Science Communication27(4): 496–513.
12.
CookGRobbinsPTPieriE (2006) ‘Words of mass destruction’: British newspaper coverage of the genetically modified food debate, expert and non-expert reactions. Public Understanding of Science15(1): 5–29.
De SemirVRibasCRevueltaG (1998) Press releases of science journal articles and subsequent newspaper stories on the same topic. JAMA280(3): 294–295.
15.
ElmerCBadenschierFHolgerW (2008) Science for everybody? How the coverage of research issues in German newspapers has increased dramatically. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly85(4): 878–893.
16.
European Commission (2007) European Research in the Media: What Do Media Professionals Think?Brussels: European Commission.
17.
FanelliD (2013) Any publicity is better than none: Newspaper coverage increases citations, in the UK more than in Italy. Scientometrics95(3): 1167–1177.
18.
GasherM (2007) The view from here. Journalism Studies8(2): 299–319.
19.
GerhardsJSchäferMS (2010) Is the internet a better public sphere? Comparing old and new media in the USA and Germany. New Media & Society12(1): 143–160.
20.
GrovesTFiguerolaCGQuintanillaMA (2015) Ten years of science news: A longitudinal analysis of scientific culture in the Spanish digital press. Public Understanding of Science. Epub ahead of print 6April. DOI: 10.1177/0963662515576864.
21.
HabelMALiddonNStrykerJE (2009) The HPV vaccine: A content analysis of online news stories. Journal of Women’s Health18(3): 401–407.
22.
HallinDCManciniP (2004) Comparing Media Systems: Three Models of Media and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23.
HydeJ (2006) News coverage of genetic cloning when science journalism becomes future-oriented speculation. Journal of Communication Inquiry30(3): 229–250.
JensenE (2008) The Dao of human cloning: Utopian/dystopian hype in the British press and popular films. Public Understanding of Science17(2): 123–143.
26.
KarlssonM (2010) Rituals of transparency. Journalism Studies11(4): 535–545.
27.
KellyM (1983) Influences on broadcasting policies for election coverage. In: BlumlerJG (ed.) Communicating to Voters: Television in the First European Parliamentary Elections. London: SAGE, pp. 65–82.
28.
KjærgaardRS (2008) Making a small country count: Nanotechnology in Danish newspapers from 1996 to 2006.Public Understanding of Science19(1): 80-97.
29.
KrippendorffK (2013) Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
30.
LundAB (2013) Mangfoldighed i dansk dagspresse (Diversity in the Danish daily press). København: Møller Forlag.
31.
LundABWilligIBlach-ØrstenM (2009) kommer nyhederne fra? Den ournalistiske fødekæde i Danmark før og nu (Where does the news come from? The journalistic food chain in Denmark then and now). Aarhus: Ajour.
32.
MeyerG (2014) Expectations and beliefs in science communication: Learning from three European gene therapy discussions of the early 1990s. Public Understanding of Science25(3): 317–331.
33.
PellechiaMG (1997) Trends in science coverage: A content analysis of three US newspapers. Public Understanding of Science6(1): 49–68.
34.
RiffeDCharlesFLacySR (1993) The effectiveness of random, consecutive day and constructed week sampling in newspaper content analysis. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly70(1): 133–139.
35.
RiffeDLacySFicoFG (2005) Analyzing Media Messages: Using Quantitative Content Analysis in Research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
36.
SchäferMS (2010) Taking stock: A meta-analysis of studies on the media’s coverage of science. Public Understanding of Science21(6): 650–663.
37.
SuleskiJIbarakiM (2010) Scientists are talking, but mostly to each other: A quantitative analysis of research represented in mass media. Public Understanding of Science19(1): 115–125.
VestergaardGLNielsenKH (2015) From the preserves of the educated elite to virtually everywhere: A content analysis of Danish science news in 1999 and 2012. Public Understanding of Science. Epub ahead of print 17September. DOI: 10.1177/0963662515603272.
40.
WeingartPEngelsAPansegrauP (2000) Risks of communication: Discourses on climate change in science, politics, and the mass media. Public Understanding of Science9(3): 261–283.
41.
WilliamsACliffordS (2009) Mapping the Field: Specialist Science News Journalism in the UK National Media. Cardiff: The Risk, Science and the Media Research Group, Cardiff University School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies.
42.
WilsonABonevskiBJonesA. (2009) Media reporting of health interventions: Signs of improvement, but major problems persist. PLoS ONE4(3): e4831.
43.
WurffRLaufE (2005) Print and Online Newspapers in Europe: A Comparative Analysis in 16 Countries. Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis.
