The present investigation reports the results of a content analysis of U.S. newspaper portrayals of the 1991 earthquake prediction by Dr. Iben Browning. Results suggest that journalists wrote stories which readers may have interpreted as advocating a belief in Browning's prediction. Specifically, news stories were found to be more subjective than objective, and more supportive than critical, of both Iben Browning and his theory.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArpHalton. 1987. Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies.Berkeley, CA: Interstellar Media.
2.
AtkinCharles, and WallackLawrence (eds.). 1990. Mass Communication and Public Health: Complexities and Conflicts.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
3.
BoorstinDaniel. 1962. The Image.New York: Atheneum.
4.
BrowningIben. 1990. Personal correspondence to R.L. Wesson, Chief, Office of Earthquakes, Volcanoes, and Engineering, U.S. Department of the Interior, Appendices to the Report, “Evaluation of the December 2–3, 1990, New Madrid Seismic Zone Prediction,” The Ad Hoc Working Group on the December 2–3, 1990, Earthquake Prediction, Public Affairs Office. U.S. Geological Survey, October 18, 1990.
5.
CheckWilliam A.1987. “Beyond the Political Model of Reporting: Nonspecific Symptoms in Media Communication about AIDS.” Review of Infectious Diseases9, no. 5: 987–1000.
6.
CovelloVincent T., von WinterfeldtDetlof, and SlovicPaul. 1987. “Communicating Scientific Information about Health and Environmental Risks: Problems and Opportunities from a Social and Behavioral Perspective.” Pp. 71–92 in Risk Communication, edited by DaviesJ. Clarence, CovelloVincent T., and AllenFrederick W.Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
7.
CzubaroffJeanine. 1989. “The Deliberative Character of Strategic Scientific Debates.” Pp. 17–29 in Rhetoric in the Human Sciences, edited by SimonsHerbert W.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
8.
DearingJames W., and KazmierczakJeff. 1992. “Newspaper Coverage of Maverick Science: Balancing the Unbalanced Controversy,” Paper presented to the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication Annual Conference, August 5–8, 1992, Montreal, Canada.
9.
GilbertG. Nigel, and MulkayMichael. 1984. Opening Pandora's Box: A Sociological Analysis of Scientists’ Discourse.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10.
HilgarlerStephen. 1988. “Who Speaks for Science?” unpublished paper presented to the Symposium on Science Communication, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
11.
HolstiOle R.1969. Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and Humanities.New York: Addison-Wesley.
12.
IyengarShanto, and KinderDonald R.. 1987. News That Matters: Agenda-Setting and Pruning in a Television Age.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
13.
JaroffLeon. 1991. “Crisis in the Labs,” Time, August 26.
14.
JohnsonBrian B., and CovelloVincent T. (eds.). 1987. The Social and Cultural Construction of Risk.New York: Reidel, Dordrecht.
15.
LettJames. 1986. “Anthropology vs. the Media: It's in the Epistcmology,” The Newsletter of the National Association of Sciencewriters, 34(1): 13.
16.
LichtenbergJudith, and MacLeanDouglas. 1991. “The Role of the Media in Risk Communication.” Pp. 157–173 in Communicating Risks to the Public, edited by KaspersonRoger E., and StallenPieter Jan M.Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
17.
LippmannWalter. 1922. Public Opinion.New York: Free Press.
18.
MarshallEliot. 1990. “Science Beyond the Pale,” Science, 249: 16.
19.
National Research Council.1989. Improving Risk Communication.Washington: National Academy Press.
20.
NelkinDorothy. 1988. “Communicating the Risks and Benefits of Technology,” unpublished paper presented to the Symposium on Science Communication, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
21.
PloughAlonzo, and KilmskySheldon. 1987. “The Emergence of Risk Communication Studies: Social and Political Context.” Science, Technology and Human Values, 12(3-4): 4–10.
