Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Researchers studying science communication have criticized the sensationalism that often appears in journalistic accounts of science news. This article looks at the linguistic sources of that sensationalism by analyzing the journalistic coverage of the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) study of hormone replacement research, which was abruptly canceled in July 2002 and became the subject of many news articles. The article uses a coding system to analyze seven magazine and newspaper articles that appeared shortly after the WHI study was halted. The coding shows a high incidence of concrete nouns in the journalistic accounts and looks at the ways the syntax of their attributions are ordered to emphasize vivid nouns, the ways their verbs contribute to narrative, and some of the narrative devices employed in the journalistic reporting.

Keywords

functional linguistics grammatical analysis hormone replacement news linguistic analysis medical rhetoric popularization of science science journalism

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Charney, D. (2003). Lone geniuses in popular science: The devaluation of scientific consensus. Written Communication, 20, 215-241.

Cowley, G. , & Springen, K. (2002, July 22). The end of the age of estrogen. Newsweek, pp. 38-41.

Fahnestock, J. (1986). Accommodating science: The rhetorical life of scientific facts. Written Communication, 3, 275-296.

Friedman, S. M ., Dunwoody, S ., & Rogers, C. L . (Eds.) (1999). Communication uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Gorman, C. , & Park, A. (2002, July 22). The truth about hormones. Time, pp. 33-36.

Gregory, J. , & Miller, S. (1998). Science in public: Communication, culture, and credibility. New York: Plenum.

Halliday, M.A.K. , & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Hanrahan, J. (2002, July 21). A hard pill to swallow. The San Diego Union-Tribune, pp. A1, A9.

Hartz, J. , & Chappell, R. (1997). Worlds apart: How the distance between science and journalism threatens America’s future. Nashville, TN: First Amendment Center.

10.

Harvard Health Letter. (1997, October). Hormone-replacement therapy: Weighing the benefits and risks. Retrieved April 27, 2005, from http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1585/is_n12_v22/ai_19928712

11.

Kazanjian, D. (2002, October). Raging hormones. Vogue, pp. 270, 272, 284.

12.

Kennamer, J. D. (1988). News values and the vividness of information. Written Communication, 5, 108-123.

13.

Kolata, G. (2002a, July 9). Study is halted over rise seen in cancer risk [Electronic version]. New York Times, p. A1.

14.

Kolata, G. (2002b, July 15). Many taking hormone pills now face a difficult choice [Electronic version]. New York Times, p. A1.

15.

Lerner, S. (2002, July 17-23). Hormonal outrage [Electronic version]. Village Voice, p. 48.

16.

MacDonald, S. P. (1992). A method for analyzing sentence-level differences in disciplinary knowledge making. Written Communication, 9, 533-569.

17.

MacDonald, S. P. (1994). Professional academic writing in the humanities and social sciences. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

18.

Nelkin, D. (1995). Selling science: How the press covers science and technology (Rev. ed.). New York: W. H. Freeman.

19.

Nisbett, R. E. , & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

20.

Posner, T. (2002, July 10). Death by hormones. Salon.com [Online]. Retrieved July 8, 2004, from http://archive.salon.com/mwt/feature/2002/07/10/hrt/

21.

Reed, R. (2001). (Un-)professional discourse? Journalists’ and scientists’ stories about science in the media. Journalism, 2(3), 279-298.

22.

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(2), 161-179.

23.

Ruscio, J. (2000). Risky business: Vividness, availability, and the media paradox. Skeptical Inquirer, 24(2), 22-26.

24.

van de Kopple, W. J. (1994). Some characteristics and functions of grammatical subjects in scientific discourse. Written Communication, 11, 534-564.

25.

Wertheim, M. (2003, February 2). The male-heavy world of science. Los Angeles Times, p. M2.

26.

Writing Group for the Women’s Health Initiative Investigators . (2002, July 17). Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women: Principal results from the Women’s Health Initiative randomized controlled trial. JAMA, 288, 321-333.

The Language of Journalism in Treatments of Hormone Replacement News

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References