The Internet has helped to change who writes about science in the news, how news is written, and how it is taken up by different audiences. However, few studies have examined how these changes have impacted the uptake of scientific claims in online news writing. This case study explores how online news genres take up knowledge claims from a research article on climate change over a period of one year and shows how shifting boundaries between rhetorical communities affect genre uptake. The study results show that online news writers predominantly use the news report genre to cover research findings for 48 hours, after which they predominantly use the news editorial genre to engage these findings. Analysis suggests that the news report genre uses the press release and the article abstract as intermediary genres, but the news editorial uses only the abstract. I argue that the switch between genres repositions the scientist, the journalist, and the public epistemologically, a reorientation that favors uptake in news media outlets supporting action to mitigate climate change and its effects.
AnsaryH.BabaiiE. (2005). The generic integrity of newspaper editorials: A systemic functional perspective. RELC Journal, 36, 271-295. doi:10.1177/0033688205060051
3.
BazermanC. (1994). Systems of genres and the enactment of social intentions. In FreedmanA.MedwayP. (Eds.), Genre and the new rhetoric (pp. 79-101). London, UK: Taylor & Francis.
4.
BellA. (1991). The language of news media. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
5.
BerkenkotterC.HuckinT. N. (1993). Rethinking genre from a sociocognitive perspective. Written Communication, 10(4), 475-509.
6.
BitzerL. F. (1968). The rhetorical situation. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 1(1), 1-14.
7.
BoykoffM. T. (2012). Who speaks for the climate? Making sense of media reporting on climate change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
8.
BoykoffM. T.BoykoffJ. M. (2004). Balance as bias: Global warming and the US prestige press. Global Environmental Change, 14, 125-136. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2003.10.001
9.
BrunsA. (2012). A chance for diversity? Australian online journalism. In SiaperaE.VeglisA. (Eds.), The handbook of global online journalism (pp. 412-428). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
10.
BucchiM. (2002). Science and the media alternative routes in scientific communication. London, UK: Routledge.
11.
BucchiM.TrenchB. (2014). Science communication research: Themes and challenges. In BucchiM.TrenchB. (Eds.), Routledge handbook of public communication of science and technology (pp. 1-14). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
12.
BurkeK. (1950). A rhetoric of motives. New York, NY: Prentice Hall.
13.
CalsamigliaH.Lopez FerreroC. (2003). Role and position of scientific voices: Reported speech in the media. Discourse Studies, 5(2), 147-173. doi:10.1177/1461445603005002308
DevittA. J. (1991). Intertextuality in tax accounting: Generic, referential, and functional. In BazermanC.ParadisJ. (Eds.), Textual dynamics of the professions: Historical and contemporary studies of writing in professional communities (pp. 336-357). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
16.
DryerD. B. (2016). Disambiguating uptake. In ReiffM. J.BawarshiA. (Eds.), Genre and the performance of publics (pp. 60-80). Logan: Utah State University Press.
17.
DunwoodyS. (2008). Science journalism. In BucchiM.TrenchB. (Eds.), Handbook of public communication of science and technology (pp. 15-26). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
18.
DunwoodyS. (2014). Science journalism: Prospects in the digital age. In BucchiM.TrenchB. (Eds.), Routledge handbook of public communication of science and technology (2nd ed., pp. 27-39). New York, NY: Routledge.
FahnestockJ. (1986). Accommodating science the rhetorical life of scientific facts. Written Communication, 3(3), 275-296. doi:10.1177/0741088386003003001
22.
FahyD.NisbetM. C. (2011). The science journalist online: Shifting roles and emerging practices. Journalism, 12(7), 778-793. doi:10.1177/1464884911412697
23.
FranclM. (2001). Blogging on the sidelines. Nature Chemistry, 3, 183-184. doi:10.1038/nchem.991
24.
FreadmanA. (1987). Anyone for tennis? In ReidI. (Ed.), The place of genre in learning: Current debates (pp. 91-124). Burwood, Australia: Deakin University, Centre for Studies in Literary Education.
25.
FreadmanA. (2002). Uptake. In CoeR. M.LingardL.TeslenkoT. (Eds.), The rhetoric and ideology of genre: Strategies for stability and change (pp. 39-53). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
HylandK. (2010). Constructing proximity: Relating to readers in popular and professional science. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9, 116-127. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.003
36.
JournetD. (1993). Interdisciplinary discourse and “boundary rhetoric”: The case of S. E. Jelliffe. Written Communication, 10(4), 510-541. doi:10.1177/074108839301000400
LatourB. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
41.
LatourB.WoolgarS. (1986). Laboratory of life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
42.
LinellP. (1998). Discourse across boundaries: On recontextualizations and the blending of voices in professional discourse. Text, 18(2), 143-157. doi:10.1515/text.1.1998.18.2.143
43.
LuzónM. J. (2013). Public communication of science in blogs recontextualizing scientific discourse for a diversified audience. Written Communication, 30(4), 428-457. doi:10.1177/0741088313493610
44.
MathesonD. (2004a). Negotiating claims to journalism: Webloggers’ orientation to news genres. Convergence, 10(4), 33-54.
45.
MathesonD. (2004b). Weblogs and the epistemology of the news: Some trends in online journalism. New Media & Society, 6(4), 443-468. doi:10.1177/146144804044329
46.
McGladeC.EkinsP. (2015). The geographical distribution of fossil fuels unused when limiting global warming to 2°C. Nature, 517(7533), 187-190. doi:10.1038/nature14016
MillerC. R. (1984). Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70, 151-176. doi:10.1080/00335638409383686
50.
MillerC. R. (1994). Rhetorical community: The cultural basis of genre. In FreedmanA.MedwayP. (Eds.), Genre and the new rhetoric (pp. 67-78). London, UK: Taylor & Francis.
51.
MillerC. R. (2017). Where do genres come from? In MillerC. R.KellyA. (Eds.), Emerging genres in new media environments (pp. 1-34). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
52.
MillerC. R.ShepherdD. (2004). Blogging as social action: A genre analysis of the weblog. In GurakL.AntonijevicS.JohnsonL.RatliffC.ReymannJ. (Eds.), Into the blogosphere: Rhetoric, community, and the culture of weblogs. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Libraries. Retrieved from http://blog.lib.umn.edu/blogosphere/blogging_as_social_action.htm
53.
MyersG. (2003). Discourse studies of scientific popularization: Questioning the boundaries. Discourse Studies, 5(2), 265-279. doi:10.1177/146144560300500200
54.
NelkinD. (1995). Selling science: How the press covers science and technology covers science and technology. New York, NY: Freeman.
NisbetM. C.ScheufeleD. A.ShanahanJ.MoyP.BrossardD.LewensteinB. V. (2002). Knowledge, reservations, or promise? A media effects model for public perceptions of science and technology. Communication Research, 29(5), 584-608. doi:10.1177/009365002236196
57.
OrlikowskiW. J.YatesJ. (1994). Genre repertoire: The structuring of communicative practices in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 541-574. doi:10.2307/2393771
58.
PetersH. P. (1994). Mass media as an information channel and public arena. Risk: Health, Safety, & Environment, 5, 241-250.
59.
PetersenA. (2001). Biofantasies: Genetics and medicine in the print news media. Social Science & Medicine, 52(8), 1255-1268. doi:10.1016/s0277-9536(00)00229-x
60.
PfisterD. S. (2014). Networked media, networked rhetorics. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
61.
PuschmannC. (2009). Lies at Wal-Mart. In GiltrowJ.SteinD. (Eds.), Genres in the Internet: Issues in the theory of genre (pp. 49-84). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
62.
ReiffM. J.BawarshiA. (2016). Introduction: From genre turn to public turn: Navigating the intersections of public sphere theory, genre theory, and the performances of publics. In ReiffA.BawarshiM. J. (Eds.), Genre and the performance of publics (pp. 3-22). Louisville: University Press of Colorado.
63.
RystromK. (2004). The “why,” “who,” and “how” of the editorial page. State College, PA: Strata.
64.
ScanlanC.CraigR. (2014). Newswriting and reporting: The complete guide for today’s journalist (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
65.
SchifferA. (2006). Blogswarms and press norms: News coverage of the Downing Street memo controversy. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 83(3), 494-510. doi:10.1177/107769900608300302
66.
SpinuzziC. (2003). Tracing genres through organizations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
67.
SpinuzziC. (2004). Four ways to investigate assemblages of texts: Genre sets, systems, repertoires, and ecologies. In 22nd annual international conference on design of communication: The engineering of quality documentation (pp. 110-116). Memphis, TN: Association for Computing Machinery.
68.
SpinuzziC.ZachryM. (2000). Genre ecologies: An open-system approach to understanding and constructing documentation. ACM Journal of Computer Documentation, 24, 169-181. doi:10.1145/344599.344646
69.
StarS. L.GriesemerJ. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, “translations” and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387-420.
TachinoT. (2012). Theorizing uptake and knowledge mobilization: A case for intermediary genre. Written Communication, 29, 455-476. doi:10.1177/0741088312457908
72.
TachinoT. (2016). Multiple intertextual threads and (un)likely uptakes: An analysis of a Canadian public inquiry. In ReiffM. J.BawarshiA. (Eds.), Genre and the performance of publics. Logan: Utah State University Press.
73.
TichenorP. J.DonohueG.OlienC. N. (1970). Mass media flow and differential growth in knowledge. Public Opinion Quarterly, 34(2), 159-170.
