This paper tests how the biotechnology issue, as an example of a major contemporary scientific debate, was framed and reframed by opinion-leading newspapers in Germany, Britain and the United States during the years 2000—2. The research design suggests a theoretical foundation of structure frame categories on the article level, combined with frames on the argument level. Argument framing is analyzed in actors’ statements and journalists’ own comments. Article framing is analyzed as structures and interpretative patterns in the whole news item. Comparative and cluster analysis of structure frames on the article level, argument frames, and single attributes of the text, shows that certain reframing takes place when media attention increases, in the form of a stronger ethical discourse in Germany and a more prominent public discourse in Britain. In the US opinion-leading press, the scientific-economic discourse is consequent.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anderson, A. ( 2002) "In Search of the Holy Grail: Media Discourse and the New Human Genetics," New Genetics and Society21(3): 327-37.
2.
Bauer, M.W. ( 2002) "Controversial Medical and Agri-food Biotechnology: A Cultivation Analysis," Public Understanding of Science11: 93-111.
3.
Bauer, M.W. ( 2005) "Distinguishing Red and Green Biotechnology: Cultivation Effects of the Elite Press," International Journal of Public Opinion Research17(1): 63-89.
4.
Beck, U. ( 1986) Risikogesellschaft. Auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne . Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag .
5.
Bonfadelli, H., Dahinden, U. and Leonarz, M. ( 2002) "Biotechnology in Switzerland: High on the Public Agenda, but only Moderate Support," Public Understanding of Science11: 113-30.
6.
Downs, A. ([ 1972] 1991) "Up and Down with Ecology: The ‘Issue-Attention Cycle,’" reprinted in D.L. Protess and M. McCombs (eds) Agenda Setting: Readings on Media, Public Opinion, and Policymaking. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
7.
Entman, R.M. ( 1993) "Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm ," Journal of Communication43(4): 51-8.
8.
Frewer, L.J., Miles, S. and Marsh, R. ( 2002) "The Media and Genetically Modified Foods: Evidence in Support of Social Amplification of Risk," Risk Analysis22(4): 701-11.
9.
Gamson, W.A. and Modigliani, A. ( 1989) "Media Discourse and Public Opinion on Nuclear Power: A Constructionist Approach," American Journal of Sociology95(1): 1-37.
10.
Gaskell, G., Bauer, M.W., Durant, J. and Allum, N.C. ( 1999) "Worlds Apart? The Reception of Genetically Modified Foods in Europe and the U.S," Science285: 384-7.
11.
Gaskell, G., Bauer, M.W., Allum, N., Lindsey, N., Durant, J. and Lueginger, J. ( 2001a) "United Kingdom: Spilling the Beans on Genes," in G. Gaskell and M.W. Bauer (eds) Biotechnology 1996-2000: The Years of Controversy . London: Science Museum.
12.
Gaskell, G., Einsiedel, E., Priest, S., Ten Eyck, T., Allum, N. and Torgersen, H. ( 2001b) "Troubled Waters: The Transatlantic Divide on Biotechnology Policy," in G. Gaskell and M.W. Bauer (eds) Biotechnology 1996-2000: The Years of Controversy, pp. 96-115. London: Science Museum.
13.
Gaskell, G., Allum, N., Bauer, M., Jackson, J., Howard, S. and Lindsey, N. ( 2003) "Climate Change for Biotechnology? UK Public Opinion 1991-2002 ," AgBioForum6(1&2): 55-67.
14.
Gutteling, J.M. ( 2005) "Mazur’s Hypothesis on Technology Controversy and Media," International Journal of Public Opinion Research17(1): 23-41.
15.
Gutteling, J.M., Olofsson, A., Fjæstad, B., Kohring, M., Goerke, A., Bauer, M. and Rusanen, T. ( 2002) "Media Coverage 1973-1996: Trends and Dynamics ," in M.W. Bauer and G. Gaskell (eds) Biotechnology: The Making of a Global Controversy , pp. 95-128. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
16.
Hampel, J., Pfennig, U., Kohring, M., Görke, A. and Ruhrmann, G. ( 2001) "Biotechnology Boom and Market Failure: Two Sides of the German Coin," in G. Gaskell and M.W. Bauer (eds) Biotechnology 1996-2000: The Years of Controversy. London: Science Museum.
17.
Iyengar, S. and Simon, A. ( 1993) "News Coverage of the Gulf Crisis and Public Opinion: A Study of Agenda-setting Priming, and Framing, Communication Research," 20(3): 365-83.
18.
Jasanoff, S. ( 2005) Designs on Nature; Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.
19.
Kepplinger, H.M., Ehmig, S.C. and Alheim, C. ( 1991) Gentechnik im Widerstreit. Frankfurt and New York: Campus Verlag .
20.
Kitzinger, J. and Reilly, J. ( 1997) "The Rise and Fall of Risk Reporting: Media Coverage of Human Genetics Research, ‘False Memory Syndrome’ and ‘Mad Cow Disease,’" European Journal of Communication12(3); 319-50.
21.
Kohring, M. and Matthes, J. ( 2002) "The Face(t)s of Biotech in the Nineties: How the German Press Framed Modern Biotechnology," Public Understanding of Science11: 143-54.
22.
Kohring, M., Görke, A. and Ruhrmann, G. ( 1999) "Das Bild der Gentechnik in den internationalen Medien-eine Inhaltsanalyse meinungsführender Zeitschriften," in J. Hampel and O. Renn (eds) Gentechnik in der Öffentlichkeit: Wahrnehmung und Bewertung einer umstrittenen Technologie, pp. 292-316. Frankfurt and New York: Campus Verlag .
23.
Listerman, T. ( 2007) Biotechnology in Press and Public: An International Study of Press Coverage about Biotechnology and its Relationship to Public Opinion . Dresden: TUD Press.
24.
Luhmann, N. ( 1970) "Öffentliche Meinung," Politische Vierteljahresschrift11: 2-28.
25.
McCombs, M., Lopez-Escobar, E. and Llamas, J.P. ( 2000) "Setting the Agenda of Attributes in the 1996 Spanish General Election," Journal of Communication50(2): 77-92.
26.
Merten, K. ( 1999) "Die Berichterstattung über Gentechnik in Presse und Fernsehen-eine Inhaltsanalyse," in J. Hampel and O. Renn (eds) Gentechnik in der Öffentlichkeit: Wahrnehmung und Bewertung einer umstrittenen Technologie. Frankfurt and New York : Campus Verlag.
27.
Nisbet, M.C. and Huge, M. ( 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.
28.
Nisbet, M.C. and Lewenstein, B.V. ( 2002) "Biotechnology and the American Media: The Policy Process and the Elite Press, 1970 to 1999," Science Communication23(4): 359-91.
29.
Nisbet, M.C., Brossard, D. and Kroepsch, A. ( 2003) "Framing Science: The Stem Cell Controversy in an Age of Press/Politics," Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics8(2): 36-70.
30.
Pan, Z. and Kosicki, G.M. ( 1993) "Framing Analysis: An Approach to News Discourse ," Political Communication10: 55-75.
31.
Ten Eyck, T.A., Thompson, P.B. and Priest, S.H. ( 2001) "Biotechnology in the United States of America: Mad or Moral Science?," in G. Gaskell and M.W. Bauer (eds) Biotechnology 1996-2000: The Years of Controversy, pp. 307-18. London: Science Museum.
32.
Thompson, M., Ellis, R. and Wildavsky, A. ( 1990) Cultural Theory. Boulder, CO : Westview Press.
