The presentation of science in the mass media is one of the most important questions facing social scientists who analyse science. Accordingly, media coverage of science has been a constant focal point in the respective literature, and a flurry of such publications has appeared in the past few years. Yet the activity and growth of the respective research have not been accompanied by systematic overviews. This article aims to provide such an overview by means of a meta-analysis: it analyses existing studies systematically and provides an empirical overview of the literature. The analysis shows that while the research field grew significantly in the past few years and employs a variety of research strategies and methods, it has been biased in three ways: mainly natural sciences (and namely biosciences and medicine), Western countries, and print media have been analysed.
AndersonAAllanSPetersenAWilkinsonC (2005) The framing of nanotechnologies in the British newspaper press. Science Communication27(2): 200–220.
2.
BanksJTankelJD (1990) Science as fiction: Technology in prime time television. Critical Studies in Mass Communication7(1): 24–36.
3.
BauerMBucchiM (eds) (2007) Journalism, Science and Society. London: Routledge.
4.
BauerMDurantJRagnarsdottirARudolphsdottirA (1995) Science and Technology in the British Press, 1946–1990. London: Science Museum.
5.
BauerMPetkovaKBoyadjievaPGornevG (2006) Long-term trends in the public representation of science across the “Iron Curtain”: 1946–1995. Social Studies of Science36(1): 99–131.
6.
BeckU (1992) Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: SAGE.
7.
BeckU (2007) Weltrisikogesellschaft. Die globalen Gefährdungen – vom Terror bis zum Klimawandel. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.
8.
BellA (1994a) Climate of opinion: Public and media discourse on the global environment. Discourse & Society5(1): 33–64.
9.
BellA (1994b) Media (mis)communication on the science of climate change. Public Understanding of Science3(3): 259–275.
10.
BohlinI (2004) Communication regimes in competition: The current transition in scholarly communication seen through the lens of the sociology of technology. Social Studies of Science34(3): 365–391.
11.
BoykoffMT (2007) From convergence to contention: United States mass media representations of anthropogenic climate change science. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers32(4): 477–489.
12.
BoykoffMT (2008) Lost in translation? United States television news coverage of anthropogenic climate change, 1995–2004. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Royal Geographical Society/ Institute of British Geographers, London.
13.
BrewerPRSigelmanL (2002) Political scientists as color commentators: Framing and expert commentary in media campaign coverage. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics7(1): 23–35.
14.
BucchiMMazzoliniRG (2003) Big science, little news: Science coverage in the Italian daily press, 1946–1997. Public Understanding of Science12(1): 7–24.
15.
BucchiMTrenchB (eds) (2008) Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology. London: Routledge.
16.
BurkartR (1998) Kommunikationswissenschaft. Grundlagen und Problemfelder. Umrisse einer interdisziplinären Sozialwissenschaft. Wien: Böhlau.
17.
CaulfieldTBubelaTMurdochCJ (2007) Myriad and the mass media: The covering of a gene patent controversy. Genetics in Medicine9(12): 850–855.
18.
ClarkFIllmanDL (2003) Content analysis of New York Times coverage of space issues for the year 2000. Science Communication25(1): 14–38.
19.
CobbMD (2005) Framing effects on public opinion about nanotechnology. Science Communication27(2): 221–239.
20.
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.
21.
de CheveignéSVeronE (1996) Science on TV: Forms and reception of science programmes on French television. Public Understanding of Science5(3): 231–253.
22.
DimopoulosKKoulaidisV (2002) The socio-epistemic constitution of science and technology in the Greek press: An analysis of its presentation. Public Understanding of Science11(3): 225–241.
DunwoodySBaldricaCLongM (1993) Annotated Bibliography of Research on Mass Media Science Communication. Madison: Center for Environmental Communications and Education Studies.
25.
DuttBGargKC (2000) An overview of science and technology coverage in Indian English-language dailies. Public Understanding of Science9(2): 123–140.
26.
EdmondGMercerD (1999) Creating (public) science in the Noah’s Ark case. Public Understanding of Science8(4): 317–343.
27.
ElzingaAJamisonA (1995) Changing policy agendas in science and technology. In: JasanoffSMarkleGEPetersenJCPinchT (eds) Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Thousand Oaks: SAGE, 572–597.
28.
FeltUNowotnyHTaschwerK (1995) Wissenschaftsforschung. Eine Einführung. Frankfurt a. M.: Campus.
29.
FerreeMMGamsonWAGerhardsJRuchtD (2002) Shaping Abortion Discourse: Democracy and the Public Sphere in Germany and the United States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
30.
FreudenbergWRRosaEA (1984) Public Reactions to Nuclear Power. Boulder: Westview.
31.
GerhardsJNeidhardtF (1991) Strukturen und Funktionen moderner Öffentlichkeit: Fragestellungen und Ansätze. In: Müller-DoohmSNeumann-BraunK (eds) Öffentlichkeit, Kultur, Massenkommunikation. Beiträge zur Medien- und Kommunikationssoziologie. Oldenbourg: BIS, 31–89.
32.
GerhardsJSchäferMS (2010) Is the Internet a better public sphere? Comparing old and new media in Germany and the US. New Media and Society12(1): 143–160.
33.
GunnarsdottirK (2005) Scientific journal publications: On the role of electronic preprint exchange in the distribution of scientific literature. Social Studies of Science35(4): 549–579.
34.
GurabardhiZGuttelingJMKuttschreuterM (2004) The development of risk communication: An empirical analysis of the literature in the field. Science Communication25(4): 323–349.
35.
GuttelingJM (2002) Biotechnology in the Netherlands: Controversy or consensus?Public Understanding of Science11(2): 131–142.
36.
HampelJRuhrmannGKohringMGörkeA (1998) Germany. In: DurantJBauerMWGaskellG (eds) Biotechnology in the Public Sphere: A European Sourcebook. London: Science Museum, 63–76.
37.
HayIIsraelM (2001) “Newsmaking geography”: Communicating geography through the media. Applied Geography21(2): 107–125.
38.
HeldDMcGrewAGoldblattDPerratonJ (1999) Global Transformations: Politics, Economics and Culture. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
39.
HijmansEPleijterAWesterF (2003) Covering scientific research in Dutch newspapers. Science Communication25(2): 153–176.
40.
HollimanR (2004) Media coverage of cloning: A study of media content, production and reception. Public Understanding of Science13(2): 107–130.
41.
HornigS (1993) Reading risk: Public response to print media accounts of technological risk. Public Understanding of Science2(2): 95–109.
42.
Hornig PriestS (2001) A Grain of Truth: The Media, the Public and Biotechnology. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield.
43.
HorstM (2005) Cloning sensations: Mass mediated articulation of social responses to controversial biotechnology. Public Understanding of Science14(2): 185–200.
IP International Marketing Committee (2008) Television 2008: International Key Facts. Köln: IP Network.
46.
JossS (2003) Zwischen Politikberatung und Öffentlichkeitsdiskurs – Erfahrungen mit Bürgerkonferenzen in Europa. In: SchicktanzSNeumannJ (eds) Bürgerkonferenz: Streitfall Gendiagnostik. Ein Modellprojekt der Bürgerbeteiligung am bioethischen Diskurs. Opladen: Leske+Budrich, 15–35.
47.
JossSBellucciS (eds) (2002) Participatory Technology Assessment: European Perspectives. London: Centre for the Study of Democracy.
48.
KirbyDA (2003) Scientists on the set: Science consultants and the communication of science in visual fiction. Public Understanding of Science12(3): 261–278.
49.
KleinsteuberHJ (2009) Das Mediensystem der USA. In: Hans-Bredow-Institut (ed.) Internationales Handbuch Medien. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 1211–1226.
50.
KohringMMatthesJ (2002) The face(t)s of biotech in the nineties: How the German press framed modern biotechnology. Public Understanding of Science11(2): 143–154.
51.
KuaERederMGrosselMJ (2004) Science in the news: A study of reporting genomics. Public Understanding of Science13: 309–322.
52.
LederbogenUTrebbeJ (2003) Promoting science on the Web: Public relations for scientific organizations – results of a content analysis. Science Communication24(3): 333–352.
53.
LeeC-JScheufeleDALewensteinBV (2005) Public attitudes toward emerging technologies: Examining the interactive effects of cognitions and affect on public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Science Communication27(2): 240–267.
54.
LewensteinBV (1995a) From fax to facts: Communication in the cold fusion saga. Social Studies of Science25(3): 403–436.
55.
LewensteinBV (1995b) Science and the media. In: JasanoffSMarkleGEPetersenJCPinchT (eds) Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Thousand Oaks: SAGE, 343–360.
56.
LeydesdorffLHellstenI (2005) Metaphors and diaphors in science communication: Mapping the case of stem cell research. Science Communication27(1): 64–99.
57.
LockeS (2005) Fantastically reasonable: Ambivalence in the representation of science and technology in super-hero comics. Public Understanding of Science14(1): 25–46.
58.
LuhmannN (1995) Die Realität der Massenmedien. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
59.
MachillMBeilerMFischerC (2006) Europe –Topics in Europe’s media. The debate about the European public sphere: A meta-analysis of media content analyses. European Journal of Communication21(1): 57–88.
60.
MachillMBeilerMZenkerM (2008) Search-engine research: A European-American overview and systematization of an interdisciplinary and international research field. Media, Culture & Society30(5): 591–608.
61.
McQuailD (2005) McQuail’s Mass Communication Theory. London: SAGE.
62.
MajorAMAtwoodLE (2004) Environmental risks in the news: Issues, sources, problems, and values. Public Understanding of Science13(3): 295–308.
63.
Medina-DomenechRMMenendez-NavarroA (2005) Cinematic representations of medical technologies in the Spanish official newsreel, 1943–1970. Public Understanding of Science14(4): 393–408.
64.
MellorF (2003) Between fact and fiction: Demarcating science from non-science in popular physics books. Social Studies of Science33(4): 509–538.
65.
MichelleC (2007) “Human clones talk about their lives”: Media representations of assisted reproductive and biogenetic technologies. Media, Culture & Society29(4): 639–663.
66.
MildeJRuhrmannG (2006) Molekulare Medizin in deutschen TV-Wissenschaftsmagazinen. Ergebnisse von Journalisteninterviews und Inhaltsanalysen. Medien und Kommunikationswissenschaft54(3): 430–456.
67.
NelkinD (1992) Controversy: Politics of Technical Decisions. London: SAGE.
68.
NelkinD (1995) Selling Science: How the Press Covers Science and Technology. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.
69.
NeresiniF (2000) And man descended from the sheep: The public debate on cloning in the Italian press. Public Understanding of Science9(4): 359–382.
70.
NisbetMCLewensteinBV (2001) A comparison of U.S. media coverage of biotechnology with public perceptions of genetic engineering 1995–1999. Paper presented at the 6th International Public Communication of Science and Technology Conference, Geneva, 1–4 February.
71.
NisbetMCLewensteinBV (2002) Biotechnology and the American media: The policy process and the elite press, 1970 to 1999. Science Communication23(4): 259–291.
72.
NisbetMCBrossardDKroepschA (2003) Framing science: The stem cell controversy in an age of press/politics. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics8(2): 36–70.
73.
NisbetMCScheufeleDAShanahanJMoyPBrossardDLewensteinBV (2002) Knowledge, reservations, or promise? A media effects model for public perceptions of science and technology. Communication Research29(5): 584–608.
74.
O’MahonyPSchäferMS (2005) The “Book of Life” in the press: Comparing German and Irish media discourse on human genome research. Social Studies of Science35(1): 99–130.
75.
Parales-QuenzaCJ (2004) Preferences need no inferences, once again: Germinal elements in the public perceptions of genetically modified foods in Colombia. Public Understanding of Science13(2): 131–153.
76.
PetersHP (1994) Wissenschaftliche Experten in der öffentlichen Kommunikation über Technik, Umwelt und Risiken. In: NeidhardtF (ed.) Öffentlichkeit, Öffentliche Meinung, Soziale Bewegungen (Sonderheft 34 der Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 162–190.
77.
PetersHPBrossardDde CheveignéSDunwoodySKallfassMMillerSTsuchidaS (2008a) Science communication: Interactions with the mass media. Science321(5886): 204–205.
78.
PetersHPBrossardDde CheveignéSDunwoodySKallfassMMillerSTsuchidaS (2008b) Science–media interface: It’s time to reconsider. Science Communication30(2): 266–276.
79.
RestivoS (1995) The theory landscape in science studies. In: JasanoffSMarkleGEPetersenJCPinchT (eds) Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Thousand Oaks: SAGE, 95–110.
80.
RuhrmannG (1992) Genetic engineering in the press: A review of research and results of content analysis. In: DurantJ (ed.) Biotechnology in Public: A Review of Recent Research. London: Science Museum, 169–201.
81.
SchäferMS (2009) From public understanding to public engagement: An empirical assessment of changes in science coverage. Science Communication30(4): 475–505.
82.
SchenkMSonjeD (1999) Gentechnik und Journalisten. Munich: R. Fischer.
83.
SimonB (2001) Public science: Media configuration and closure in the cold fusion controversy. Public Understanding of Science10(4): 383–402.
84.
SnyderLBHamiltonMA (2002) A meta-analysis of U.S. health campaign effects on behavior: Emphasize enforcement, exposure and new information, and beware the secular trend. In: HornikRC (ed.) Public Health Communication. Mahwah: Erlbaum, 357–384.
85.
StehrN (1992) Experts, counsellors and advisers. In: StehrNEricsonRV (eds) The Culture and Power of Knowledge in Modern Society: Inquiries into Contemporary Societies. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 107–155.
86.
StichwehR (1988) Differenzierung des Wissenschaftssystems. In: MayntzRRosewitzBSchimankUStichwehR (eds) Differenzierung und Verselbständigung. Zur Entwicklung gesellschaftlicher Teilsysteme. Frankfurt a. M.: Campus, 45–115.
87.
StichwehR (1996) Science in the system of world society. Social Science Information35: 327–340.
88.
Ten EyckTAThompsonPPriestSH (2001) Biotechnology in the United States of America: Mad or moral science? In: GaskellGBauerMW (eds) Biotechnology 1996–2000: The Years of Controversy. London: Science Museum, 307–318.
89.
Ten EyckTAWillimentM (2003) The national media and things genetic: Coverage in the New York Times (1971–2001) and the Washington Post (1977–2001). Science Communication25(2): 129–152.
90.
TriunfolMLHinesPJ (2004) Dynamics of list-server discussion on genetically modified foods. Public Understanding of Science13(2): 155–175.
91.
ValiverronenE (2004) Stories of the “medicine cow”: Representations of future promises in media discourse. Public Understanding of Science13(4): 363–377.
92.
WeigoldMF (2001) Communicating science: A review of the literature. Science Communication32(2): 164–193.
93.
WeingartP (2005) Die Wissenschaft der Öffentlichkeit und die Öffentlichkeit der Wissenschaft. In: WeingartP (ed.) Die Wissenschaft der Öffentlichkeit. Essays zum Verhältnis von Wissenschaft, Medien und Öffentlichkeit. Weilerswist: Velbrück, 9–33.
94.
WeingartPMuhlCPansegrauP (2003) Of power maniacs and unethical geniuses: Science and scientists in fiction film. Public Understanding of Science12(3): 279–287.
95.
WeissCHSingerE (1988) Reporting of Social Science in the National Media. New York: SAGE.
96.
WormerH (2005) “Labor oder Leben?” Ein Lehrforschungsprojekt zu Trends im Wissenschaftsjournalismus. Paper presented at the WissensWerte 2005, Bremen, 28–30 November.
