Can media monitoring be a proxy for public opinion about technoscientific controversies? The case of the Italian public debate on nuclear power

Abstract

Is it possible to infer information about public opinion by looking at how the media discuss controversial technoscientific public issues? We conduct content analysis on media coverage of nuclear power in Italy in the years 1992–2012 and compare it with longitudinal public opinion surveys. By treating a large amount of textual data and applying an innovative methodology based on indicators of the presence of ‘risky terms’, that is, keywords referring to the issue of risk and danger, very high correlation has been found between media discourse on risk and opposition within public opinion. The analysis is conducted testing as a preliminary step Mazur’s hypothesis on quantity of coverage and opposition towards controversial technoscience. Then, risk content measures are used in order to gain stronger correlations between media and public attitudes towards nuclear power.

Keywords

mass media coverage nuclear power public opinion big data technoscientific controversies

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anderson

(2008) The end of theory: The data deluge makes the scientific method obsolete. Wired Magazine, 16 July. Available at: http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/magazine/16-07/pb_theory

Bauer

(2002) Controversial medical and agri-food biotechnology: A cultivation analysis. Public Understanding of Science 11(2): 93–111.

Bauer

Allum

Miller

(2007) What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda. Public Understanding of Science 16(1): 79–95.

Bauer

Kohring

Allansdottir

Gutteling

(2001) The dramatization of biotechnology in the elite mass media. In: Gaskell

Bauer

(eds) Biotechnology 1996–2000: The Years of Controversy. London: Science Museum, pp. 35–52.

Beck

(1990) Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity, vol. 17. London; Thousand Oaks, CA; New Delhi, India: SAGE.

Bettini

Nebbia

(eds) (2009) Il nucleare impossibile: perché non conviene tornare al nucleare. Torino: UTET Libreria. Impossible nuclear: why it is not convenient to go back to the nuclear option.

Bijker

(2007) Dikes and dams, thick with politics. Isis 98(1): 109–123.

Brossard

Dudo

(2012) Cultivation of attitudes toward science. In: Morgan

Shanahan

Signorelli

(eds) Living with Television Now: Advances in Cultivation Theory & Research. New York, NY: Peter Lang, pp. 120–143.

Bucchi

Neresini

(2002) Biotech remains unloved by the more informed. Nature 416: 261.

10.

Bucchi

Neresini

(2012) Monitoring science in the public sphere: The case of Italy. In: Bauer

Shukla

Allum

(eds) The Culture of Science: How the Public Relates to Science across the Globe. London: Routledge, pp. 449–462.

11.

Chiesa

Sertorio

Cosenza

(2010) La menzogna nucleare: perché tornare all’energia atomica sarebbe gravemente rischioso e completamente inutile. Milano: Ponte alle Grazie. The nuclear lie: why to go back to atomic energy would be very risky and completely useless.

12.

Clô

(2010) Si fa presto a dire nucleare. Bologna: Il Mulino. Easier said than done when you’re talking nuclear.

13.

Entman

(1993) Framing: Toward a clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication 43(4): 51–58.

14.

Gamson

Modigliani

(1987) The changing culture of affirmative action. In: Braungart

Braungart

(eds) Research in Political Sociology, vol. 3. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 137–177.

15.

Gamson

Modigliani

(1989) Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology 95: 1–37.

16.

Gaskell

Bauer

(2001) Biotechnology, 1996–2000: The Years of Controversy. London: NMSI Trading Ltd.

17.

Gerbner

(1998) Cultivation analysis: An overview. Mass Communication and Society 1(3–4): 175–194.

18.

Ginsberg

Mohebbi

Patel

Brammer

Smolinski

Larry Brilliant

(2009) Detecting influenza epidemics using search engine query data. Nature 457(19): 1012–1014.

19.

Gutteling Jan

(2005) Mazur’s hypothesis on technology controversy and media. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 17(1): 23–41.

20.

Hughes

(1987) The evolution of large technological systems. In: Douglas

Bijker

Hughes

Pinch

(eds) The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 51–82.

21.

Irwin

(1995) Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development. London; New York, NY: Routledge.

22.

Irwin

Michael

(eds) (2003) Science, Social Theory and Public Knowledge. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

23.

Jasanoff

(2007) Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

24.

Krippendorff

(2004) Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

25.

Labbate

(2010) Il governo dell’energia: l’Italia dal petrolio al nucleare 1945–1975. Firenze: Le Monnier. Governing energy: Italy from oil to nuclear 1945-1975.

26.

Latour

(2005) Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

27.

Mayer-Schoenberger

Cukier

(2013) Big Data: A Revolution That Will Transform How We Live, Work, and Think. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

28.

Mazur

(1981) The Dynamics of Technical Controversy. Washington, DC: Communications Press.

29.

Mazur

(1987) Putting radon on the public’s risk agenda. Science, Technology, & Human Values 12(3/4): 86–93.

30.

Mazur

(1990) Nuclear power, chemical hazards, and the quantity of reporting. Minerva 28(3): 294–323.

31.

Mazur

(1998) Global environmental change in the news: 1987–90 vs 1992–6. International Sociology 13(4): 457–472.

32.

Mejova

(2009) Sentiment analysis: An overview. Comprehensive exam paper. Available at: http://www.academia.edu/291678/Sentiment_Analysis_An_Overview (accessed 16 September 2014).

33.

Michael

(1996) Ignoring science: Discourses of ignorance in the public understanding of science. In: Irwin

Wynne

(eds) Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 105–125.

34.

Morgan

Shanahan

Signorelli

(2012) Living with Television Now: Advances in Cultivation Theory and Research. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

35.

Nisbet

Huge

(2006) Attention cycles and frames in the plant biotechnology debate managing power and participation through the press/policy connection. The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics 11(2): 3–40.

36.

Peters

(2000) The committed are hard to persuade. Recipients’ thoughts during exposure to newspaper and TV stories on genetic engineering and their effect on attitude. New Genetics and Society 19: 365–381.

37.

Rogers

(2013) Digital Methods. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

38.

Scheufele

(1999) Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication 49(1): 103–122.

39.

Testa

(2008) Tornare al nucleare? L’Italia, l’energia, l’ambiente. Torino: Einaudi. Back to nuclear? Italy, energy, and the environment.

40.

Valkenburg

Peter

(2013) The differential susceptibility to media effects model. Journal of Communication 63: 221–243.

41.

Venturini

(2010) Diving in magma: How to explore controversies with actor-network theory. Public Understanding of Science 19(3): 258–273.

42.

Venturini

(2012) Building on faults: How to represent controversies with digital methods. Public Understanding of Science 21(7): 796–812.

43.

Wiegman

Gutteling

Boer

Houwen

(1989) Newspaper coverage of hazards and the reactions of readers. Journalism Quarterly 66: 844–852.