This study examined research centre Biosphere 2 (B2) coverage by US newspapers between 1984 (as stories of conception before construction emerged) and 2019 (at the time this research was conducted) in order to uncover news diffusion relative to B2 in public media across historic eras and amid shifts in stakeholders over time. The analysis focussed on how a scientific institution and its innovative activities implied values, impacted the meaning-making of its project, as well as influenced the amount of information shared across sources (i.e., regional, metropole or elite) and media scale (i.e., local, regional, national outlets). This analysis identified nine eras delimited by scientific or organisational events. The findings emerging from this study can inform understandings of media behaviour around other scientific institutions and experiments.
Adkins-CovertT., FergusonD., PhilipsS., & WashburnP. C. (2005). News in my backyard: Media and democracy in an ‘All American’ city. The Sociological Quarterly, 41(2), 227–244.
2.
AllenJ. P. (1990). Historical overview of the Biosphere 2 project (pp. 12–22). NASA, Washington, Biological Life Support Technologies: Commercial Opportunities.
3.
AllenJ. P., NelsonM., & AllingA. (2003). The legacy of Biosphere 2 for the study of biospherics and closed ecological systems. Advanced Space Research, 31(7), 1629–1639.
4.
AgoustinosM., & CrabbS. (2010). Genetically modified food in the news: Media representations of the GM debate in the UK. Public Understanding of Science, 19(1), 98–114.
5.
BalbiG., & MaguaddaP. (2018). Ahistory of digital media. An intermedia and global pesrpective. Routledge/Taylor and Francis Group.
6.
BorsdorfF. F., PelencJ., Reutz-HornsteinerB., Le TourneauF. M., CoyM., & VelutS. (2014). The contribution of Biosphere reserves to regional sustainability: An institutional approach. International Journal of Sustainable Society, 6(1/2), 60–81.
7.
BrondizioE., & Le TourneauF. M. (2016). Environmental governance for all. Science, American Association for the Advancement of Science, 352(6291), 1272–1273.
8.
BrossardD., & ScheufeleD. (2013). Science, new media, and the public. Science, 339, 40–41.
CreswellJ. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. SAGE Publications.
11.
CulotA. (2018, Dec21). In Arizona, a miniature earth under a dome. CNRS News. https://news.cnrs.fr/articles/in-arizona-a-miniature-earth-under-a-dome
12.
EstradaE., & BonineK. (2017). Efficacy of STEM education and outreach programs at Biosphere 2. Poster. https://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/star/461
13.
FeldmanL., MaibachE. W., Roser-RenoufC., & LeiserowitzA. (2012). Climate on cable: The nature and impact of global warming coverage on Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 17(1),3–31.
14.
Feldpausch-ParkerA. M., RaglandC. J., MelnickL. L., ChaudhryR., HallD. M., PetersonT. R., StephensJ. C., & WilsonE. J. (2013). Spreading the news on carbon capture and storage: A state-level comparison of US media. Environmental Communication, 7(3), 336–354. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2013.807859
15.
FinkelJ. R., GrenagerT., & ManningC. (2005). Incorporating non-local information into information extraction systems by Gibbs sampling. Proceedings of the 43nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL) (pp. 363–370). https://nlp.stanford.edu/software/CRF-NER.html;http://nlp.stanford.edu/~manning/papers/gibbscrf3.pdf
16.
GadekarR., KrishnatrayP., & AngP. H. (2014). Framing of the H1N1 flu in an Indian newspaper. Journal of Creative Communications, 9(1), 49–66.
17.
GottliebR. (1995). Beyond NEPA and earth day: Reconstructing the past and envisioning a future for environmentalism. Environmental History Review, 19(4), 1–14.
18.
GrimmerJ., & StewartB. M. (2013). Text as data: The promise and pitfalls of automatic content analysis methods for political texts. Political Analysis, 21(3), 267–297.
19.
Haider-MarkelD. P., AllenM. D., & JohansenM. (2006). Understanding variations in media coverage of U.S. supreme court decisions: Comparing media outlets in their coverage of Lawrence v. Texas. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 11(2),64–85.
20.
HansenA. (1991). The media and the social construction of the environment. Media, Culture and Society, 13(4), 443–458.
21.
HansenA. (2009). Media and environmental change. Media Development, 56(2), 3–8.
22.
HansenA. (2018). Environment, media and communication. Routledge.
23.
HarmatiyO. (2021). Science coverage: What does the audience want and really need? Exploring media consumption in Ukraine. Journal of Creative Communications, 16(1), 97–112.
24.
HilgartnerS., & BoskC. L. (1988). The rise and fall of social problems: A public arenas model. American Journal of Sociology, 94(1), 53–78.
25.
HollimanR., DonovanC., ScanlonE., YatesS., & MacQueenH. (2001). Media coverage of the human genome project. Paper presented atBritish Sociological Association Conference—A Sociological Odyssey, Manchester Metropolitan University.
26.
Iramuteq. (2020). R interface for multidimensional text and questionnaire analysis. Free software built with free software. Iramuteq. http://iramuteq.org/
27.
IyengarS. (2015). Media politics: A citizen’s guide (3rd ed.). Norton and Company.
28.
KanissP. (1991). Making local news. University of Chicago Press.
29.
KepplingerH. M., & HabermeierJ. (1995). The impact of key events on the presentation of reality. European Journal of Communication, 10(3), 371–390.
30.
KennedyD. (2010). Science and the media. In KennedyD., & OverholserG. (Eds.), The media society (pp. 1–9). American Academy of Arts and Sciences.
31.
LatourB. (2018). Down to earth: Politics in the new climate regime. Polity Press.
32.
LawlorA., & TolleyE. (2017). Deciding who’s legitimate: News media framing of immigrants and refugees. International Journal of Communication, 11, 967–991.
33.
LewJ. (1991, December22). Peering into a world under glass. New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/22/travel/peering-into-a-world-under-glass.html
34.
LindlofT. R. (1995). Qualitative communication research methods. SAGE Publications.
35.
McCombsM., (2004). Setting the agenda: The mass media and public opinion. Polity Press.
36.
McCombsM., & ShawD. (1972). The agenda seting funcion of the mass media. Public Opinion Quaterly, 36, 176–185.
37.
MailléM., & Saint-CharlesJ. (2014). Fuelling an environmental conflict through information diffusion strategies. Environmental Communication, 8(3), 305–325, https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2013.851099
38.
MillerJ. D. (1983). Scientific literacy: Aconceptual and empirical review. Daedalus, 112(2), 29–48.
39.
MillerJ. D. (1998). The measurement of civic scientific literacy. Public Understanding of Science, 7, 203–223.
40.
MillerJ. D. (2004). Public understanding of, and attittudes toward, scientific research: What we know and what we need to know. Public Understanding of Science, 13, 273–294.
41.
MillerJ. D. (2010). Civic scientific literacy: The role of the media in the electronic era. In KennedyD., & OverholserG. (Eds.), The media society (pp. 44–63). American Academy of Arts and Sciences.
42.
MillerJ. D., & KimmelL. G. (2001). Biomedical communications: Purposes, audiences, and straegies. Academic Press.
43.
NelsonM. (2018). Biosphere 2: Out of this world? (pp. 44–49). Darmouth Alumni Magazine.
44.
NisbetM., & HugeM. (2006). Attention cycles and frames in the plant biotechnology debate: Managing power and participation through the press/policy connection. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 11(2), 3–40.
45.
O’NeillG. (1974). The colonization of space. Physics Today, 27(9), 32–40.
46.
Pew Research Center. (2017). Science news and information today. https://www.pewresearch.org/
47.
PfauM., HaighM., GettleM., DonnellyM., ScottG., WarrD., & WittenbergE. (2004). Embedding journalists in military combat units: Impact on newspaper story frames and tone. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 81, 74–88.
48.
PooleR. (2016). A corpus-aided ecological discourse analysis of the Rosemont copper mine debate of Arizona, USA. Discourse and Communication, 10(6), 576–595.
49.
PoynterJ. (2006). The human experiment: Two years and twenty minutes inside Biosphere 2. Basic Books.
50.
PriestS., & EyckT. T. (2003). News coverage of biotechnology debates. Society, 40(6), 29–34.
51.
QuesnelK. J., & AjamiN. K. (2017). Changes in water consumption linked to heavy news media coverage of extreme climatic events. Science Advances, 3(10), 1–9.
52.
RamosM. G., LimaV. M. R., & Amaral-RosaM. (2019). IRAMUTEQ software and discursive textual analysis: Interpretive possibilities. In CostaA., ReisL., MoreiraA. (Eds.), Computer supported qualitative research, WCQR 2018. (AISC 861). Springer.
53.
RamsdenJ. M. (1998). Mission impossible? Can anything be done about attitudes to science?International Journal of Science Education, 20(2), 125–137.
54.
RatinaudP., & MarchandP. (2015). From lexical worlds to social representations. A first approach to the themes in the debates in the National Assembly (1998-2014). Words. Languages of Politics, 108(2), 57–77.
55.
RaysonP., & GarsideR. (2000). Comparing corpora using frequency profiling. Proceedings of the Workshop on Comparing Corpora, Hong Kong, 9, 1–6.
56.
ReinertM. (1983). A hierarchical descending classification method: application to lexical analysis by context. Notebooks of Data Analysis, 8(2), 187–198.
57.
ReinertM. (2007). Enunciative postures and lexical worlds stabilized in statistical discourse analysis. Language and Society, 121, 189–202.
58.
RussellC. (2010). Covering controversial science: Improving reporting on science and public policy (pp. 13–43). Science and the Media.
59.
SaltonG., & LeskM. E. (1968). Computer evaluation of indexing and text processing. Journal of the ACM, 15(1), 8–36.
60.
ScheufeleD. A. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication, 49, 103–122.
61.
SherriffL. (2016, April19). The worlds largest earth science laboratory you’ve probably never heard of. It looks like its straight out of a James Bond movie. Huff Post.
62.
SimovK., BoytchevaS., & OsenovaP. (2017). Towards lexical chains for knowledge-graph-based word embeddings. Proceedings of Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing Meet Deep Learning (RANLP) (pp. 679–685). https://www.acl-bg.org/proceedings/2017/RANLP%202017/pdf/RANLP087.pdf
63.
Sketch Engine. (n.d.). Corpus query language. https://www.sketchengine.eu/documentation/corpus-querying/
64.
SorokaS. N. (2002). Issue attributes and agenda setting by media, the public, and policymakers in Canada. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 14(3), 264–285.
65.
SpeakmanB. (2021). A knight in sheep’s clothing: Media framing of the alt-right can alter the image of racist groups. Journal of Creative Communications, 16(1), 81–96.
66.
StrekalovaY. A. (2015). Informing dissemination research: A content analysis of US newspaper coverage of medical nanotechnology news. Science Communication, 37(2), 151–172.
TannierX., & VernierF. (2016). Creation, visualization and edition of timelines for journalistic use. Proceedings of ‘Natural Language meets Journalism’,Workshop of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence(IJCAI 2016) (pp. 101–106). https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02407152/document
69.
Ten EyckT. A., & WillimentM. (2003). The national media and things genetic: Coverage in The New York Times (1971–2001) and The Washington Post (1977–2001). Science Communication, 25(2), 129–152.
WalfordR. L., HarrisS. B., & GunionM. W. (1992). The calorically restricted low-fat nutrient-dense diet in Biosphere 2 significantly lowers blood glucose, total leukocyte count, cholesterol, and blood pressure in humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 89(23), 11533–11537.
72.
WeingartP. (1998). Science and the media. Research Policy, 27(8), 869–897.
73.
ZerbackT., ReinemannC., Van AelstP., & MasiniA. (2020). Was Lampedusa a key event for immigration news? An analysis of the effects of the Lampedusa disaster on immigration coverage in Germany, Belgium, and Italy. Journalism Studies, 21(6), 748–765. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2020.1722730
