A content analysis of the science, medical, and environmental news reported in the Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post in biennial periods from 1989 to 1995 explored seven hypotheses about science reporting, news selection, and writing that were derived from the qualitatively based literature. Outcome variables were the percentage of news stories that are generated by events or are episodically generated, of news stories that are generated by science issues, of news stories with an embedded human interest component, of news stories with an embedded educational/informative component, of conflicts between scientists embedded as a writing motif, of news stories with a focus on pioneer science, and of news stories with a focus on textbook science. Five of the seven hypotheses with regard to the overall frequencies of science-reporting motifs within both newspapers were rejected. Expected qualitative patterns received only partial and equivocal support within the time periods surveyed. The findings suggest that science journalism performance, if assessed over longer periods of time, may vary from some qualitative case-study presumptions. Case studies of science news may not reflect a news organization's overall reporting, editing, and news selection trends, which appear to be more broadly prudent and responsible within the newspapers surveyed than some previous scholarship suggests.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Angell, M.
1996. Science on trial: The clash of medical evidence. New York: W. W. Norton.
2.
Beell, T.
, ed. 1997. Messages 4: The Washington Post media companion. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
3.
Blakeslee, S.
, ed. 1986. Human heart replacement: A new challenge for physicians and reporters. Los Angeles: Foundation for American Communications.
4.
Boorstin, D.
1961. The image: A guide to pseudo events in America. New York: Atheneum.
5.
Burnham, J.
1987. How superstition won and science lost: Popularizing science and health in the United States. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
6.
Ciba Foundation Conference
. 1987. Communicating science to the public. New York: John Wiley.
7.
Council of Scientific Society Presidents
. 1991. Bridging the communications gap: A Wingspread workshop on strengthening relationships between scientists and journalists. Washington, DC: Council of Scientific Society Presidents.
8.
Dunwoody, S.
1999. Scientists, journalists, and the meaning of uncertainty. In Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science, edited by S. M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, and C. L. Rogers, 59-80. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
9.
Efron, E.
1985. The apocalyptics: How environmental politics controls what we know about cancer. New York: Simon & Schuster.
10.
Freimuth, V.
, R. Greenburg, J. DeWitt, and R. Romano. 1984. Covering cancer: Newspapers and the public interest. Journal of Communication34:62-73.
11.
Friedman, S. M.
1999. The never-ending story of dioxin. In Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science, edited by S. M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, and C. L. Rogers, 113-136. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
12.
Friedman, S. M.
, C. M. Gorney, and B. P. Egolf. 1992. Chernobyl coverage: How the US media treated the nuclear industry. Public Understanding of Science1:305-323.
13.
Friedman, S. M.
, K. Villamil, R. A. Suriano, and B. P. Egolf. 1996. Alar and apples: Newspapers, risk and media responsibility. Public Understanding of Science5(1): 1-20.
14.
Gregory, J.
, and S. Miller. 1998. Science in public: Communication, culture and credibility. New York: Plenum Press.
15.
Hagedorn, C.
, and S. Allender-Hagedorn. 1997. Issues in agricultural and environmental biotechnology: Identifying and comparing biotechnology issues from public opinion surveys, the popular press and technical/regulatory services. Public Understanding of Science6:233-245.
16.
Hansen, A.
, S. Cottle, R. Negrine, and C. Newbold. 1998. Mass communication research methods. New York: New York University Press.
17.
Hartz, J.
, and R. Chappell. 1997. Worlds apart: How the distance between science and journalism threatens America's future. Nashville, TN: First Amendment Center, Freedom Forum.
18.
Holsti, O. R.
1969. Content analysis for the social sciences. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
19.
Krippendorff, K.
1980. Content analysis: An introduction to methodology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
20.
Laetsch, W.
1987. A basis for better public understanding of science. In Communicating science to the public, Ciba Foundation Conference, 1-10. New York: John Wiley.
21.
Lewenstein, B.1992. Public understanding of science in the United States after World War II. Public Understanding of Science1:45-68.
22.
Lippmann, T.
, ed. 1989. Washington Post deskbook on style. New York: McGraw-Hill.
23.
Logan, R. A.1998. Three opportunities to work with the news media. Arthritis Care and Research11 (1): 53-58.
24.
Logan, R. A.
, L. Fears, and N. F. Wilson. 1997. Social responsibility in science news: Four case studies. Washington, DC: The Media Institute.
25.
Logan, R. A.
, M. Tessier, and S. Kingsbury. 1995. Environmental issues for the 1990s: A handbook for journalists. Washington, DC: The Media Institute.
26.
Manoff, R. K.
, and M. Schudson. 1987. Reading the news. New York: Pantheon.
27.
McQuail, D.
1992. Media performance: Mass communication and the public interest. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
28.
McQuail, D.
1994. Mass media theory: An introduction. 3d ed.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
29.
Miller, J.1983. Scientific literacy: A conceptual and empirical review. Daedalus112:29-48.
30.
Miller, J.
1986. Reaching the attentive and interested publics for science. In Scientists and journalists: Reporting science as news, edited by S. M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, and C. L. Rogers, 55-69. New York: Free Press.
31.
Miller, J.
1987. Scientific literacy in the United States. In Communicating science to the public, Ciba Foundation Conference, 19-37. New York: John Wiley.
32.
National Association of Science Writers
. 1992. Communicating science news: A guide for scientists, physicians and public information officers. Greenlawn, NY: National Association of Science Writers.
33.
Nelkin, D.
1987. Selling science: How the press covers science and technology. In Communicating science to the public, Ciba Foundation Conference, 100-110. New York: John Wiley.
34.
Nelkin, D.
1995. Selling science: How the press covers science and technology. Rev. ed.New York: W. H. Freeman.
35.
Pellechia, M. G.1997. Trends in science coverage: A content analysis of three US newspapers. Public Understanding of Science6 (1): 49-68.
36.
Pfund, N.
, and L. Hofstadter. 1981. Biomedical innovation and the press. Journal of Communication31:138-154.
37.
Prewitt, K.1982. The public and science policy. Science, Technology, & Human Values36:5-14.
38.
Prewitt, K.1983. Scientific illiteracy and democratic theory. Daedalus112:49-64.
39.
Saari, M. A.
, C. Gibson, and A. Osler. 1998. Endangered species: Science writers in the Canadian daily press. Public Understanding of Science7 (1): 61-81.
40.
Schudson, M.
1978. Discovering the news: A social history of American newspapers. New York: Basic Books.
41.
Shaw, D.
1977. Journalism today: A changing press for a changing America. New York: Harper's College Press.
42.
Shepard, G. R.1979. Science news of controversy: The case of marijuana. Journalism Monographs, No. 62.
43.
Shepard, G. R.1981. Selectivity of sources: Reporting the marijuana controversy. Journal of Communication31:129-137.
44.
Shoemaker, P.
, and S. Reese. 1996. Mediating the message: Theories of influence on mass content. White Plains, NY: Longman.
45.
Signorielli, N.
1993. Mass media images and impact on health: A sourcebook. Westport, CN: Greenwood Press.
46.
Tobey, R.
1971. The American ideology of natural science. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
47.
Trachtman, L.1981. The public understanding of science effort: A critique. Science, Technology, & Human Values36:10-15.
48.
Washington Post Writers Group
. 1974. Of the press, by the press, for the press (and others, too). Washington, DC: The Washington Post.
49.
Whelan, E.1985. Toxic error: Not all the muck is in the air and water: Some is in books, magazines, newspapers and broadcasts. The Quill73:10-16, 18.
50.
Wilkins, L.
1987. Shared vulnerability: The mass media and American perception of the Bhopal disaster. Westport, CN: Greenwood Press.
51.
Wilkins, L.
1989. Bhopal: The politics of mediated risk. In Bad tidings: Communication and catastrophe, edited by L. M. Walters, L. Wilkins, and T. Walters, 21-34. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
52.
Wilkins, L.
, and P. Patterson. 1987. Risk analysis and the construction of news. Journal of Communication37:80-92.
53.
Yankelovich, D.1982. Changing public attitudes to science and the quality of life. Science, Technology, & Human Values39:23-29.
