In a content analysis, the authors assess the prevailing impressions toward social actors in the coverage of science and biomedical news in the Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post during biennial periods from 1989 to 1995. The social actors and outcome variables studied were favorability toward science and medical professionals, the health care delivery system, science and medicine as social institutions, industry, government, and public interest groups. The study found that prevailing impressions toward industry, government, the health care delivery system, science and medical professionals, science and medicine as social institutions, and public interest groups were within a middle or ascribed equivocal range for both newspapers during all the time periods surveyed. The findings challenge some qualitative, case-study-based scholarship that suggests prevailing impressions are skewed in highly favorable or unfavorable directions toward social actors in science reporting.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Beell, T.
, ed. 1997. Messages 4: The Washington Post media companion. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
2.
Blakeslee, S.
, ed. 1986. Human heart replacement: A new challenge for physicians and reporters. Los Angeles: Foundation for American Communications.
3.
Budd, R. W.
, R. K. Thorp, and L. Donohew. 1967. Content analysis of communication. New York: Macmillan.
4.
Burnham, J.
1987. How superstition won and science lost: Popularizing science and health in the United States. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
5.
Christians, C.
, J. P. Ferre, and M. P. Fackler. 1993. Good news: Social ethics and the press. New York: Oxford University Press.
6.
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.
7.
Davis, H.
, and P. Walton. 1983. Death of a premier: Consensus and closure in international news. In Language, image, media: Linguistic transformations, edited by H. Davis and P. Walton, 8-49. London: Blackwell.
8.
Efron, E.
1985. The apocalyptics: How environmental politics controls what we know about cancer. New York: Simon & Schuster.
9.
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.
10.
Fumento, M.
1993. Balancing technology and the environment: Science under siege. New York: William Morrow.
11.
Gamson, W. A.
, and A. Modigliani. 1989. Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power. American Journal of Sociology95:1-37.
12.
Greenberg, D.1974. Let's hear it for science. Columbia Journalism Review13:19-24.
13.
Haff, G.1976. Science writing in American mass media. Nieman Reports30:18-24.
14.
Hansen, A.
, S. Cottle, R. Negrine, and C. Newbold. 1998. Mass communication research methods. New York: New York University Press.
15.
Hart, R.1984. Shamans and criers: Responsibilities in science reporting. The Quill72:24-28.
16.
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.
17.
Hester, G.1992. Electric and magnetic fields: Managing an uncertain risk. Environment, January-February, 10-11.
18.
Hilgartner, S.
, and C. Bosk. 1988. The rise and fall of social problems: A public arenas model. American Journal of Sociology94:53-78.
19.
Holsti, O. R.
1969. Content analysis for the social sciences. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
20.
Illich, I.
1975. Medical nemesis: The expropriation of health. London: Calder & Boyers.
21.
Krippendorff, K.
1980. Content analysis: An introduction to methodology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
22.
Lambeth, E.
1992. Committed journalism: An ethic for the profession. 2d ed.Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
23.
Laski, H.
1984. The American democracy. New York: Viking Press.
24.
Lincoln, Y. S.
, and N. K. Denzin. 1998. The fifth movement. In The landscape of qualitative research, edited by N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, 407-429. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
25.
Lippmann, T.
, ed. 1989. Washington Post deskbook on style. New York: McGraw-Hill.
26.
Loehr, R.1991. What raised the issue?EPA Journal17:6-12.
27.
Logan, R. A.
, L. Fears, and N. F. Wilson. 1997. Social responsibility in science news: Four case studies. Washington, DC: The Media Institute.
28.
McQuail, D.
1992. Media performance: Mass communication and the public interest. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
29.
Nelkin, D.
1991. Why is science writing so uncritical of science? In Risky business: Communicating issues of science, risk and public policy, edited by L. Wilkins and P. Patterson, ix-xiii. New York: Greenwood Press.
30.
Nelkin, D.
1995. Selling science: How the press covers science and technology. Rev. ed.New York: W. H. Freeman.
31.
Pellechia, M. G.1997. Trends in science coverage: A content analysis of three US newspapers. Public Understanding of Science6 (1): 49-68.
32.
Perlman, D.1974. Science and the mass media. Daedalus103:207-222.
33.
Shaw, D.
1977. Journalism today: A changing press for a changing America. New York: Harper's College Press.
34.
Shoemaker, P.
, and S. Reese. 1996. Mediating the message: Theories of influence on mass content. White Plains, NY: Longman.
35.
Signorielli, N.
1993. Mass media images and impact on health: A sourcebook. Westport, CN: Greenwood Press.
36.
Sontag, S.
1989. AIDS and its metaphors. New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux.
37.
Trachtman, L.1981. The public understanding of science effort: A critique. Science, Technology, & Human Values36:10-15.
38.
Tuchman, G.
1978. Making news: A study in the construction of reality. New York: Free Press.
39.
Tuchman, G.
1993. Media institutions: Qualitative methods in the study of news. In A handbook of qualitative methodologies for mass communication research, edited by K. B. Jensen and N. W. Jankowski, 79-92. New York: Routledge.
40.
Warner, K.1977. The effects of the anti-smoking campaign on cigarette consumption. American Journal of Public Health67:645-650.
41.
Warner, K.
1989. The epidemiology of coffin nails. In Health risks and the press, edited by M. Moore, 73-89. Washington, DC: The Media Institute.
42.
Washington Post Writers Group
. 1974. Of the press, by the press, for the press (and others, too). Washington, DC: The Washington Post.
43.
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.
44.
Whelan, E.
, J. Sheridan, K. Meister, and B. Mosher. 1981. Analysis of coverage of tobacco hazards in women's magazines. Journal of Public Health Policy2:28-35.
45.
Wilkins, L.
1987. Shared vulnerability: The mass media and American perception of the Bhopal disaster. Westport, CN: Greenwood Press.
46.
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. Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
