The authors present a quantitative content analysis of biotechnology-related coverage appearing in the New York Times and Newsweekbetween 1970 and 1999, examining patterns of media attention and evaluating the source impact of various political and social actors on the themes, frames, and tone of coverage. Although media attention to biotechnology steadily increased across the 1980s and most of the 1990s, it has been highly episodic, peaking and plummeting in response to major scientific announcements. Even in its peak years of coverage, biotechnology still rests rather modestly on the overall media agenda compared with other issues related to science, technology, or popular culture. The character of biotechnology-related coverage has been overwhelmingly positive, with heavy emphasis on the frames of scientific progress and economic prospect. A departure from this trend only occurs in correspondence to the late 1990s debate over cloning, as a greater media emphasis on ethics and controversy emerges.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Altimore, M.1982. The social construction of scientific controversy.Science, Technology, & Human Values7:24-31.
2.
Bachrach, P., and M. Baratz. 1970.Power and poverty. New York: Oxford University Press.
3.
Beall, G. A., and J. H. Hayes. 1996. Agricultural biotechnology: What is news and who are the sources. Paper presented at the Public Communication of Science and Technology Conference, 4 February, Melbourne, Australia.
4.
Beck, U.1992.Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: Sage.
5.
Benford, R., and R. Snow. 2000. Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment.Annual Review of Sociology26:611-639.
6.
Berkowitz, D.1992. Who sets the media agenda? The ability of policymakers to determine news decisions. In Public opinion, the press, and public policy, edited by J. D. Kennamer, 81-102. Westport, CT: Praeger.
7.
Boorstein, M.1997. Diana, Mother Teresa, and McVeigh conviction top stories of 1997.Associated Press, 26 December, AM cycle.
8.
Cobb, R. W., and C. Elder. 1971. The politics of agenda-building: An alternative perspective for modern democratic theory.Journal of Politics33:892-915.
9.
Cohen, L. P.1992. Some biotech firms excel at state-of-the-art hype.Wall Street Journal,13 March, C1-C1.
10.
Cozzens, S. E., and E. J. Woodhouse. 1995. Science, government, and the politics of knowledge. In Handbook of science and technology studies, edited by S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Peterson, and T. Pinch, 533-553. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11.
Danielian, L.1992. Interest groups in the news. In Public opinion, the press, and public policy, edited by J. D. Kennamer, 63-79. Westport, CT: Praeger.
12.
Dewar, H., and R. Weiss. 1998. Senate blocks GOP drive to quickly ban human cloning.Washington Post, 12 February, A12-A12.
13.
Durant, J., M. Bauer, and G. Gaskell, eds. 1998.Biotechnology in the public sphere: A European source book. London: Science Museum.
14.
Gamson, W., and A. Modigliani. 1989. Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach.American Journal of Sociology95:1-37.
15.
Gandy, O. H., Jr.1982.Beyond agenda-setting: Information subsidies and public policy. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
16.
Gans, H. G.1979.Deciding what's news: A study of CBS evening news, NBC nightly news, Newsweek, and Time. New York: Vintage.
17.
Gaskell, G., M. Bauer, and J. Durant. 1998. The representation of biotechnology: Policy, media, and public perception. In Biotechnology in the public sphere: A European source book, edited by J. Durant, M. Bauer, and G. Gaskell, 3-14. London: Science Museum.
18.
Gaskell, G., M. Bauer, J. Durant, and T. Allum. 1999. Worlds apart? The reception of genetically modified foods in Europe and the U.S.Science285:384-387.
19.
Giddens, A.1990.The consequences of modernity. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
20.
Gitlin, T.1980.The whole world is watching: Mass media in the making and unmaking of the new left. Berkeley: University of California Press.
21.
Goodell, R.1980. The gene craze.Columbia Journalism Review4:41-45.
22.
Goodell, R.1986. How to kill a controversy: The case of recombinant DNA. In Scientists and journalists: Reporting science as news, edited by S. M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, and C. L. Rogers, 170-181. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
23.
Greenberg, J.1997. Using sources. In A field guide for science writers, edited by D. Blum and M. Knudson, 94-101. New York: Oxford University Press.
24.
Hallin, D.1987. Hegemony: The American news media from Vietnam to El Salvador: A study in ideological changes and its limits. In Political communication research: Approaches, studies, assessments, edited by D. Paletz, 3-25. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
25.
Jasanoff, S.1997. Civilization and madness: The great BSE scare of 1996.Public Understanding of Science6:221-232.
26.
Kingdon, J. W.1984.Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. New York: HarperCollins.
27.
Kolata, G.1998.Clone: The road to Dolly and the path ahead. New York: William Morrow.
28.
Krimsky, S.1982.Genetic alchemy: The social history of the recombinant DNA controversy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
29.
Krimsky, S.1991.Biotechnics and society: The rise of industrial genetics. Westport, CT: Praeger.
30.
Lewenstein, B. 1990. Science writing: The development of a new profession. Unpublished manuscript.
31.
Lewenstein, B.1995. Science and the media. In Handbook of science and technology studies, edited by S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Peterson, and T. Pinch, 343-360. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
32.
Lichter, R., and S. Rothman. 1999.Environmental cancer—A political disease?New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
33.
Linsky, M.1986.Impact: How the press affects federal policymaking. New York: Norton.
34.
Lyson, T. A.2001. How do agricultural scientists view advanced biotechnologies?Chemical Innovation31:50-53.
Marks, L., N.Kalaitzandonakes, K. Allison, and L. Zakharova. 2000. Time series analysis of risk frames in media communication of agrobiotechnology. Paper presented at the 4th International Conference on The Economics of Agricultural Biotechnology, August, Ravello, Italy.
37.
Miller, M. M., and B. P. Reichert. 2000. Interest group strategies and journalist norms: News media framing of environmental risks. In Environmental risks and the media, edited by S. Allan, B. Adam, and C. Carter, 45-54. London: Routledge Kegan Paul.
38.
Nelkin, D.1995.Selling science: How the press covers science and technology. 2d ed.New York: Freeman.
39.
Noelle-Neumann, E.1984.Spiral of silence: Our social skin. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
40.
Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). 1984.Commercial biotechnology. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
41.
Office of Technology Assessment (OTA)1987.New developments in biotechnology: Public perceptions of biotechnology. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
42.
Palca, J.1998. Interview with Richard Seed. “All Things Considered,” National Public Radio, 6 January.
43.
Peters, H. P.1999. The interaction of journalists and scientific experts: Cooperation and conflict between two professional cultures. In Communication science: Contexts and channels, reader 2, edited by E. Scanlon, E. Whitelegg, and S. Yates, 252-269. London: Routledge Kegan Paul.
44.
Pfund, N., and L. Hofstadter. 1981. Biomedical innovation and the press.Journal of Communication31:138-154.
45.
Plein, L. C.1995. Popularizing biotechnology: The influence of issue definition.Science, Technology, & Human Values16:474-490.
46.
Price, J. H.1997. Cloning touted as infertility solution; Biologist's proposal draws threat of ban. Washington Times, 11 December, A9.
47.
Priest, S. H.2001.A grain of truth: The media, the public, and biotechnology. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
48.
Priest, S. H., and A. Gillespie. 2000. Seeds of discontent: Expert opinion, mass media, and the public image of agricultural biotechnology.Science and Engineering Ethics6:529-539.
49.
Priest, S. H., and J. Talbert. 1994. Mass media and the ultimate technological fix: Newspaper coverage of biotechnology.Southwestern Mass Communication Journal10:76-85.
50.
Rissler, J.2000. Staff scientist, Union of Concerned Scientists. Personal interview with author (MCN), Washington, DC, January.
51.
Rogers, M.1977.Biohazard: The struggle to control recombinant DNA experiments, the most promising (and most threatening) scientific research ever undertaken. New York: Knopf.
52.
Schattschneider, E. E.1960.The semi-sovereign people. New York: Holt.
53.
Scheufele, D. A.1999. Framing as a theory of media effects.Journal of Communication49:103-122.
54.
Scheufele, D. A., and P. Moy. 2000. Twenty-five years of the spiral of silence: A conceptual review and empirical outlook.International Journal of Public Opinion Research12:3-28.
55.
Schön, D. A., and M. Rein. 1994.Frame reflection: Toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. New York: Basic Books.
56.
Shoemaker, P. J., and S. D. Reese. 1996.Mediating the message: Theories of influences on mass media content. 2d ed.New York: Longman.
57.
Sigal, L.1973.Reporters and officials: The organization and politics of newsmaking. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
58.
Silver, L. M.1998.Remaking Eden: How genetic engineering and cloning will transform the American family. New York: Avon.
59.
Soloski, J.1989. Sources and channels of local news.Journalism Quarterly66:864-870.
60.
Tuchman, G.1978.Making news: A study in the construction of reality. New York: Free Press.
61.
Turney, J.1998.Frankenstein's footsteps: Science, genetics, and popular culture. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
62.
Wade, N.1977.The ultimate experiment: Man-made evolution. New York: Walker.
63.
Weiss, R.1998a. Scientist plans toclone humans; Anticipating ban, researcher says he has assembled doctors, volunteers.Washington Post, 7 January, A3.
64.
Weiss, R.1998b. Clinton presses ban on human cloning; Statement a response to fears of attempts unless Congress acts.Washington Post, 11 January, A6.
