Issues related to genetics and genetic technology have gained a great deal ofattention from researchers, policy makers, the press, and even some consumers. This article focuses on how one ofthese actors—the U.S. elite press—has developed a discourse around these issues. This discussion centers on the framing of articles, the sources used by reporters, and the differences between genetics as they relate to food and to medicine. Over 2,700 articles from the New York Times (1971-2001) and theWashington Post (1977-2001) have been analyzed. It is found that scientists and medical issues were much more likely to be framed as progressive than were articles on food or ones in which government officials were quoted. In addition, a more indepth analysis ofarticles pertaining to protests and demonstrations between 2000 and 2001 is presented.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ader, C. R. 1995. Alongitudinal study of agenda setting for the issue of environmental pollution. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly72:300-311.
2.
Bagdikian, B. H. 1992. The media monopoly. 4th ed. Boston: Beacon.
3.
Beck, U. 1999. World risk society. Malden, MA: Polity.
4.
Belasco, W. J. 1993. Appetite for change, updated edition. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
5.
Blumer, H. 1971. Social problems as collective behavior. Social Problems18:298-305.
6.
Burnham, J. C. 1987. How superstition won and science lost. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
7.
Cassier, M. 2002. Private property, collective property, and public property in the age of genomics. International Social Science Journal54:83-98.
8.
Conrad, P., ed. 1997. The sociology of health and illness. 5th ed. New York: St. Martin’s.
9.
Crelinsten, R. D. 1989. Images of terrorism in the media: 1966-1985. Terrorism12:167-198.
10.
Davatelis, G. N. 2000. The Asilomar process: Is it valid? The Scientist14:51-51.
11.
Denzin, N. K., and Y. Lincoln, eds. 1998. The landscape ofqualitative research: Theories and issues. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
12.
Durant, J., M. W. Bauer, and G. Gaskell, eds. 1998. Biotechnology in the public sphere. London: Science Museum Press.
13.
Durham, F. D. 1998. News frames as social narratives: TWAFlight 800. Journal of Communication48:110-117.
14.
Dutton, D. B. 1988. Worse than the disease. New York: Cambridge University Press.
15.
Ericson, R. V., P. M. Baranek, and J. B. L. Chan. 1989. Negotiating control. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
16.
Ettorre, E. 1998. Reshaping the space between bodies and culture: Embodying the biomeicalised body. Sociology of Health and Illness20:548-555.
17.
Fiske, J. 1992. Audiencing: Acultural studies approach towatching television. Poetics21:345-359.
18.
Gamson, W. A. 1992. Talking politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
19.
Gamson, W. A., D. Croteau, W. Hoynes, and T. Sasson. 1992. Media images and the social construction of reality. Annual Review of Sociology18:373-393.
20.
Gamson, W. A., and A. Modigliani. 1989. Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology95:1-37.
21.
Gans, H. J. 1979. Deciding what’s news. New York: Vintage Books.
22.
Garfinkel, H. 1967. Studies in ethnomethodology. Malden, MA: Polity.
23.
Gaskell, G., and M. W. Bauer, eds. 2001a. Biotechnology, 1996-2000.London: Science Museum.
24.
Gaskell, G., and M. W. Bauer, eds. 2001b. Biotechnology in the years of controversy: A social science perspective. In Biotechnology, 1996-2000, edited by G. Gaskell and M. W. Bauer, 3-11. London: Science Museum.
25.
Giddens, A. 1991. Modernity and self-identity.Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
26.
Gitlin, T. 1980. The whole world is watching. Berkeley: University of California Press.
27.
Gunter, V. J., and C. K. Harris. 1998. Noisy winter: The DDT controversy in the years before Silent Spring. Rural Sociology63:171-198.
28.
Habermas, J. 1973. Legitimation crisis. Trans. Thomas McCarthy. Boston: Beacon.
29.
Hilgartner, S., and C. L. Bosk. 1988. The rise and fall of social problems: Apublic arenas model. American Journal of Sociology94:53-78.
30.
Hoijer, B. 1992. Reception of television narration as a socio-cognitive process: A schematheoretical outline. Poetics21:283-304.
31.
Kellner, D. 1990. Television and the crisis of democracy. Boulder, CO: Westview.
32.
Kimbrell, A. 2002. Fatal harvest. Washington, DC: Island.
33.
Kincheloe, J. L., and P. L. McLaren. 1998. Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research.In The landscape ofqualitative research: Theories and issues, edited by N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, 260-299. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
34.
Kone, D., and E. Mullet. 1994. Societal risk perception and media coverage. Risk Analysis14:2124-2124.
35.
McLaughlin, P., and M. Khawaja. 2000. The organizational dynamics of the U.S. environmental movement: Legitimation, resource mobilization, and political opportunity. Rural Sociology65:422-439.
36.
Middendorf, G., M. Skladany, E. Ransom, and L. Busch. 2000. Newagriculture biotechnologies: The struggle for democractic choice. In Hungry for profit, edited by F. Magdoff, J. B. Foster, and F. M. Buttel, 107-123. New York: Monthly Review Press.
37.
Morley, D. 1980. The “nationwide” audience. London: British Film Institute.
38.
Nelkin, D. 1995. Selling science. New York: W.H. Freeman.
39.
Nisbet, M. C., and B. V. Lewenstein. 2002. Biotechnology and the American media: The policy process and the elite press, 1970 to 1999. Science Communication23 (4): 359-391.
40.
Nottingham, S. 1999. Eat your genes. London: Zed Books.
41.
Office of Technology Assessment. 1987. New developments in biotechnology. Background paper 2, Public perceptions ofbiotec hnology, U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment, OTA-BP-BA-45. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
42.
Ottaway, D. B. 2000. US pork producer hogtied in Polish venture; farm union, DC group to join to stymie Smithfield Inc. Washington Post, July 3, A1-A1.
43.
Parenti, M. 1993. Inventing reality. New York: St. Martin’s.
44.
Pfund, N., and L. Hofstadter. 1981. Biomedical innovation and the press. Journal of Communica --tion31:138-154.
45.
Pilisuk, M., S. Parks, and G. R. Hawkes. 1985. University scientists and public trust. Sociology and Social Research70:98-101.
46.
Pollack, A. 2001. Entrepreneur envisions a cat that doesn’t cause allergies. The New York Times, June 27, C1-C1.
47.
Priest, S. H. 1994. Structuring public debate on biotechnology: Media frames and public response. Science Communication16 (2): 166-179.
48.
Priest, S. H. 2000. USpublic opinion divided over biotechnology? Nature Biotechnology18:939-942.
49.
Priest, S.H., and T.A.Ten Eyck. 2003. News coverage of biotechnology debates. Society40 (6):29-34.
50.
Raskin, M. G. 1987. Reconstruction and its knowledge method. In New ways ofknowing, edited by M. G. Raskin and H. J. Bernstein, 8-36. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield.
51.
Reed, M. C., and S. Trude. 2002. Whodo you trust? Americans’perspective on health care, 1997-2001. Center for Studying Health System Change, http://www.hschange.org/content/457.
52.
Shoemaker, P. J., and S. D. Reese. 1996. Mediating the message. White Plains, NY: Longman.
53.
Sigal, L. V. 1973. Reporters and officials. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
54.
Sirianni, C., and L. Friedland. 2001. Civic innovation in America. Berkeley: University of California Press.
55.
Slovic, P. 2000. The perception of risk. London: Earthscan.
56.
Stempel, G. H., III. 1989. Content analysis. In Research methods in mass communication, 2nd ed., edited by G. H. Stempel III and B. H. Westley, 124-136. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
57.
Ten Eyck, T. A. 1999. Shaping a food safety debate: Control efforts of newspaper reporters and sources in the food irradiation controversy. Science Communication20 (4): 426-447.
58.
Ten Eyck, T. A., P. B. Thompson, and S. H. Priest. 2001. Biotechnology in the United States of America: Mad or moral science? In Biotechnology, 1996-2000, edited by G. Gaskell and M. W. Bauer, 307-318. London: Science Museum.
59.
Ten Eyck, T. A., and M. Williment. Forthcoming. The more things change...: Milk pasteurization, food irradiation, and biotechnology in the New York Times. The Social Science Journal41.
60.
Thompson, P. B. 1997. Food biotechnology in ethical perspective. London: Blackie.
61.
Tuchman, G. 1978. Making news. New York: Free Press.
62.
Verhovek, S. H. 2001. Radical animal rights groups step up protests. New York Times, November 11, A24-A24.
63.
WashingtonPost. 2000. 44 Claim illnesswas caused by biotech corn in food. November 29, A10-A10.
64.
Wolcott, H. F. 1994. Transforming qualitative data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
65.
Zelizer, B. 1993. Journalists as interpretive communities. Critical Studies in MassCommunication10:219-237.
