Journalistsmake frequentuse of social science research in news stories, andthis informationcan help shape public opinion and policy. Despite this, few scholars have examined how this coverage is assembled. In particular, researchers have rarely considered how the methodology of social science influences journalists’ judgments. This article uses an experimental design embedded within an e-mail survey of working journalists to compare judgments of a qualitative and quantitative study. Results show journalists consider the quantitative study more accurate and newsworthy. The article considers how focusing on N and other basic aspects of methodology might influence coverage patterns and distort representations of social science research.
Allen, M., and R. W. Preiss. 1997. Comparing the persuasiveness of narrative and statistical evidence using meta-analysis. Communication Research Reports14:125-131.
2.
Bertenthal, B. I.2002. Challenges and opportunities in the psychological sciences. The American Psychologist57:215-218.
3.
Burnham, J.1987. How superstition won andscience lost: Popularizingscience andhealthin the United States. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
4.
Cialdini, R.1997. Professionally responsible communication with the public: Giving psychology a way. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin23:675-683.
5.
Clayman, S. E., and A. Reisner. 1998. Gatekeeping in action: Editorial conferences and assessments of newsworthiness. American Psychological Review63:178-199.
6.
Couper, M. P., J. Blair, and T. Triplett. 1999. A comparison of mail and e-mail for a survey of employees in federal statistical agencies. Journal of Official Statistics15:39-56.
7.
Cox, D., and A. D. Cox. 2001. Communicating on the consequences of early detection: The role of evidence and framing. Journal of Marketing21:91-103.
8.
Crawford, S.D., M. P. Couper, and M. J. Lamias. 2001. Web surveys: Perceptions of burden. Social Science Computer Review19:146-162.
9.
Dunwoody, S.1986. When science writers cover the social sciences. In Reporting science: The case of aggression, edited by J. H. Goldstein, 67-81. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
10.
Evans, W.1995. The mundane and the arcane: Prestige media coverage of social and natural science. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly72:168-177.
11.
Fenton, N., A. Bryman, and D. Deacon. 1998. Mediating social science. London: Sage.
12.
Fenton, N., A. Bryman, D. Deacon, and P. Birmingham. 1997. Sod off and find us a boffin’: Journalists and the social science conference. Sociological Review45:1-23.
13.
Fowler, R.1991. Language in thenews: Discourse andideologyin thepress. London:Routledge.
14.
Frazer, E.1995. What’s new in the philosophy of social science?Oxford Review of Education21:267-283.
15.
Gans, H. J.1980. Deciding what’s news: A study of CBS “Evening News,” NBC “Nightly News,” “Newsweek,” and “Time.” New York: Vintage.
16.
Gant, C., and J. Dimmick. 2000. Making local news: A holistic analysis of sources, selection criteria, and topics. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly77:628-638.
17.
Garrett, P., and A. Bell. 1998. Media and discourse: A critical overview. In Approaches to media discourse, edited by A. Bell and P. Garrett, 1-20. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
18.
Goldstein, J. H.1986. Reporting science: The case of aggression. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
19.
Haslam, C., and A. Bryman. 1994. Social scientists meet the media. London: Routledge.
20.
Hoeken, H.2001. Anecdotal, statistical, and causal evidence: Their perceived and actual persuasiveness. Argumentation15:425-437.
21.
Kiernan, V.2003. Embargoes and science news. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly80:903-920.
22.
Logan, R. A., P. Zengjun, and N. F. Wilson. 2000. Science and medical coverage in the Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post: A six-year perspective. Science Communication22:5-26.
23.
McCall, R. B., and S. H. Stocking. 1982.Between scientists and public: Communicating psycho-logical research through the mass media. American Psychologist37:985-995.
24.
Morton, J.2003. Less of a loss. American Journalism Review25 (5): 68.
25.
Nelkin, D.1995. Selling science: How the press covers science and technology. New York: Freeman.
26.
Peiser, W.2000. Setting the journalist agenda: Influences from journalists’ individual characteristics and from media factors. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly77:243-257.
27.
Pellechia, M. G.1997. Trends in science coverage: A content analysis of three U. S. newspapers. Public Understanding of Science6:49-68.
28.
Salomone, K. L., M. R. Greenberg, P. M. Sandman, and D. B. Sachsman. 1990. A question of quality: How journalists and news sources evaluate coverage of environmental risk. Journal of Communication40:117-130.
29.
Schmierbach, M. 2000. A study of stories on studies: Media coverage of social science research. Master’s thesis, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
30.
Shoemaker, P. J., M. Eichholz, E. Kim, and B. Wrigley. 2001. Individual and routine forces in gatekeeping. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly78:233-246.
31.
Shoemaker, P. J., and S. D. Reese. 1996. Mediating the message: Theories of influences on media content. White Plains, NY: Longman.
32.
Treise, D., and M. F. Weigold. 2002. Advancing science communication: A survey of science communicators. Science Communication23:310-322.
33.
Tuchman, G.1978. Makingnews: A studyin theconstructionof reality. New York:Free Press.
34.
Weingart, P., and P. Pansegrau. 1999. Reputation in science and prominence in the media: The Goldhagen debate. Public Understanding of Science8:1-16.
35.
Weiss, C., and E. Singer. 1988. Reporting of social science in the national media. New York: Russell Sage.
