The authors examine news coverage surrounding the unearthing of an ancient skeleton known as Kennewick Man. The skeleton was the focus of legal arguments from 1996 to 2004, with a group of scientists countering Indian claims that the skeleton should be rightfully repatriated to the North American tribes. The authors take a case-study approach, examining the theoretical underpinnings of scientific and cultural rationality in contemporary ways of knowing and linking them with communitarian ethics offered by Clifford Christians and others. Through an examination of mass media framing, the authors show how coverage has resulted in a discourse that has limited discussion to a division of rationalities. In this case, rationalist and cultural value sunfold with scant attendance to ethical or pluralistic considerations.
Altimore, M.1982. The social construction of a scientific controversy: Comments on press coverage of the recombinant DNA debate. Science, Technology & Human Values7:24-31.
2.
Andersen, R.1997. Women, welfare, and the United States media. In Communication ethics and universal values, edited by C. Christians and M. Traber, 300-327. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.
3.
Bantimaroudis, P., and H. Ban. 2001. Coveringthe crisis in Somalia: Framing choices by the New York Times and the Manchester Guardian.In Framing public life: Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world, edited by S. D. Reese, O. H. Gandy Jr., and A. E. Grant, 175-184. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
4.
Bennett, W. L.1980. Public opinion and the news media. In Public opinion in American politics, edited by J. D. Barber, 304-344. San Francisco: Harcourt Brace.
5.
Breyer, S.1998. The interdependence of science and law. Science280:537-539.
6.
Boneheaded. 2000. The Economist356 (September 30): 84
Christians, C., M. Fackler, K. B. Rotzoll, and K. B. McKee, eds. 2001. Media ethics: Cases and moral reasoning. New York: Longman.
9.
Christians, C., J.P. Ferre, and M. P. Fackler, eds. 1993. Good news: Social ethics and the press. New York: Oxford University Press.
10.
Christians, C., and M. M. Traber, eds. 1997. Communication ethics and universal values. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11.
Coleman, C.-L.1995. Science, technology, and risk coverage of a community conflict. Media, Culture & Society17:65-79.
12.
Coleman, C.-L.1996. A war of words: How news frames define legitimacy in a native conflict. In Dressing in feathers: The construction of the Indian in American popular culture, edited by S. E. Bird, 181-193. Boulder, CO: Westview.
13.
Coleman, C.-L.1997. Emergent values from Native American discourse. In Communication ethics and universal values, edited by C. Christians and M. Traber, 149-207. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.
14.
Coleman, C.-L., and J. A. Corbitt. 2003. The social construction of mental health and depression in news stories. Ecquid Novi24 (1): 99-114.
15.
Cosh, C.2002. Now maybe we’ll learn who Kenny was. The Report29 (September 23): 3.
16.
Culler, J.1997. Literary theory: A very short introduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
17.
Custred, G.2000. The forbidden discovery of Kennewick Man. Academic Questions13:12-30.
18.
D’Angelo, P.2002. News framing as a multiparadigmatic research program: A response to Entman. Journal of Communication52:870-888.
19.
Deloria, V., Jr., and D. R. Wildcat. 2001. Power and place: Indian education in America. Golden, CO: Fulcrum.
20.
Dickerson, D. L.2001. Framing “political correctness”: The New York Times’ tale of two professors. In Framing public life: Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world, edited by S. D. Reese, O. H. Gandy Jr., and A. E. Grant, 163-174. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
21.
Dornan, C.1990. Some problems in conceptualizing the issue of science and the media. Critical Studies in Mass Communication7:48-71.
22.
Dunwoody, S.1980. The science writing inner club: A communication link between science and the lay public. Science, Technology & Human Values5:14-22.
23.
Foster, K. R., and P. W. Huber. 1999. Judging science: Scientific knowledge and the federal courts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
24.
Gamson, W., and A. Modigliani. 1989. Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology95:1-37.
25.
Gans, H. J.1979. Sources and journalists. In Deciding what’s news: A study of CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, Newsweek, and Time, by H. J. Gans, 116-145. New York: Pantheon.
26.
Gitlin, T.1980. The whole world is watching: Mass media in the making and unmaking of the new Left. Berkeley: University of California Press.
27.
Gozzi, R., Jr.1999. The power of metaphor. ETC: A Review of General Semantics56 (4): 380-405.
28.
Graber, D.2004. Mediated politics and citizenship in the twenty-first century. Annual Review of Psychology55 (1): 545-571.
29.
Habermas, J.1970. Toward a rational society: Student protest, science, and politics. Translated by J. J. Shapiro. Boston: Beacon.
30.
Halm, B. B.2003. Atlalanta’s apples: Postcolonial theory as a barrier to the “balance of stories.”Research in African Literatures34 (4): 155-173.
31.
Held, D.1987. Models of democracy. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
32.
James, K.2001. Science and Native American communities: Legacies of pain, visions of promise. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
33.
Jasanoff, S.2001. Judicial fictions: The Supreme Court’s quest for good science. Society38:27-36.
34.
Jennings, F.1976. The invasion of America: Indians, colonialism and the cant of conquest. New York: W. W. Norton.
35.
Landsman, G. H.1987. Indian activism and the press: Coverage of the conflict at Ganienkeh. Anthropological Quarterly60 (3): 101-113.
36.
Levi, A. W.1959. Philosophy and the modern world. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
37.
Lievrouw, L. A.1990. Communication and the social representation of scientific knowledge. Critical Studies in Mass Communication7:1-10.
38.
Logan, R. A.2001. Science mass communication: Its conceptual history. Science Communication23 (2): 135-163.
39.
McGinn, R. E.1979. In defense of intangibles: The responsibility-feasibility dilemma in modern technological innovation. Science, Technology & Human Values29:4-10.
40.
McKeown, C. T., and S. Hutt. 2003. In the smaller scope of conscience: The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act twelve years after. UCLA Journal of Environmental Law & Policy21:153-212.
41.
McQuail, D.1987. Mass communication theory. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
42.
Meighan, C. W.1993. The burial of American archeology. Academic Questions6:9-19.
43.
Miller, J.1997. Bones of contention. Reason29:52-55.
44.
Miller, M. M., and B. P. Riechert. 2001. The spiral of opportunity and frame resonance: Mapping the issue cycle in news and public discourse. In Framing public life: Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world, edited by S. D. Reese, O. H. Gandy Jr., and A. E. Grant, 83-94. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
45.
Nelkin, D.1987. Selling science: How the press covers science and technology. New York: W. H. Freeman.
46.
Nerlich, B., S. Johnson, and D. D. Clarke. 2003. The first designer baby: The role of narratives, clichés and metaphors in the year 2000 media debate. Science as Culture12 (4): 471-499.
47.
Nisbet, M. C., and B. V. Lewenstein. 2002. Biotechnology and the American media: The policy process and the elite press, 1970 to 1999. Science Communication23:359-391.
48.
Plough, A., and S. Krimsky. 1987. The emergence of risk communication studies: Social and political context. Science, Technology & Human Values12:4-10.
49.
Priest, S. H.1995. Information equity, public understanding of science, and the biotechnology debate. Journal of Communication45:39-54.
50.
Randerson, J., A. Ananthaswamy, and E. Young. 2003. Back to their roots: The UK wants to return bones held in museums to their rightful owners. New Scientist178(May31):12-13.
51.
Reese, S. D.1990. The news paradigm and the ideology of objectivity: A socialist at theWall Street Journal. Critical Studies in Mass Communication7:390-409.
52.
Reese, S. D., O. H. Gandy, and A. E. Grant, eds. 2001. Framing public life: Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
53.
Scheufele, D.A.1999. Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication49:102-122.
54.
Shepard, P.1998. Coming home to the Pleistocene. Washington, DC: Island.
55.
Stedman, R. W.1982. Shadows of the Indian: Stereotypes in American culture. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
56.
Stocking, S. H.1999. How journalists deal with scientific uncertainty. In Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science, edited by S. M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, and C. L. Rogers, 23-41. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
57.
Tammpuu, P.2004. Constructing public images of new genetics and gene technology: The media discourse on the Estonian human genome project. Trames: A Journal of the Humanities & Social Sciences8 (1/2): 192-217.
58.
Tankard, J. W., Jr.2001. Empirical approach to the study of media framing. In Framing public life: Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world, edited by S. D. Reese, O. H. Gandy Jr., and A. E. Grant, 95-103. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
59.
Tankard, J. W., Jr., and M. Ryan. 1974. News source perceptions of accuracy of science coverage. Journalism Quarterly51:219-225, 334.
60.
Taylor, H.2003. Scientists, firemen, doctors, teachers, and nurses top list as most prestigious occupations. http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=406.
61.
Thomas, D. H.2000. Skull wars: Kennewick Man, archeology, and the battle for Native American identity. New York: Basic Books.
62.
Tichenor P., G. Donohue, and C. Olien. 1980. Community conflict and the press. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
63.
Tönnies, F.[1887] 1988. Community and society. Translated by C. P. Loomis. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
64.
Tsosie, R.2003. Tribalism, constitutionalism, and cultural pluralism: Where do indigenous peoples fit within civil society?University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law5:357-404.
65.
Tuchman, G.1980. Making news: A study in the construction of reality. New York: Free Press.
66.
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. National NAGPRA: Laws, regulations, and guidance. http://www.cr.nps.gov/nagpra/mandates/index.htm.
67.
Weigold, M. F.2001. Communicating science: A review of the literature. Science Communication23 (2): 164-193.
68.
Wilkins, L., and C. Christians. 2001. Philosophy meets the social sciences: The nature of humanity in the public arena. Journal of Mass Media Ethics16:99-120.
69.
Yin, R. K.2003. Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
70.
Zoch, L. M.2001. What’s really important here? Media self-coverage in the Susan Smith murder trial. In Framing public life: Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world, edited by S. D. Reese, O. H. Gandy Jr., and A. E. Grant, 195-205. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
