This article investigates how developments in nanotechnology were framed in the British national newspaper press during a formative period in their rising public salience. Specifically, an intervention by Prince Charles in April 2003 is shown to have acted as the principal catalyst for much of the ensuing newspaper reporting over the next fifteen months. This study, in taking as its focus the operation of specific news frames, identifies a range of factors that shaped the initial terms of the subsequent debate (between both advocates and critics of nanotechnology) from one newspaper to the next during this period. The analysis suggests that the involvement of a celebrity may play a crucial role in enhancing the newsworthiness of an issue and influencing its subsequent framing in the newspaper press.
Allan, S.2002. Media, risk and science. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
2.
Allan, S., B. Adam, and C. Carter, eds. 2000. Environmental risks and the media. London and New York: Routledge.
3.
Anderson, A.1997. Media, culture and the environment. London: UCL Press.
4.
Anderson, A., S. Allan, A. Petersen, and C. Wilkinson. 2005. Textual representations of nanotechnology. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), February 17–21, Washington, D.C.
5.
Conrad, P., and S. Markens. 2001. Constructing the “gay gene” in the news: Optimism and skepticism in the U.S. and British press. Health5(3): 373–400.
Corbett, J. B., and M. Mori. 1999. Medicine, media, and celebrities: News coverage of breast cancer, 1960–1995. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly76(2): 229–249.
8.
Faber, B.2005. Popularizing nanoscience: The public rhetoric of nanotechnology, 1986–1999. Available from http://www.people.clarkson.edu/%7Efaber/pubs/nano.tech.tcq.3.0.doc.
9.
Friedman, S., and B. Egolf. 2005. Nanotechnology in the U.S. and British mass media. Paper presented at the International Association for Science, Technology and Society Meeting, February 11, Baltimore, MD.
10.
Gaskell, G., T. Ten Eyck, J. Jackson, and G. Veltri. 2005. Imagining nanotechnology: Cultural support for technological innovation in Europe and the United States. Public Understanding of Science14:81–90.
11.
Gerard, J.2003. Charles gets in a wee tizz over nanotechnology. The Sunday Times. April 27, 17.
12.
Gitlin, T.1980. The whole world is watching: Mass media in the making and unmaking of the new left. Berkeley: University of California Press.
13.
Gorss, J., and B. Lewenstein. 2005. The salience of small: Nanotechnology coverage in the American press, 1986–2004. Paper presented at the International Communication Association Conference, May 27.
14.
Hall, S., C. Critcher, T. Jefferson, J. Clarke, and B. Roberts. 1978. Policing the crisis: Mugging, the state, and law and order. London: Macmillan.
15.
Hansen, A., S. Cottle, R. Negrine, and C. Newbold. 1998. Mass communication research methods. London: Macmillan.
16.
Highfield, R.2003. Small cause for concern. The Spectator. June 14.
17.
Hijmans, E., A. Pleijter, and F. Wester. 2003. Covering scientific research in Dutch newspapers. Science Communication25(2): 153–176.
18.
Huijer, M.2003. Reconsidering democracy: History of the Human Genome Project. Science Communication24(4): 479–502.
19.
Katz Rothman, B.1998. Genetic maps and human imaginations. New York: W. W. Norton.
20.
Larson, B. M. H., B. Nerlich, and P. Wallis. 2005. Metaphors and biorisks: Thewar on infectious diseases and invasive species. Science Communication26(3): 243–268.
21.
Loening, U.2003. Challenges of the new technologies. The Times. May 7, p. 19-19.
22.
Marks, K.1999. Why prince went tabloid on GM food. The Independent. June 2.
23.
Miller, M., and B. P. Riechert. 2000. Interest group strategies and journalistic norms: News media framing of environmental issues. In Environmental risks and the media, edited by S. Allan, B. Adam, and C. Carter, 45–54. London: Routledge.
24.
Nelkin, D.1987. Selling science: How the press covers science and technology. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.
25.
Nelkin, D., and M. S. Lindee. 1995. The DNA mystique: The gene as a cultural icon. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.
26.
Newspaper Marketing Agency. 2005. Newspaper crib sheets. Retrieved from http://www.nmauk.co.uk/nma/do/live/factsAndFigures.
27.
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.
28.
Nisbet, M., D. Brossard, and A. Kroepsch. 2003. Framing science: The stem cell controversy in the age of press/politics. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics8(2): 36–70.
29.
Oliver, J.2003a. Charles: “Grey goo” threat to the world. The Mail on Sunday. April 27, p. 1-1.
30.
Oliver, J.2003b. Nightmare of the grey goo. The Mail on Sunday. April 27, p. 8-8.
31.
Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST). 2000. The great GM food debate: A survey of media coverage in the first half of 1999. Available from http://www.parliament.uk/post/report138.pdf.
32.
Pellechia, M. G.1997. Trends in science coverage: A content analysis of three U.S. newspapers. Public Understanding of Science6(1): 49–68.
33.
Petersen, A.2002. Replicating our bodies, losing our selves: News media portrayals of human cloning in the wake of Dolly. Body and Society8(4): 71–90.
34.
Petersen, A., A. Anderson, and S. Allan. Forthcoming. Science fiction/science fact: Medical genetics in news stories. New Genetics and Society.
35.
Pierce, A.2003. Prince launches crusade against “grey goo science.”The Times. April 28, p. 9-9.
36.
Porritt, J.2003. Who will control the nanobots?The Mail on Sunday. April 27, p. 24-24.
37.
Priest, S. H.1994. Structuring public debate on biotechnology: Media frames and public response. Science Communication16(2): 166–179.
38.
Prince Charles. 1999. My 10 fears for GM food. The Daily Mail. June 1.
39.
Radford, T.2003. Brave newworld or miniature menace? Why Charles fears grey goo nightmare. The Guardian. April 29, p. 3-3.
40.
Roco, M., and W. S. Bainbridge. 2001. Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology. National Science Foundation. Available from http://www.wtec.org/loyola/nano/NSET.Societal.Implications/.
41.
Small Talk. 2005. Small Talk—discussing nanotechnologies. Available from http://www.smalltalk.org.uk/page1g.html.
42.
Smith, R.2003. Grey goo science used in skin cream. The Daily Mirror. May 26, p. 22-22.
43.
Stephens, L. F. 2004. News media frames of developments in nanoscience and nanotechnology: A global perspective. Unpublished Paper. School of Journalism and Mass Communications, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, August 1.
44.
Stephens, L. F.2005. News narratives about nano S&T in major U.S. and non-U.S. newspapers. Science Communication27(2): 175-199.
45.
Tanner, A. H.2004. Agenda building, source selection, and health news at local television stations. Science Communication25(4): 350–363.
46.
The Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering. 2004. Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties, 1–116. London: The Royal Society.
47.
Treder, M.2004. Bridges to safety, and bridges to progress.Center for Responsible Nanotechnology. Available from http://crnano.org/Bridges.htm.
