Nanotechnology cannot be directly experienced and observed—all that people know about it and their interpretations and opinions are mainly based on information from the mass media. Therefore, this first systematic study of the German media coverage about nanotechnology aims to analyse the media frames of this emerging technology. It comprises a standardized content analysis of nine print media from 2000 to 2008, which shows that the German media framing is predominantly very positive, specifically emphasizing the medical and economic benefits of nanotechnology. There is hardly any critical coverage opposing this one-sided perspective of progress. This result corresponds to the international media coverage.
Bundesregierung. (2010). Förderschwerpunkt Nanotechnologie [Federal “Research and Innovation” Funding: Nanotechnology]. Retrieved from http://www.foerderinfo.bund.de/de/839.php
7.
BurriR. V. (2009). Coping with uncertainty: Assessing nanotechnologies in a citizen panel in Switzerland. Public Understanding of Science, 18, 498-511.
8.
CrawleyC. E. (2007). Localized debates of agricultural biotechnology in community newspapers: A quantitative content analysis of media frames and sources. Science Communication, 28, 314-346.
9.
DalrympleK. E.ScheufeleD. A.CorleyE. A. (2009, May). Proximity to experts? Rethinking operationalizations of cognitive outcomes based on dual-source measures. Paper presented at the 59th annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Chicago, IL.
10.
De VreeseC. H. (2005). The spiral of cynicism reconsidered: The mobilizing function of news. European Journal of Communication, 20, 283-301.
11.
EntmanR. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43, 51-58.
12.
FitzgeraldS. T.RubinB. (2007, August). Constructing risk: Media coverage of nanotechnology. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, New York.
13.
FriedmanS. M.EgolfB. P. (2005). Nanotechnology: Risks and the media. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 24, 5-11.
14.
GamsonW. A.ModiglianiA. (1987). The changing culture of affirmative action. In BraungartR. G. (Ed.), Research in political sociology (Vol. 3, pp. 137-177). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
15.
GaskellG.EyckT. T.JacksonJ.VeltriG. (2005). Imagining nanotechnology: Cultural support for technological innovation in Europe and the United States. Science Communication, 27, 81-90.
16.
GorssJ. B.LewensteinB. V.RadinJ. (2005, May). The salience of small: Nanotechnology coverage in the American press. Paper presented at the 55th annual meeting of the International Communication Association, New York.
17.
GrobeA.EberhardC.HutterliM. (2005). Nanotechnologie im spiegel der medien: Medienanalyse zur berichterstattung über chancen und risiken der nanotechnologie [Nanotechnology in the media: Media analysis of the coverage of benefits and risks of nanotechnology]. St. Gallen, Switzerland: Stiftung Risikodialog.
18.
HampelJ.PfenningU.KohringM.GörkeA.RuhrmannG. (2001). Biotechnology boom and market failure: Two sides of the German coin. In GaskellG.BauerM. W. (Eds.), Biotechnology 1996-2000: The years of controversy (pp. 191-203). London, England: Science Museum.
19.
HampelJ.RuhrmannG.KohringM.GörkeA. (1998). Germany. In DurantJ.BauerM. W.GaskellG. (Eds.), Biotechnology in the public sphere: A European sourcebook (pp. 63-76). London, England: Science Museum.
20.
HoS. S.ScheufeleD. A.CorleyE. C. (2010). Making sense of policy choices: Understanding the roles of value predispositions, mass media, and cognitive processing in public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research,12, 2703-2715.
21.
IyengarS. (1996). Framing responsibilities for political issues. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 546, 59-70.
KaufmanL.RousseeuwP. J. (2005). Finding groups in data: An introduction to cluster analysis. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Interscience.
24.
KjolbergK. L. (2009). Representations of nanotechnology in Norwegian newspapers: Implications for public participation. Nanoethics, 3, 61-72.
25.
KohringM.MatthesJ. (2002). The face(t)s of biotech in the nineties: How the German press framed modern biotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 11, 143-154.
26.
KulinowskiK. (2004). Nanotechnology: From “Wow” to “Yuck”?Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 24, 13-20.
LeeC.ScheufeleD. A.LewensteinB. V. (2005). Public attitudes toward emerging technologies. Science Communication, 27, 240-267.
29.
LewensteinB. V. (1998). Advocacy versus objectivity in environmental journalism: a historical perspective. In GöpfertW.BaderR. (Eds.), Risikoberichterstattung und Wissenschaftsjournalismus [Risk communication and science reporting]. Tagungsbericht zum 4. Colloquium Wissenschaftsjournalismus [Conference Proceedings of the 4th Science Journalism Colloquium] (pp. 179-190). Stuttgart: Schattauer.
30.
LewensteinB. V. (2005). Introduction: Nanotechnology and the public. Science Communication, 27, 169-174.
31.
MacoubrieJ. (2006). Nanotechnology: Public concerns, reasoning and trust in government. Public Understanding of Science, 15, 221-241.
32.
MaeseeleP. A.SchuurmanD. (2008). Biotechnology and the popular press in Northern Belgium: A case study of hegemonic media discourses and the interpretative struggle. Science Communication, 29, 435-471.
33.
MarcinkowskiF.KohringM.FriedemannA.DonkA. (2008). Risikowahrnehmung beim thema nanotechnologie: Analyse der medienberichterstattung für den analysezeitraum 01/2006-06/2007 [Risk perception of nanotechnology: Analysis of media coverage for the period of 01/2006-06/2007]. Berlin, Germany: Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung.
34.
MatthesJ.KohringM. (2008). The content analysis of media frames: Toward improving reliability and validity. Journal of Communication, 58, 258-279.
PenseC. M.CutcliffeS. H. (2007). Risky talk: Framing the analysis of social implications of nanotechnology. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 27, 349-366.
37.
PetersenA.AndersonA.AllanS.WilkinsonC. (2009). Opening the black box: Scientists’ views on the role of the news media in the nanotechnology debate. Public Understanding of Science, 18, 512-530.
38.
PriceV.TewksburyD. (1997). News values and public opinion: A theoretical account of media priming and framing. In BarnettG.BosterF. J. (Eds.), Progresses in the communication sciences (Vol. 13, pp. 173-212). New York, NY: Ablex.
39.
ScheufeleB. (2006). Frames, schemata, and news reporting. Communications, 31, 65-83.
40.
ScheufeleD. A. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication, 49, 103-122.
41.
ScheufeleD. A.LewensteinB. V. (2005). The public and nanotechnology: How citizens make sense of emerging technologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 7, 659-667.
42.
Schmidt KjærgaardR. (2010). Making a small country count: Nanotechnology in Danish newspapers from 1996 to 2006. Public Understanding of Science, 19, 80-97.
43.
SchützH.WiedemannP. M. (2008). Framing effects on risk perception of nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 17, 369-379.
44.
SemetkoH. A.ValkenburgP. M. (2000). Framing European politics: A content analysis of press and television news. Journal of Communication, 50, 93-109.
45.
ShahD.WattsM. D.DomkeD.FanD. (2002). News framing and cueing of issue regimes: Explaining Clinton’s public approval in spite of scandal. Public Opinion Quarterly, 66, 339-370.
46.
SiegristM. (2006). Public knowledge and public perception of nanotechnology. In MeiliC.HusmannF. (Eds.), Safety, risk and regulation of engineered nanoparticles: Results, trends and perspectives. Retrieved from http://www.pccl.at/objects/application_pdf/NanoRisikoStGallen2006.pdf
47.
SnowD. A.BenfordR. D. (1988). Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization. International Social Movement Research, 1, 197-217.
48.
StephensL. F. (2005). News narratives about nano S&T in major U.S. and non-U.S. newspapers. Science Communication, 27, 175-199.
49.
TabachnickB. G.FidellL. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. Boston, MA: Pearson.
50.
Te KulveH. (2006). Evolving repertoires: Nanotechnology in daily newspapers in the Netherlands. Science as Culture, 15, 367-382.
51.
VandermoereF.BlanchemancheS.BiebersteinA.MaretteS.RoosenJ. (2009). The public understanding of nanotechnology in the food domain: The hidden role of views on science, technology, and nature. Public Understanding of Science, 18, 1-12.
52.
VierboomC.HärlenI.SimonsJ. (2008). Wahrnehmung der nanotechnologie in der bevölkerung. Repräsentativerhebung und morphologisch-psychologische grundlagenstudie [Citizens’ perception of nanotechnology. Representative survey and morphological-psychological study]. Berlin, Germany: Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung.
53.
WaldronA. M.SpencerD.BattC. A. (2006). The current state of public understanding of nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 8, 569-575.
54.
WeaverD. A.LivelyE.BimberB. (2009). Searching for a frame: News media tell the story of technological progress, risk and regulation. Science Communication, 31, 139-166.
