Tabloid and elite newspapers differ in journalistic style and address different socioeconomic segments of society. Few studies have systematically investigated how these differences influence science communication, and the issue of genetics is particularly relevant. In this study, we performed a quantitative frame analysis of genetic discourse in 12 national newspapers that address different audiences. We found that tabloid and elite newspapers use different frames when communicating the gene concept. The differences were related to the use of expert writers and choice of topics, and we discuss how framing of the gene concept is related to the newspapers’ editorial profiles.
BauerM. W. (2005). Public perceptions and mass media in the biotechnology controversy. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17, 5-22. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edh054
2.
CarverR.WaldahlR.BreivikJ. (2008). Frame that gene: A tool for analysing and classifying the communication of genetics to the public. EMBO Reports, 9, 943-947. doi:10.1038/embor.2008.176
3.
ChanT. W.GoldthorpeJ. H. (2007). Social status and newspaper readership. American Journal of Sociology, 112, 1095-1134. doi:10.1086/508792
4.
ConditC. M. (2007). How geneticists can help reporters to get their story right. Nature Reviews Genetics, 8, 815-820. doi:10.1038/nrg2201
5.
ConditC. M.OfulueN.SheedyK. M. (1998). Determinism and mass-media portrayals of genetics. American Journal of Human Genetics, 62, 979-984. doi:10.1086/301784
6.
ConradP. (2001). Genetic optimism: framing genes and mental illness in the news. Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry, 25, 225-247. doi:10.1023/A:1010690427114
7.
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. doi:10.1177/1075547006298253
8.
EntmanR. M. (1993). Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43, 51-58. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x
9.
EyckT. A. T.WillimentM. (2003). The national media and things genetic. Science Communication, 25, 129-152. doi:10.1177/1075547003259212
10.
GersteinM. B.BruceC.RozowskyJ. S.ZhengD.DuJ.KorbelJ. O.. . . SnyderM. (2007). What is a gene, post-ENCODE? History and updated definition. Genome Research, 17, 669-681. doi:10.1101/gr.6339607
11.
GoffmanE. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
12.
HubbardR.WaldE. (1993). Exploding the gene myth: How genetic information is produced and manipulated by scientists, physicians, employers, insurance companies, educators, and law enforcers. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
KitzingerJ. (2007). Framing and frame analysis. In DevereuxE. (Ed.), Media studies: Key issues and debates (pp. 134-161). London, England: Sage.
15.
MaeseeleP. A.SchuurmanD. (2008). Biotechnology and the popular press in northern Belgium. Science Communication, 29, 435-471. doi:10.1177/1075547008316221
16.
MatthesJ.KohringM. (2008). The content analysis of media frames: Toward improving reliability and validity. Journal of Communication, 58, 258-279. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00384.x
17.
NelkinD. (1994). Promotional metaphors and their popular appeal. Public Understanding of Science, 3, 25-31. doi:10.1088/0963-6625/3/1/002
18.
NelkinD. (1995). Selling science: How the press covers science and technology. New York, NY: Freeman.
19.
NelkinD.LindeeS. (1995). The DNA mystique: The gene as a cultural icon. Oxford, England: Freeman.
20.
NelkinD.LindeeS. M. (2004). The DNA mystique: The gene as a cultural icon (2nd ed.). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
21.
NisbetM. C.LewensteinB. V. (2002). Biotechnology and the American media: The policy process and the elite press, 1970 to 1999. Science Communication, 23, 359-391. doi:10.1177/107554700202300401
PetersenA. (2001). Biofantasies: Genetics and medicine in the print news media. Social Science & Medicine, 52, 1255-1268. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(00)00229-X
24.
PriestS. H. (1994). Structuring public debate on biotechnology. Science Communication, 16, 166-179. doi:10.1177/0164025994016002004
