The decision by Popsci.com editors to shut off public comments in 2013 surprised many scholars of science journalism—particularly since the decision was justified in large part by reference to science communication scholarship. This commentary engages in a rhetorical analysis of the events surrounding the decision—in particular, the popularization of Anderson et al. (2014), the editorial stance at Popsci.com, and the content of blog comments leading up to the shutoff—to better appreciate what led to the foreclosure of a significant forum for protodeliberation on science research and policy.
AndersonA.PetersonA.DavidM.AllanS. (2005). Communication or spin? Source-media relations in science journalism. In AllanS. (Ed.), Journalism: Critical issues (pp. 188-198). Berkshire, England: McGraw-Hill.
2.
AndersonA. A.BrossardD.ScheufeleD. A.XenosM. A.LadwigP. (2014). The “nasty effect:” Online incivility and risk perceptions of emerging technologies. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19, 373-387. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12009
3.
BartonM. (2005). The future of rational-critical debate in online public spheres. Computers and Composition, 22, 117-190.
4.
BattsS. A.AnthisN. J.SmithT. C. (2008). Advancing science through conversations: Bridging the gap between blogs and the academy. PLoS Biology, 6(9), e240. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0060240
5.
BlanchardA. (2011). 3.4 Science blogs in research and popularization of science: Why, how and for whom? In CockellM.BillotteJ.DarbellayF.WaldvogelF. (Eds.), Common knowledge: The challenge of transdisciplinarity (pp. 219-232). Lausanne, Switzerland: EPFL Press.
FahnestockJ. (1986). Accomodating science: The rhetorical life of scientific facts. Written Communication, 3, 275-296.
12.
FriedmanM.DunwoodyS.RogersC. L. (1986). Scientists and journalists: Reporting science as news. New York, NY: Free Press.
13.
GrabillJ. T.PiggS. (2012). Messy rhetoric: Identity performance as rhetorical agency in online public forums. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 42, 99-119.
14.
GurakL. J.AntonijevicS. (2009). Digital rhetoric and public discourse. In LunsfordA. A.WilsonK. H.EberlyR. A. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of rhetorical studies (pp. 496-508). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
15.
HabermasJ. (1992). Further reflections on the public sphere (BurgerT. Trans.). In CalhounC. (Ed.), Habermas and the public sphere (pp. 421-461). Cambridge: MIT Press.
16.
HardyB. W.ScheufeleD. A. (2005). Examining differential gains from Internet use: Comparing the moderating role of talk and online interactions. Journal of Communication, 55(1), 71-84.
17.
HartnettC. G. (2004). How does science express uncertainty. LACUS Forum, 30, 355-365.
KouperI. (2010). Science blogs and public engagement with science: Practices, challenges, and opportunities. Journal of Science Communication, 9(1), 1-10.
LatourB.WoolgarS. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
22.
ManosevitchE.WalkerD. (2009, April). Reader comments to online opinion journalism: A space of public deliberation. Paper presented at the 10th International Symposium on Online Journalism, Austin, TX.
PellechiaM. G. (1997). Trends in science coverage: A content analysis of three US newspapers. Public Understanding of Science, 6(1), 49-68. doi:10.1088/0963-6625/6/1/004
ShanahanM.-C. (2011). Science blogs as boundary layers: Creating and understanding new writer and reader interactions through science blogging. Journalism, 12, 903-919. doi:10.1177/1464884911412844
31.
SlovicP. (1992). Perception of risk: Reflections on the psychometric paradigm. In KrimskyS.GoldingD. (Eds.), Social theories of risk (pp. 117-152). Westport, CT: Praeger.
32.
WeigoldM. F. (2001). Communicating science: A review of the literature. Science Communication, 23, 164-193.
33.
ZimanJ. (1992). Not knowing, needing to know, and wanting to know. In LewensteinB. V. (Ed.), When science meets the public (pp. 13-20). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
