Numerous studies of contacts between reporters and scientists have been undertaken, although few have focused on the degree to which these actors become embedded in their own control efforts. This study consists of interviews with sources—both scientists and nonscientists—and newspaper reporters involved in the coverage of food irradiation at two regional newspapers. It reveals the processes of boundary construction and the building of common knowledge among these actors, which prevent others from voicing their opinions on this particular postharvest technology. An interpretation of this data questions the prediction that food information wars will subside and the assumption that newspapers are public arenas.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Agger, B.
1992. Cultural studies as critical theory. Washington, DC: Falmer.
2.
Altheide, D.
, and R. Snow. 1991. Media worlds in the postjournalism era. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
3.
Anderson, C.
1995. The food information war: Consumer rights and industry prerogatives. In Eating agendas: Food and nutrition as social problems, edited by D. Maurer and J. Sobal, 167-187. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
4.
Armstrong, J.1998. Irradiation set for ballot. Hawaii Tribune-Herald, July 24, pp. 1, 10.
5.
Belasco, W.
1993. Appetite for change: How the counterculture took on the food industry. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
6.
Bord, R.
, and R. O'Connor. 1989. Who wants irradiated food? Untangling complex public opinion. Food Technology43:87-90.
7.
Brasch, A.
, and W. Huber. 1947. Ultrashort application time of penetrating electrons: A tool for sterilization and preservation of food in the raw state. Science105:112-117.
8.
Bruhn, C.1995. Consumer attitudes and market responses to irradiated food. Journal of Food Protection58:157-181.
9.
Burnham, J.
1987. How superstition won and science lost: Popularizing science and health in the United States. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
10.
Chaffee, S.
, and S. Frank. 1996. How Americans get political news: Print versus broadcast news. The Annals of the American Academy546:48-58.
11.
Clarke, A.
, and T. Montini. 1993. The many faces of RU486: Tales of situated knowledges and technological contestations. Science, Technology, and Human Values18:42-78.
12.
Clemens, E.1986. Of asteroids and dinosaurs: The role of the press in the shaping of scientific debate. Social Studies of Science16:421-456.
13.
Clemens, E.
1994. The impact hypothesis and popular science: Conditions and consequences of interdisciplinary debate. In The mass-extinction debates, edited by W. Glen, 92-120. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
14.
Close, F.
1991. Too hot to handle: The race for cold fusion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
15.
Crook, S.
, J. Pakulski, and M. Waters. 1992. Postmodernization: Change in advanced society. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
16.
Dearing, J.
, and E. Rogers. 1996. Agenda-Setting. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
17.
DiBella, S.
, A. Ferri, and A. Padderud. 1991. Scientists' reasons for consenting to mass media interviews: A national survey. Journalism Quarterly68:740-749.
18.
Diehl, J.
1995. Safety of irradiated foods. New York: Marcel Dekker.
19.
Dunwoody, S.
, and M. Ryan. 1985. Scientific barriers to the popularization of science in the mass media. Journal of Communication35:26-42.
20.
Dunwoody, S.
, and M. Ryan. 1987. The credible scientific source. Journalism Quarterly64:21-27.
21.
Ericson, R.
, P. Baranek, and J. Chan. 1989. Negotiating control: A study of news sources. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
22.
Ferguson, P.
, and S. Zukin. 1995. What's cooking?Theory and Society24:193-199.
23.
Fischler, C.1988. Food, self and identity. Social Science Information27:275-292.
24.
Fiske, J.1992. Audiencing: A cultural studies approach to watching television. Poetics21:345-359.
25.
Gamson, W.
1992. Talking politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
26.
Gamson, W.
, D. Croteau, W. Hoynes, and T. Sasson. 1992. Media images and the social construction of reality. Annual Review of Sociology18:373-393.
27.
Gamson, W.
, and A. Modigliani. 1989. Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology95:1-37.
28.
Gans, H.
1979. Deciding what's news: A study of CBS Evening News, NBC Evening News, Newsweek, and Time. New York: Vintage.
29.
Gitlin, T.
1980. The whole world is watching: Mass media in the making and unmaking of the New Left. Berkeley: University of California Press.
30.
Goodell, R.
1975. The visible scientists. Boston: Little, Brown.
31.
Hagedorn, C.
, and S. Allender-Hagedorn. 1997. Issue in agricultural and environmental biotechnology: Identifying and comparing biotechnology issues from public opinion surveys, the popular press and technical/regulatory sources. Public Understanding of Science6:233-245.
32.
Hansen, A.
, ed. 1993. The mass media and environmental issues. New York: Leicester University Press.
33.
Harris, M.
1987. Foodways: Historical overview and theoretical prolegomenon. In Food and evolution, edited by M. Harris and E.B. Ross, 57-90. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
34.
Heath, D.1998. Locating genetic knowledge: Picturing Marfan Syndrome and its traveling constituencies. Science, Technology, and Human Values23:71-97.
35.
Hilgartner, S.1990. The dominant view of popularization: Conceptual problems, political issues. Social Studies of Science20:519-539.
36.
Hilgartner, S.
, and C. Bosk. 1988. The rise and fall of social problems: A public arenas model. American Journal of Sociology94:53-78.
37.
Hoban, T.
1995. The construction of food biotechnology as a social issue. In Eating agendas: Food and nutrition as social problems, edited by D. Maurer and J. Sobal, 189-209. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
38.
Hoynes, W.
, and D. Croteau. 1991. The chosen few: Nightline and the politics of public affairs. Critical Sociology18:19-34.
39.
Imperato, P.
, and G. Mitchell. 1985. Bombarding bananas, zapping zucchini. The Sciences25:14-19.
40.
Jussaume, R.
, and D. Judson. 1992. Public perceptions about food safety in the United States and Japan. Rural Sociology57:235-249.
41.
Kone, D.
, and E. Mullet. 1994. Societal risk perception and media coverage. Risk Analysis14:21-24.
42.
Lange, J.1993. The logic of competing information campaigns: Conflict over old growth and the spotted owl. Journalism Monographs60:239-257.
43.
Latour, B.
, and S. Woolgar. 1986. Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
44.
Marcotte, M.1992. Irradiated strawberries enter the U.S. market. Food Technology46:80-86.
45.
Maurer, D.
, and J. Sobal, eds. 1995. Eating agendas: Food and nutrition as social problems. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
46.
Mazur, A.1981. Media coverage and public opinion on scientific controversies. Journal of Communication31:106-115.
47.
McIntosh, W.
1996. Sociologies of food and nutrition. New York: Plenum.
48.
Morrill, C.1991. Conflict, management, honor, and organizational change. American Journal of Sociology97:585-621.
49.
Nelkin, D.
1995. Selling science: How the press covers science and technology. New York: Freeman.
50.
Nelkin, D.1996. An uneasy relationship: The tensions between medicine and the media. Lancet347:1600-1603.
51.
Orlove, B.
, and E. Schmidt. 1995. Swallowing their pride: Indigenous and industrial beer in Peru and Bolivia. Theory and Society24:271-298.
52.
Pelto, G.
1987. Social class and diet in contemporary Mexico. In Food and evolution, edited by M. Harris and E. B. Ross, 517-540. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
53.
Peters, H.1995. The interaction of journalists and scientific experts: Co-operation and conflict between two professional cultures. Media, Culture and Society17:31-48.
54.
Pickering, A.
1995. The mangle of practice: Time, agency, and science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
55.
Price, V.
1992. Public opinion. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
56.
Proctor, B.
, and S. Goldblith. 1951. Food processing with ionizing radiations. Food Technology5:376-380.
57.
Ryan, M.
, S. Dunwoody, and J. Tankard. 1991. Risk information for public consumption: Print media coverage of two risky situations. Health Education Quarterly18:375-390.
58.
Sharlin, H.
1987. Macro-Risks, micro-risks, and the media: The EDB case. In The social and cultural construction of risk, edited by B. B. Johnson and V. T. Covello, 183-197. Boston, MA: D. Reidel.
59.
Shepherd, R.1979. Science news of controversy: The case of marijuana. Journalism Monographs No. 62.
60.
Soley, L.
1992. The news shapers: The sources who explain the news. New York: Praeger.
61.
Spector, M.
, and J. Kituse. 1977. Constructing social problems. Menlo Park, CA: Cummings.
62.
Star, S.
1993. Power, technology and the phenomenology of conventions: On being allergic to onions. In A sociology of monsters, edited by J. Law, 26-56. New York: Routledge.
63.
Ten Eyck, T.1998. Processing information: Interpersonal and mass mediated communication and the modern self. Current Research in Social Psychology3:35-47.
64.
Thompson, J.1988. Mass communication and modern culture: Contribution to a critical theory of ideology. Sociology22:359-383.
65.
Thompson, J.
1990. Ideology and modern culture: Critical social theory in the age of mass media. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
66.
Tuchman, G.
1978. Making news: A study in the construction of reality. New York: The Free Press.
67.
Ungar, S.1992. The rise and (relative) decline of global warming as a social problem. Sociological Quarterly33:483-501.
68.
Urbain, W.1989. Food irradiation: The past fifty years as prologue to tomorrow. Food Technology43:76, 92.
69.
White, H.
1992. Identity and control: A structural theory of social action. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
70.
Wolcott, H.
1994. Transforming qualitative data: Description, analysis, and interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
