Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study explores differences in volume of coverage and thematic content between US print news and online media coverage for an emerging technology – nanotechnology. We found that while American print news media and Google News coverage of this emerging technology has peaked and started to decline, Google Blog Search coverage of nanotechnology is still growing. Additionally, our data show discrepancies in thematic content of online and print news coverage. Specifically, online users are more likely to encounter environmentally themed content relating to nanotechnology than are users of American print newspapers. Differences in the amount of coverage of nanotechnology in print news and online media as well as thematic content suggest that public discourse on related issues will be shaped, in part, by media consumers’ preferred information platform.

Keywords

blogs Google internet nanotechnology newspapers

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Adamic

Glance

(2005) The political blogosphere and the 2004 US election: Divided they blog. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Link Discovery, Chicago, IL, 21–25 August 2005. New York: Communications of the ACM, 36–43.

Alexa (2011). Top Sites. Available at: http://www.alexa.com/topsites (accessed 3 December 2011).

Anderson

Brossard

Scheufele

(2010) The changing information environment for nanotechnology: Online audiences and content. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 12(4): 1083–1094.

Bickerstaff

Lorenzoni

Pidgeon

. (2008) Reframing nuclear power in the UK energy debate: Nuclear power, climate change mitigation and radioactive waste. Public Understanding of Science 17: 145–169.

Brossard

Shanahan

McComas

(2004) Are issue-cycles culturally constructed? A comparison of French and American coverage of global climate change. Mass Communication and Society 7(3): 359–377.

Brumfiel

(2009) Supplanting the old media? Nature 458: 274–277.

Cammaerts

(2008) Critiques on the participatory potentials of Web 2.0. Communication, Culture & Critique 1: 358–377.

Cammaerts

Van Audenhove

(2005) Online political debate, unbounded citizenship, and the problematic nature of a transnational public sphere. Political Communication 22: 179–196.

Dahlgren

(2005) The Internet, public spheres, and political communication: Dispersion and deliberation. Political Communication 22: 147–162.

10.

De Boer

Catsburg

(1988) The impact of nuclear accidents on attitudes toward nuclear energy. Public Opinion Quarterly 52: 254–261.

11.

Deuze

(2007) Convergence culture in the creative industries. International Journal of Cultural Studies 10(2): 243–263.

12.

Downs

(1972) Up and down with ecology: The issue attention cycle. Public Interest 28: 38–50.

13.

Drezner

Farrell

(2004) Web of influence. Foreign Policy 145: 32–41.

14.

Dudo

Dunwoody

Scheufele

(2011) The emergence of nano news: Tracking thematic trends and changes in US newspaper coverage of nanotechnology. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 88(1): 55–75.

15.

Ferber

(1999) Risks and benefits – GM crops in the cross hairs. Science 286: 1662–1666.

16.

Ferree

Gamson

Gerhards

. (2002) Shaping Abortion Discourse: Democracy and the Public Sphere in Germany and the United States. New York: Cambridge University Press.

17.

Friedman

Egolf

(2005) Nanotechnology risks and the media. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine 24: 5–11.

18.

Gaskell

Allum

Wagner

. (2004a) GM foods and the misperception of risk perception. Risk Analysis 24: 185–194.

19.

Gaskell

Ten Eyck

Jackson

. (2004b) From our readers: Public attitudes to nanotech in Europe and the United States. Nature Materials 3: 496.

20.

Gerhards

Schafer

(2010) Is the internet a better public sphere? Comparing old and new media in the USA and Germany. New Media & Society 12: 143–160.

21.

Gillespie

(2010) The politics of ‘platforms’. New Media & Society 12: 347–364.

22.

Goldberg

(2011) Rethinking the public/virtual sphere: The problem with participation. New Media & Society 13(5): 739–754.

23.

Goldman

(2008) Search engine bias and the demise of search engine utopianism. In: Spink

Zimmer

(eds) Web Search. Berlin: Springer, 121–133.

24.

Hindman

(2009) The Myth of Digital Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

25.

Hindman

Tsioutsiouliklis

Johnson

(2003) Googlearchy: How a few heavily-linked sites dominate politics on the web. Paper presented to the Midwest Political Science Association. Available at: http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~kt/mpsa03.pdf (accessed 16 August 2011).

26.

Horrigan

(2006) The Internet as a resource for news and information about science. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project.

27.

Iyengar

Hahn

(2009) Red media, blue media: Evidence of ideological selectivity in media use. Journal of Communication 59: 19–39.

28.

Jankowski

Van Os

(2004) Internet-based political discourse: A case study of electronic democracy in Hoogeveen. In: Shane

(ed.) Democracy Online: The Prospects for Political Renewal through the Internet. London: Routledge, 181–194.

29.

Jenkins

(2006) Convergence Culture. New York: New York University Press.

30.

Jones

Himelboim

(2010) Just a guy in pajamas? Framing the blogs in mainstream US newspaper coverage (1999–2005). New Media & Society 12: 271–288.

31.

Kenix

(2009) Blogs as alternative. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication 14(4): 790–822.

32.

Meraz

(2009) Is there an elite hold? Traditional media to social media agenda setting influence in blog networks. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication 14: 682–707.

33.

Mooney

(2008) The science writer’s lament. Available at: http://scienceprogress.org/2008/10/the-science-writers-lament/ (accessed 29 October 2008).

34.

National Nanotechnology Initiative (2010) Research and development leading to a revolution in technology and industry: Supplement to the President’s FY 2011 budget. Available at: https://engineering.purdue.edu/nanotrees/files/NNI_2011_budget_supplement.pdf (accessed 10 February 2010).

35.

National Science Board (2010) Science and engineering indicators. Available at: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind10/ (accessed 31 January 2010).

36.

Nielsen

Wire

(2010) Top U.S. search sites for May 2010. Available at: http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/top-u-s-search-sites-for-may-2010/ (accessed 17 June 2010).

37.

Nisbet

Huge

(2006) Attention cycles and frames in the plant biotechnology debate – managing power and participation through the press/policy connection. Harvard International Journal of Press-politics 11: 3–40.

38.

Pan

Hembrooke

Joachims

. (2007) In Google we trust: Users’ decisions on rank, position, and relevance. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication 12: 801–823.

39.

Papacharissi

(2002) The virtual sphere: The Internet as a public sphere. New Media & Society 4(1): 9–27.

40.

Papacharissi

(2004) Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New Media & Society 6(2): 259–283.

41.

Pariser

(2011) The Filter Bubble: What the Internet Is Hiding from You. New York: The Penguin Press.

42.

Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism (2010) The state of the news media: An annual report on American journalism. Available at: http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2010/index.php (accessed 15 March 2010).

43.

Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism (2011) Google drives most users. Available at: http://www.journalism.org/analysis_report/google_drives_most_users (accessed 19 May 2010).

44.

Pew Research Center (2008) Audience segments in a changing news environment: Key news audiences now blend traditional and online sources. Available at: http://www.people-press.org/2008/08/17/key-news-audiences-now-blend-online-and-traditional-sources/ (accessed 17 August 2008).

45.

Prakoso

(2011) Google blog search – how your blog can be found by more than 21,000 people at once. Available at: http://www.makemoneyblogguide.com/google-blog-search-how-your-blog-can-be-found-by-more-than-21000-people-at-once/ (accessed 16 August 2011).

46.

Rucht

Yang

Zimmermann

(2008) Politische Diskurse im Internet und in Zeitungen [Political discourse online and in newspapers]. Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag.

47.

Satterfield

Kandlikarm

Beaudrie

CEH

. (2009) Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies. Nature Nanotechnology 4: 752–758.

48.

Scheufele

Lewenstein

(2005) The public and nanotechnology: How citizens make sense of emerging technologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 7(6): 659–667.

49.

Scheufele

Tewksbury

(2007) Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The evolution of three media effects models. Journal of Communication 57(1): 9–20.

50.

Shih

Wijaya

Brossard

(2008) Media coverage of public health epidemics: Linking framing and issue attention cycle toward an integrated theory of print news coverage of epidemics. Mass Communication and Society 11(2): 141–160.

51.

Sjoberg

(2004) Principles of risk perception applied to gene technology. EMBO Reports 5: S47–S51.

52.

Stephens

(2005) News narratives about nano S&T in major US and non-US newspapers. Science Communication 27: 175–199.

53.

Sunstein

(2001) Republic.com. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

54.

Usher

(2010) Goodbye to the news: How out-of-work journalists assess enduring news values and the new media landscape. New Media & Society 12: 911–928.

55.

Van De Donk

Loader

Nixon

. (2004) Cyberprotest: New Media, Citizens, and Social Movements. London: Routledge.

56.

Van Os

Jankowski

Vergeer

(2007) Political communication about Europe on the Internet during the 2004 European Parliament election campaign in nine EU member states. European Societies 9: 755–775.

57.

Vogl

Barrett

(2010) Regulating the information gatekeepers. Communications of the ACM 53(11): 67–72.

58.

Wallsten

(2007) Agenda setting and the blogosphere: An analysis of the relationship between mainstream media and political blogs. Review of Policy Research 24: 567–587.

59.

Weaver

Bimber

(2008) Finding news stories: A comparison of searches using LexisNexis and Google News. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 85(3): 515–530.

60.

Weaver

Lively

Bimber

(2009) Searching for a frame: News media tell the story of technological progress, risk, and regulation. Science Communication 31: 139–166.

61.

Wirth

Bocking

Karnowski

. (2007) Heuristic and systematic use of search engines. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication 12: 778–800.

Coverage of emerging technologies: A comparison between print and online media

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References