A growth medium for the message: Online science journalism affordances for exploring public discourse of science and ethics

Abstract

Little attention has been paid to how new media foster public discussion of science-related issues. In this exploratory study, we examine discussions generated by articles on the most popular daily news website in Israel. All articles dealt with research studies that involved animal experimentation, a topic often linked to deep ethical conflicts. Based on analysis of 10 articles and more than 600 reader comments, we found that topics in both science and ethics are initiated both by the original article and in the linked discussion threads. The most fruitful topics (measured by number of comments) were initiated in the discussion threads, not in the articles themselves. We suggest that discourse in new media can be understood by thinking of the audience as a ‘growth medium’ in which seeds planted by individual stories can grow (through the affordances of new media) into both knowledge of the sort imagined by the story writers and new branches nurtured by the community itself.

Keywords

animal experimentation ethics framing new media public engagement with science reader comments science journalism

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

American Association for the Advancement of Science (1990) Science for All Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.

Baram-Tsabari

Segev

(2011) Exploring new web-based tools to identify public interest in science. Public Understanding of Science 20: 130–143.

Bauman

(1995) Life in Fragments: Essays on Postmodern Morality. Oxford: Blackwell.

Beauchamp

Walters

(1999) Contemporary Issues in Bioethics. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Birke

Arluke

Michael

(2007) The Sacrifice: How Scientific Experiments Transform Animals and People. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.

Brian

(2006) Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science – Hitting the notes, but missing the music? Community Genetics 9: 211–220.

Bruns

(2007) Produsage: Towards a broader framework for user-led content creation. Paper presented at the 6th ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity and Cognition, June, Washington DC, USA.

Crettaz von Roten

(2009) European attitudes towards animal research: Overview and consequences for science. Science, Technology & Society 14: 349–364.

De Vreese

(2005) News framing: Theory and typology. Information Design Journal 13: 51–62.

10.

Dror

(2010) An illustration of a discussion. The Seventh Eye. Jerusalem: Israeli Institute for Democracy. Available at: http://www.the7eye.org.il/Pages/home.aspx (In Hebrew)

11.

Dvorak

(2006) The folly of citizen journalism. PC Magazine, 27 September. Available at: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2018636,00.asp

12.

Entman

(1993) Framing: Towards clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication 43: 51–58.

13.

Eurobarometer (2010) Science and Technology. Brussels: European Commission.

14.

Feinstein

(2011) Salvaging science literacy. Science Education 95: 168–185.

15.

Gamson

Modigliani

(1989) Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. The American Journal of Sociology 95: 1–37.

16.

Gibbons

(1999) Science’s new social contract with society. Nature 402: C81.

17.

Goldshmidt

(2006) The Role of ‘TalkBacks’ in the Public Discourse in Israel. Jerusalem: Information and Research Department, The Knesset. (In Hebrew)

18.

Goode

(2009) Social news, citizen journalism and democracy. New Media Society 11: 1287–1305.

19.

Grayson

(2000) Animals in Research: For and Against. London: British Library.

20.

Greenwald

(1968) Cognitive learning, cognitive response to persuasion, and attitude change. In: Greenwald

Brock

Ostrom

(eds) Psychological Foundations of Attitudes. New York: Academic Press.

21.

Ha’aretz (2010) Ministers approved a law permitting discloser of talkbacker’s details. Ha’aretz Online, 13 December. Available at: http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/spages/1203699.html (In Hebrew)

22.

Hargreaves

Lewis

Speers

(2003) Towards a Better Map: Science, the Public and the Media. London: Economic and Social Research Council.

23.

Haugen

(ed.) (2007) Animal Experimentation: Opposing Viewpoints. Detroit, MI: Greenhaven Press, Thomson Gale.

24.

Hecht

(2003) The struggle for hegemony in the online content market – The case of talkback. Digital Culture. Israeli Internet Association. Available at: http://www.isoc.org.il/magazine/magazine4_3.html (In Hebrew)

25.

Kenian

(2009) The electric company’s undercover talkbacks. The Seventh Eye, 22 May. Available at: http://www.the7eye.org.il/DailyColumn/Pages/22052009_the_electric_undercover_talkbacks.aspx (In Hebrew)

26.

Koren-Diner

(2006) Go to Africa and die of AIDS. Ha’aretz Online. Tel Aviv: Shoken. (In Hebrew)

27.

LaFollette

Shanks

(1997) Brute Science: Dilemmas of Animal Experimentation. London: Routledge.

28.

Lasica

(2002) The promise of the daily me. Online Journalism Review, 2 April. Available at: http://www.ojr.org/ojr/lasica/1017779142.php

29.

Laugksch

(2000) Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview. Science Education 84: 71–94.

30.

Lederman

Abd-El-Khalick

Bell

Schwartz

(2002) Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 39: 497–521.

31.

Leibowitz

(1987) Science and Values. Tel Aviv: Broadcast University, Ministry of Defense Publishing. (In Hebrew)

32.

Miller

(2004) Public understanding of, and attitudes toward, scientific research: What we know and what we need to know. Public Understanding of Science 13: 273–294.

33.

Miller

Augenbraun

Kimmel

(2006) Adult science learning from local television newscasts. Science Communication 28: 216–242.

34.

Miller

(2001) Public understanding of science at the crossroads. Public Understanding of Science 10: 115–120.

35.

Mitchelstein

Boczkowski

(2009) Between tradition and change: A review of recent research on online news production. Journalism 10(5): 562–86.

36.

Monamy

(2000) Animal Experimentation: A Guide to the Issue. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

37.

National Science Board (2010) Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Understanding. Science and Engineering Indicators 2010. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.

38.

Neuman

Just

Crigler

(1992) Common Knowledge: News and the Construction of Political Meaning. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

39.

Nisbet

Huge

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

40.

Nisbet

Scheufele

(2009) What’s next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany 96: 1767–1778.

41.

Nisbet

Scheufele

Shanahan

Moy

Brossard

Lewenstein

(2002) Knowledge, reservations, or promise? A media effect model for public perceptions of science and technology. Communication Research 29: 584–608.

42.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2003) The PISA (2003) Assessment Framework – Mathematics, Reading, Science and Problem Solving Knowledge and Skills. Paris: OECD.

43.

Ornebring

(2008) The consumer as producer – of what? User-generated tabloid content in The Sun (UK) and Aftonbladet (Sweden). Journalism Studies 9: 771–785.

44.

Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (2001) Open Channels: Public Dialogue in Science and Technology. Report No. 153. London: Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology.

45.

Price

Tewksbury

Powers

(1997) Switching trains of thought: The impact of news frames on reader’s cognitive responses. Communication Research 24: 481.

46.

Reed

(2001) (Un-)Professional discourse: Journalists’ and scientists’ stories about science in the media. Journalism 2(3): 279–298.

47.

Rosen

(2010) We’ll talk about it at home. 1st Season, 23rd episode. Keshet.

48.

Rowe

Frewer

(2005) A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science, Technology & Human Values 30: 251–290.

49.

Russell

WMS

Burch

(1959) The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique. London: Methuen.

50.

Scheufele

(1999) Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication 49: 103–122.

51.

Schwab

(1962) The teaching of science as enquiry. In: Schwab

Brandwein

(eds) The Teaching of Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

52.

Segev

Baram-Tsabari

(2010) Seeking science information online: Data mining Google to better understand the roles of the media and the education system. Public Understanding of Science. Available at: http://pus.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/11/27/0963662510387560.abstract

53.

Shamos

(1995) The Myth of Scientific Literacy. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

54.

Singer

Ashman

(2009) ‘Comment is free, but facts are sacred’: User-generated content and ethical constructs at the Guardian. Journal of Mass Media Ethics 24: 3–21.

55.

Steinberg

(2004) Medical ethics. In: Steinberg

(ed.) Jewish Medical Ethics. Jerusalem: Schlesinger Institute.

56.

TIM (2010) Internet Site Ranking, March 2010. TNS Teleseker Internet Monitor. Available at: http://www.news1.co.il/RedirectToFile.aspx?FileID=1956 (In Hebrew)

57.

Tsoref

(2006) The national talkbacks bouncer. Ha’aretz, The Marker, 9 September. Available at: http://www.themarker.com/tmc/article.jhtml?log=tag&ElementId=skira20060909_760371 (In Hebrew)

58.

Videl

(2006) Don’t censor, don’t filter. Ha’aretz Online, 8 September. Available at: http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/pages/ShArtSR.jhtml?itemNo=760373&objNo=59771&returnParam=Y (In Hebrew)

59.

Wade

Schramm

(1969) The mass media as sources of public affairs, science, and health knowledge. The Public Opinion Quarterly 33: 197–209.