This article analyses the potential of ‘user question generated content’ related to science coverage with the aim of rethinking editorial selection in science journalism. The analysis builds partly on a previous paper which proposed a modified theory of news values for science journalism. The present article is based on a differentiated content analysis of 6528 user-generated questions1 to science editors in three German media (print, radio and television) with different target groups with respect to age, educational background and gender. A total of 3530 questions could be assigned to different scientific categories. Comparing the most popular categories with the most popular topics found in classical content analyses of science coverage, some important differences were found. In the conclusion, the potential of such audience-oriented surveys for the further development of science journalism in the digital age is discussed.
AlbrechtB (2006) Wissenschaft im Privatfernsehen: Happy Hour des Wissens – Zutaten zum Galileo-Cocktail. In: WormerH (ed.) Die Wissensmacher. Profile und Arbeitsfelder von Wissenschaftsredaktionen in Deutschland. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 130–147.
2.
BadenschierFWormerH (2011) Issue selection in science journalism: Towards a special theory of news values for science news? In: RödderSFranzenMWeingartP (eds) The Sciences’ Media Connection – Communication to the Public and its Repercussions. Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook. Dordrecht: Springer.
3.
BauerM (2000) ‘Science in the media’ as cultural indicator: Contextualizing surveys with media analysis. In: DierkesM. Between Understanding and Trust. The Public, Science and Technology. Amsterdam: Routledge, 157–78.
4.
BeckerM (2010) Lecture of the editor in chief about ‘Science at Spiegel Online’, at Dortmund University, 22November, Dortmund.
BrantsKDe HaanY (2010) Taking the public seriously: Three models of responsiveness in media and journalism. Media, Culture & Society32(3): 411–428.
8.
BrumfielG (2009) Supplanting the old media?Nature458: 274–277.
9.
BucchiMMazzoliniRG (2003) Big science, little news: Science coverage in the Italian daily press, 1946–1997. Public Understanding of Science12(1): 7–24.
10.
CapleH (2009) Multi-semiotic communication in an Australian broadsheet: A new news genre. In: BazermanCBoniniAFigueiredoD (eds) Genre in a Changing World: Perspectives on Writing. Fort Collins, Colorado: The WAC Clearinghouse and Parlor Press, 243–254.
11.
ClarkFIllmanDL (2006) A longitudinal study of the New York Times Science Times Section. Science Communication27: 496–513.
ElmerCBadenschierFWormerH (2008) Science for everybody? How the coverage of research issues in German newspapers has increased dramatically. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly85(4): 878–93.
Federal Statistical Office (2008) Statistical Yearbook for the Federal Republic of Germany. Wiesbaden. Available at: http://www.bpb.de/files/33F300.pdf
16.
GaltungJRugeMH (1965) The structure of foreign news: The presentation of the Congo, Cuba and Cyprus crises in four Norwegian newspapers. Journal of Peace Research2: 64–90.
17.
HallerM (1996) Defizite im Wissenschaftsjournalismus. In: GoepfertW (ed.) Wissenschaftsjournalismus. Ein Handbuch für Ausbildung und Praxis. Berlin: Econ, 13–21.
18.
HansenA (1994) Journalistic practices and science reporting in the British press. Public Understanding of Science3: 111–134.
19.
Hornig PriestS (2009) Examining audiences for popular science. In: HollimanR. (ed.) Investigating Science Communication in the Information Age: Implications for Public Engagement and Popular Media. New York: Oxford University Press.
20.
HujanenJPietikäinenS (2004) Interactive uses of journalism: Crossing between technological potential and young people’s news-using practices. New Media & Society6(3): 383–401.
21.
IllingerP (2005) Der Neandertaler schafft es auf die Titelseite. Süddeutsche Zeitung, Beilage ‘60 Jahre Süddeutsche Zeitung’, 6October (230): 25.
22.
Johanneum GrazFH (2004) Wissenschaftsjournalismus und seine Rezeption. In: MüllerCSciencePop. Wissenschaftsjournalismus zwischen PR und Forschungskritik. Graz: Nausner & Nausner, 13–70.
23.
Knorr CetinaK (1998) Epistemic Cultures. How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
24.
LippmannW (1922) Public Opinion. New York: Macmillan.
MundzeckT (2006) Wissenschaft bei einer Nachrichtenagentur: Balanceakt zwischen rasendem Reporter und rasendem Forscher. In: WormerH (ed.) Die Wissensmacher. Profile und Arbeitsfelder von Wissenschaftsredaktionen in Deutschland. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 196–209.
27.
NaseD (2006) Frag doch mal… Die meistgestellten Fragen an die Maus. Munich: cbj.
28.
NelkinD (1995) Selling Science. How the Press Covers Science and Technology. New York: W.H. Freeman.
29.
NielsenRK (2010) Participation through letters to the editor: Circulation, considerations, and genres in the letters institution. Journalism11(1): 21–35.
30.
NorrisP (2001) Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty and the Internet in Democratic Societies. New York: Cambridge University Press.
RensbergerB (1997) Covering science for newspapers. In: BlumDKnudsonM (eds) A field Guide for Science Writers. New York: Oxford University Press, 7–16.
33.
RensbergerB (2009) Science journalism: Too close for comfort. Nature459: 1055–1056.
RuhrmannG (1990) Aidsmäuse und Schlimmeres. Risikokommunikation über Gentechnologie – ein systematischer Zugang. Medium20: 36–38.
36.
RuhrmannG (1997) Wissenschaft, Medien und öffentliche Meinung. In: HoebinkH (ed.) Perspektiven für die Universität 2000. Neuwied: Luchterhand, 145–157.
37.
Ruß-MohlS (2009) Kreative Zerstörung. Niedergang und Neuerfindung des Zeitungsjournalismus in den USA. Konstanz: UVK Verlagsgesellschaft, 246.
38.
SchäferMS (2007) Wissenschaft in den Medien. Die Medialisierung naturwissenschaftlicher Themen. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
39.
SchultzT (2000) Mass media and the concept of interactivity: An exploratory study of online forums and reader email. Media, Culture & Society22(2): 205–221.
40.
SentkerADrösserC (2006) Wissenschaft zwischen Wochenzeitung und Magazin: Zu wenig Zeit für die Zeit? In: WormerH (ed.) Die Wissensmacher. Profile und Arbeitsfelder von Wissenschaftsredaktionen in Deutschland. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 62–79.
UrbanC (1999) Examining Our Credibility. Perspectives of the Public and the Press. A Report for the ASNE Journalism Credibility Project, ASNE Foundation, Reston VA. Cited from Russ-Mohl S (2009)Kreative Zerstörung. Niedergang und Neuerfindung des Zeitungsjournalismus in den USA. Konstanz: UVK.
WalkerEFSabuwallaZHuotR (2004) Pubertal neuromaturation, stress sensitivity, and psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology16(4): 807–824.
45.
WormerH (2010) Warum ist der Himmel blau? Wie die Massenmedien Wissensthemen aufbereiten und verbreiten. In: Dausendschön-GayUDomkeCOhlhusSWissen in (Inter-)Aktion. Verfahren der Wissensgenerierung in unterschiedlichen Praxisfeldern. Berlin: De Gruyter, 347–76.
