This article examines, through a systematic study of the German, Swiss and Austrian media framing of nanotechnology, whether the concept of a journalistic negativity bias applies to the media coverage of nanotechnology. According to this objectivist approach of risk communication, the media coverage of emerging technologies used to be comparatively too negative. However, the concept has been debated through studies revealing a positivity bias and approaches focusing on contextual elements of journalism. A standardized content analysis of German, Swiss and Austrian print media from 2000 to 2009 analyzes whether negativity bias applies to the media coverage of nanotechnology. We find the media coverage to be predominantly very positive with barely any critical coverage opposing this one-sided perspective of progress. The hypothesis of journalistic technophobia and negativity bias is not supported by the media coverage of nanotechnology. Rather, the results suggest that the media are promoting new technologies.
AndersonAPetersonAWilkinsonCAllanS (2009) Nanotechnology, Risk, and Communication. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
5.
BauerMWKohringMAllansdottirAGuttelingJ (2001) The dramatisation of biotechnology in the elite mass media. In: GaskellGBauerMW (eds) Biotechnology 1996–2000: The Years of Controversy. London: Science Museum, 35–52.
6.
BellA (1994) Media (mis)communication on the science of climate change. Public Understanding of Science3(3): 259–275.
7.
BonfadelliH (2004) Medienwirkungsforschung II. Anwendungen in Politik, Wirtschaft und Kultur. [Media effects research II. Applications in politics, economics and culture]. Konstanz: Universitätsverlag.
8.
BonfadelliHDahindenULeonarzM (2002) Biotechnology in Switzerland: High on the public agenda, but only moderate support. Public Understanding of Science11(2): 113–130.
9.
BubelaTMCaulfieldTA (2004) Do the print media ‘hype’ genetic research? A comparison of newspaper stories and peer-reviewed research papers. Canadian Medical Association Journal170(9): 1399–1407.
10.
BurriRV (2009) Coping with uncertainty: Assessing nanotechnologies in a citizen panel in Switzerland. Public Understanding of Science18(5): 498–511.
11.
BurriRVBellucciS (2008) Public perception of nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research10(3): 387–391.
12.
CacciatoreMAScheufeleDACorleyEA (2011) From enabling technology to applications: The evolution of risk perceptions about nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science20(3): 385–404.
13.
CacciatoreMAAndersonAAChoiD. (2012) Coverage of emerging technologies: A comparison between print and online media. New Media & Society14(6): 1039–1059.
14.
DonkAMetagJKohringMMarcinkowskiF (2012) Framing emerging technologies: Risk perceptions of nanotechnology in the German press. Science Communication34(1): 5–29.
15.
DudoADunwoodySScheufeleDA (2011) The emergence of nano news: Tracking thematic trends and changes in U.S. newspaper coverage of nanotechnology. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly88(1): 55–75.
16.
DunwoodySPetersHP (1992) Mass media coverage of technological and environmental risk: A survey of research in the United States and Germany. Public Understanding of Science1(2): 199–230.
17.
FitzgeraldST (2007) Constructing Risk: Media Coverage of Nanotechnology. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, TBA. New York: New York City. Available at: http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p181900_index.html
18.
FrewerLJMilesSMarshR (2002) The media and genetically modified foods: Evidence in support of social amplification of risk. Risk Analysis22(4): 701–711.
19.
FriedmanSMEgolfBP (2011) A longitudinal study of newspaper and wire service coverage of nanotechnology risks. Risk Analysis31(11): 1701–1717.
20.
GaskellGEyckTTJacksonJVeltriG (2005) Imagining nanotechnology: Cultural support for technological innovation in Europe and the United States. Public Understanding of Science14(1): 81–90.
21.
GörkeA (1999) Risikojournalismus und Risikogesellschaft. Sondierung und Theorieentwurf [Risk journalism and risk society. Overview and theoretical outline]. Opladen, Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.
22.
GrobeAEberhardCHutterliM (2005) Nanotechnologie im Spiegel der Medien: Medienanalyse zur Berichterstattung über Chancen und Risiken der Nanotechnologie. [Nanotechnology in the media: Media analysis of the coverage of benefits and risks of nanotechnology]. St. Gallen: Stiftung Riskio-Dialog.
23.
GroboljsekBMaliF (2012) Daily newspapers’ views on nanotechnology in Slovenia. Science Communication34(1): 30–56.
24.
GuttelingJM (2005) Mazur’s hypothesis on technology controversy and media. International Journal of Public Opinion Research17(1): 23–41.
25.
HampelJPfenningUKohringMGörkeARuhrmannG (2001) Biotechnology boom and market failure: Two sides of the German coin. In: GaskellGBauerMW (eds) Biotechnology 1996–2000: The Years of Controversy. London: Science Museum, 191–203.
26.
HaugtvedtCPWegenerDT (1994) Message order effects in persuasion: An attitude strength perspective. Journal of Consumer Research21(1): 205–218.
27.
HjörleifssonSÁrnasonVScheiE (2008) Decoding the genetics debate: Hype and hope in Icelandic news media in 2000 and 2004. New Genetics and Society27(4): 377–394.
28.
HughesEKitzingerJMurdockG (2006) The media and risk. In: Taylor-GoobyPZinnJ (eds) Risk in Social Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 250–270.
IVW (2012b) Quartalsauflagen. Süddeutsche Zeitung GmbH. Berlin: Informationsgemeinschaft zur Feststellung und Verbreitung von Werbeträgern e.V. Available at: http://www.daten.ivw.eu/index.php?menuid=1&u=&p=&detail=true (accessed 27 January 2013).
KanouseDEHansonLR (1987) Negativity in evaluations. In: JonesEEKanouseDEKelleyHHNisbettREValinsSWeinerB (eds) Attribution: Perceiving the Causes of Behavior. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 47–62.
33.
KepplingerHM (1989) Künstliche Horizonte. Folgen, Darstellung und Akzeptanz von Technik in der Bundesrepublik. [Artificial horizons. Consequences, depiction and acceptance of technology in Germany]. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.
34.
KepplingerHM (1991) Aufklärung oder Irreführung? Die Darstellung von Technikfolgen in der Presse [Enlightenment or delusion? The representation of technological consequences in the press]. In: KrügerJRuss-MohlS (eds) Risikokommunikation. Technikakzeptanz, Medien und Kommunikationsrisiken [Risk communication. Acceptance of technologies, media and communication risks]. Berlin: Edition Sigma, 109–143.
35.
KepplingerHM (1994) Historical notes on German press coverage of technology. Risk: Health, Safety & Environment5(3): 213–222.
36.
KepplingerHMEhmigSCAhlheimC (1991) Gentechnik im Widerstreit. Zum Verhältnis von Wissenschaft und Journalismus [Genetic engineering in conflict. The relationship of science and journalism]. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.
37.
KjolbergKL (2009) Representations of nanotechnology in Norwegian newspapers – implications for public participation. Nanoethics3(1): 61–72.
38.
KohringM (2005) Wissenschaftsjournalismus. Forschungsüberblick und Theorieentwurf. [Science journalism. Research overview and theory outline]. Konstanz: Universitätsverlag.
39.
KohringMMatthesJ (2002) The face(t)s of biotech in the nineties: How the German press framed modern biotechnology. Public Understanding of Science11(2): 143–154.
40.
KulinowskiK (2004) Nanotechnology: From ‘wow’ to ‘yuck’?Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society24(1): 13–20.
LiNBrossardD (2012) Do Conflicting Cues Create Needless Uncertainty and Fear? Exploring the Effects of Balanced News on Perception of Nanotechnology. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the International Communication Association, Phoenix, USA, May.
MarcinkowskiFKohringMFriedemannADonkA (2010) Risk Perceptions of Nanotechnology – Analysis of Media Coverage. Berlin: BfR Wissenschaft. Available at: http://www.bfr.bund.de/de/bfr_wissenschaft_2010.html (accessed 2 February 2013).
45.
MarksLAKalaitzandonakesNAllisonKZakharovaL (2002). Time series analysis of risk frames in media communication of agrobiotechnology. In: SantanielloVEvensonREZilbermanD (eds) Market Developments and Genetically Modified Foods. New York: CAB International, 217–226.
46.
MazurA (1990) Nuclear power, chemical hazards, and the quantity of reporting. Minerva28(3): 294–323.
47.
Nanokommission der deutschen Bundesregierung (2008) Verantwortlicher Umgang mit Nanotechnologien. Bericht und Empfehlungen der NanoKommission der deutschen Bundesregierung 2008 [Responsible use of nanotechnologies. Report and recommendations of the German government’s committee on nanotechnology 2008]. Berlin: Bundesumweltministerium. Available at: http://www.bmu.de/fileadmin/bmu-import/files/pdfs/allgemein/application/pdf/nanokomm_abschlussbericht_2008.pdf
48.
NentwichMKurathMFleischerTGrunwaldAEisenbergerI (2010) Comparison of Nano Regulation Approaches of Germany, Switzerland, Austria and the EU. Paper presented at the Second Annual Conference of the Society for the Study of Nanoscience and Emerging Technologies, Darmstadt, Germany.
49.
NimmoDMcCombsJ (1981) ‘The horror tonight’. Network television news and Three Mile Island. Journal of Broadcasting25(3): 289–293.
50.
NisbetMCScheufeleDAShanahanJMoyPBrossardDLewensteinBV (2002) Knowledge, reservations, or promise? A media effects model for public perceptions of science and technology. Communication Research29(5): 584–608.
51.
O’ConnorCReesGJoffeH (2012) Neuroscience in the public sphere. Neuron74: 220–226.
52.
ÖAK (2012) Auflagenliste 1. Halbjahr. Wien: Verein Österreichische Gemeinschaft zur Feststellung und Verbreitung von Werbeträgern/Österreichische Auflagenkontrolle. Available at: http://www.oeak.at/content/intern/Auflagenlisten/OEAK_2012_1HJ.pdf (accessed 27 January 2013).
53.
O’NeillSNicholson-ColeS (2009) ‘Fear won’t do it’: Promoting positive engagement with climate change through visual and iconic representations. Science Communication30(3): 355–379.
54.
PaschenHCoenenCFleischerTGrünwaldROertelDRevermannC (2003) TA-Projekt Nanotechnologie. Endbericht [TA-Project Nanotechnology. Final Report]. Berlin: Büro für Technikfolgenabschätzung beim Deutschen Bundestag.
55.
PetersHP (1994) Mass media as an information channel and public arena. Risk: Health, Safety & Environment5(3): 241–250.
ReinemannCStanyerJScherrSLegnanteG (2012) Hard and soft news: A review of concepts, operationalizations and key findings. Journalism13(2): 221–239.
59.
ReyL (2006) Public Reactions to Nanotechnology in Switzerland. The Findings of Publifocus Discussion Forum ‘Nanotechnology, Health and the Environment’. Bern: TA-Swiss Centre for Technology Assessment. Available at: http://www.ta-swiss.ch/a/nano_pfna/2006_TAP8_Nanotechnologien_e.pdf
60.
RothmanS (1990) Journalists, broadcasters, scientific experts and public opinion. Minerva28(2): 117–133.
61.
RothmanS (1992) Expertenurteil und Medienberichterstattung [Expert’s assessment and media coverage]. In: WilkeJ (ed.) Öffentliche Meinung. Theorien, Methoden, Befunde. [Public opinion. Theories, methods, results]. Freiburg, München: Alber, 143–155.
62.
RothmanSLichterSR (1987) Elite ideology and risk perception in nuclear energy policy. American Political Science Review81(2): 383–404.
63.
SandmanP (1986) Explaining Environmental Risk. Some Notes on Environmental Risk Communication. Washington, DC: Environmental Communication Research Program.
64.
SandmanPMSachsmanDBGreenbergMRGochfeldM (1987) Environmental Risk and the Press. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
65.
ScheufeleDALewensteinBV (2005) The public and nanotechnology: How citizens make sense of emerging technologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research7(6): 659–667.
66.
Schmidt KjærgaardR (2010) Making a small country count: Nanotechnology in Danish newspapers from 1996 to 2006. Public Understanding of Science19(1): 80–97.
67.
SchützHWiedemannPM (2008) Framing effects on risk perception of nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science17(3): 369–379.
68.
ShoemakerPJReeseSD (1991) Mediating the Message. Theories of Influence on Mass Media Content. New York: Longman.
69.
ShoemakerPJVosT (2009) Gatekeeping Theory. New York: Routledge.
70.
SingerEEndrenyPM (1993) Reporting on Risk. How the Mass Media Portray Accidents, Diseases, Disasters, and Other Hazards. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
71.
StephensLF (2005) News narratives about nano S&T in major U.S. and non-U.S. newspapers. Science Communication27(2): 175–199.
72.
TA-Swiss Center for Technology Assessment (2006) Public Reactions to Nanotechnology in Switzerland. Report of Publifocus Discussion Forum ‘Nanotechnology, Health, and the Environment’. Berne: TA-Swiss.
73.
Te KulveH (2006) Evolving repertoires: Nanotechnology in daily newspapers in the Netherlands. Science as Culture15(4): 367–382.
74.
TorgersenH (2002) Austria and the transatlantic agricultural biotechnology divide. Science Communication24(2): 173–183.
75.
TorgersenHSeifertF (1997) Aversion preceding rejection: Results of the Eurobarometer Survey 39.1 on biotechnology and genetic engineering in Austria. Public Understanding of Science6(2): 131–142.
76.
Vilella-VilaMCosta-FontJ (2008) Press media reporting effects on risk perceptions and attitudes towards genetically modified (GM) food. Journal of Socio-Economics37: 2095–2106.
77.
Von SchomburgR (2010) Introduction: Understanding public debate on nanotechnologies. Options for framing public policy. In: European Commission (ed.) Understanding Public Debate on Nanotechnologies. Options for Framing Public Policy. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 5–12.
78.
WeaverDALivelyEBimberB (2009) Searching for a frame: News media tell the story of technological progress, risk and regulation. Science Communication31(2): 139–166.
