Informal chatter has always been part of the scientific community, but with the emergence of online blogs these casual debates have become public. Here, I present a case study of how blog information influenced the online news frames during the December 2010 coverage of the arsenic-based life study. The results show how media frames were homogeneous and transformed abruptly from a positive ‘Gee Whiz’ frame towards a critical frame and lastly to a meta media frame over the course of a few days. From beginning to end, the blogosphere heavily influenced the news content, use of sources and spread of information between news outlets. Such rapid and uncontrollable influence of blogosphere information on online news coverage can be explained theoretically as an example of science grapevine communication.
AllportGWPostmanL (1947) The Psychology of Rumor. New York: Henry Holt.
2.
AndersonAAllanSPetersenA. (2005) The framing of nanotechnologies in the British newspaper press. Science Communication27(2): 200–220.
3.
BarghJAMcKennaKYA (2004) The Internet and social life. Annual Review of Psychology55(1): 573–590.
4.
BattsSAAnthisNJSmithTC (2008) Advancing science through conversations: bridging the gap between blogs and the academy. PLoS Biology6(9): e240.
5.
BrossardD (2009) Media, scientific journals and science communication: Examining the construction of scientific controversies. Public Understanding of Science18(3): 258–274.
6.
BrumfielG (2009) Science journalism: Supplanting the old media?Nature News458(7236): 274–277.
7.
ColsonV (2011) Science blogs as competing channels for the dissemination of science news. Journalism12(7): 889–902.
8.
DavisK (1953) Management Communication and the Grapevine. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review.
9.
DavisK (1969) Grapevine communication among lower and middle managers. Personnel Journal48: 269–272.
10.
DonkAMetagJKohringM. (2012) Framing emerging technologies risk perceptions of nanotechnology in the German Press. Science Communication34(1): 5–29.
11.
DunwoodyS (1980) The science writing inner club: A communication link between science and the lay public. Science, Technology, & Human Values5(30): 14–22.
12.
DurantJBauerMWGaskellG (1998) The representation of biotechnology: Policy, media and public perception. In: BauerMWDurantJGaskellG (eds) Biotechnology in the Public Sphere: A European Sourcebook. London: Science Museum, pp. 3–12.
13.
ErbTJKieferPHattendorfB. (2012) GFAJ-1 is an arsenate-resistant, phosphate-dependent organism. Science337(6093): 467–470.
14.
FahyDNisbetMC (2011) The science journalist online: Shifting roles and emerging practices. Journalism12(7): 778–793.
15.
FrankR (2003) These crowded circumstances’ when pack journalists bash pack. Journalism4(4): 441–458.
16.
GamsonWAModiglianiA (1987) The changing culture of affirmative action. In: BraungartRGBraungartMM (eds) Research in Political Sociology. London: JAI Press, pp.137–177.
17.
JeromeF (1986) Gee Whiz! Is that all there is? In: FriedmanSMDunwoodySRogersCL (eds) Scientists and Journalists: Reporting Science as News. New York: Free Press, pp.147–154.
KiernanV (2000) The mars meteorite: A case study in controls on dissemination of science news. Public Understanding of Science9(1): 15–41.
20.
KjærgaardRS (2010) Making a small country count: Nanotechnology in Danish newspapers from 1996 to 2006. Public Understanding of Science19(1): 80–97.
21.
KjærgaardRS (2011) Stem-cell spin: Covering the Hwang affair in science and nature. Science as Culture20(3): 349–373.
22.
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.
23.
KujathCL (2011) Facebook and MySpace: Complement or substitute for face-to-face interaction?Cyberpsychology Behavior and Social Networking14(1–2): 75–78.
24.
LaFolletteMC (1992) Stealing Into Print: Fraud, Plagiarism, and Misconduct in Scientific Publishing. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
25.
LatourB (1987) Science in Action – How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Cambridge, MA; Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
26.
LazerDKennedyRKingG. (2014) The parable of Google Flu: Traps in big data analysis. Science343(6176): 1203–1205.
27.
LewensteinBV (1995) From fax to facts: Communication in the cold fusion saga. Social Studies of Science25(3): 403–436.
28.
McLuhanM (1962) The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man. Toronto, ON, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
MandavilliA (2011) Peer review: Trial by Twitter. Nature News469(7330): 286–287.
31.
MatthesJ (2009) What’s in a frame? A content analysis of media framing studies in the World’s leading communication journals, 1990–2005. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly86(2): 349–367.
32.
MishraJ (1990) Managing the grapevine. Public Personnel Management19(2): 213.
33.
MortensenTWalkerJ (2002) Blogging thoughts: Personal publication as an online research tool. In: MorrisonA (ed.) Researching ICTs in Context: A Research Report from InterMedia University of Oslo. Oslo: InterMedia, University of Oslo, pp. 249–279.
34.
NicollDC (1994) Acknowledge and use your grapevine. Management Decision32(6): 25–30.
35.
NisbetMCLewensteinBV (2002) Biotechnology and the American media the policy process and the Elite Press, 1970 to 1999. Science Communication23(4): 359–391.
36.
NisbetMCBrossardDKroepschA (2003) Framing science: The stem cell controversy in an age of press/politics. The International Journal of Press/Politics8(2): 36–70.
37.
Noelle-NeumannE (1974) The spiral of silence A theory of public opinion. Journal of Communication24(2): 43–51.
38.
PriestSH (2006) Public discourse and scientific controversy A spiral-of-silence analysis of biotechnology opinion in the United States. Science Communication28(2): 195–215.
ReavesMLSinhaSRabinowitzJD. (2012) Absence of detectable arsenate in DNA from arsenate-grown GFAJ-1 cells. Science337(6093): 470–473.
41.
ReisR (2008) How Brazilian and North American newspapers frame the stem cell research debate. Science Communication29(3): 316–334.
42.
RussellJM (2001) Scientific communication at the beginning of the twenty-first century. International Social Science Journal53(168): 271–282.
43.
ScheufeleD (1999) Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication49(1): 103–122.
44.
ScheufeleDAMoyP (2000) Twenty-five years of the spiral of silence: A conceptual review and empirical outlook. International Journal of Public Opinion Research12(1): 3–28.
45.
ScheufeleDATewksburyD (2007) Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The evolution of three media effects models. Journal of Communication57(1): 9–20.
46.
TomlinS (2007) Blogging science. Science & Public Affairs, 23September.
47.
TrenchB (2012) Scientists’ blogs: Glimpses behind the scenes. In: RödderSFranzenMWeingartP (eds) The Sciences’ Media Connection – Public Communication and its Repercussions. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 273–289.
48.
Van der NoordenR (2014) Scientists and the social media. Nature512: 126–129.
49.
WagenknechtS (2012) Debating troy in the mass media – The catalytic impact of public controversy on academic discourse. In: RödderSFranzenMWeingartP (eds) The Sciences’ Media Connection –Public Communication and its Repercussions. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 291–306.
50.
WeaverDABimberB (2008) Finding news stories: A comparison of searches using Lexisnexis and Google News. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly85(3): 515–530.
51.
Wolfe-SimonFBlumJSKulpTR. (2011) A bacterium that can grow by using arsenic instead of phosphorus. Science332(6034): 1163–1166.
