Drawing upon framing theory, this exploratory study suggested that conservative newspaper (the Wall Street Journal) regarded direct-to-consumer advertising of genetic tests as a regulation issue whereas liberal newspaper (the New York Times) as a science issue. The company, 23andMe, communicated the topic with the purpose of reputation building. This research informs genetic testing scientists and professionals about how media and company may influence consumers’ perceptions, and allow them to strategize how to shape future communication.
EinsiedelEFGeransarR. Framing genetic risk: Trust and credibility markers in online direct-to-consumer advertising for genetic testing. New Genet Soc2009; 28: 339–326.
3.
HogarthSJavittGMelzerD. The current landscape for direct-to-consumer genetic testing: legal, ethical, and policy issues. Ann Rev Genom Human Genet2008; 9: 161–182.
WilkesMSBellRAKravitzRL. Direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising: trends, impact, and implications. Health Affairs2000; 19: 110–128.
6.
LexchinJMintzesB. Direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs: the evidence says no. J Public Policy Market2002; 21: 194–201.
7.
LylesA. Direct marketing of pharmaceuticals to consumers. Ann Rev Public Health2002; 23: 73–91.
8.
PalumboFBMullinsCD. The development of direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising regulation. Food Drug Law J2002; 57: 423–443.
9.
MetzlJMHowellJD. Making history: lessons from the great moments series of pharmaceutical advertisements. Acad Med2004; 79: 1027–1032.
10.
GelladZFLylesKW. Direct-to-consumer advertising of pharmaceuticals. Am J Med2007; 120: 475–480.
11.
YoungJH. The medical messiahs: a social history of medical quackery in 20th century America, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2015.
12.
Welch ClineRJYoungHN. Marketing drugs, marketing health care relationships: a content analysis of visual cues in direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising. Health Commun2004; 16: 131–157.
13.
RobinsonARHohmannKBRifkinJIet al.Direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising: physician and public opinion and potential effects on the physician-patient relationship. Arch Intern Med2004; 164: 427–432.
14.
DonohueJMCevascoMRosenthalMB. A decade of direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs. NEngl J Med2007; 357: 673–681.
15.
DelbaereMWillisE. Direct-to-consumer advertising and the role of hope. J Med Market2015; 15: 26–38.
16.
DomkeDMcCoyKTorresM. News media, racial perceptions, and political cognition. Commun Res1999; 26: 570–607.
17.
KimSHScheufeleDShanahanJ. Think about it this way: attribute agenda-setting function of the press and the public’s evaluation of a local issue. J Mass Commun Quarter2002; 79: 1–25.
18.
WallackLDorfmanL. Media advocacy: a strategy for advancing policy and promoting health. Health Educ Behav1996; 23: 293–317.
19.
BoykoffMT. Flogging a dead norm? Newspaper coverage of anthropogenic climate change in the United States and United Kingdom from 2003 to 2006. Area2007; 39: 470–481.
20.
DotsonDMJacobsonSKKaidLLet al.Media coverage of climate change in Chile: a content analysis of conservative and liberal newspapers. Environ Commun: J Nat Culture2012; 6: 64–81.
21.
SnidermanPMTheriaultSMThe structure of political argument and the logic of issue framing. In: SarisWESnidermanPM (eds). Studies in public opinion: attitudes, nonattitudes, measurement error, and change, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004, pp. 133–165.
22.
IyengarS. Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues, Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press, 1991.
23.
McCombsMShawD. The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opin Quarter1972; 36: 176–187.
24.
RogersEDearingJAgenda-setting research: where has it been and where is it going? In: AndersonJA (ed). Communication yearbook, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1998.
25.
EntmanRM. Framing: toward a clarification of a fractured paradigm. J Commun1993; 43: 51–58.
26.
BerinskyAJKinderDR. Making sense of issues through media frames: understanding the Kosovo crisis. J Politics2006; 68: 640–656.
27.
GamsonWAModiglianiAThe changing culture of affirmative action. In: BraungartRGBraungartMM (eds). Research in political sociology1987; Vol. 3, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 137–177.
28.
GitlinT. The whole world is watching: mass media in the making and unmaking of the New Left, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1980.
29.
BarryCLJarlenskiMGrobRet al.News media framing of childhood obesity in the United States from 2000 to 2009. Pediatrics2011; 128: 132–145.
30.
ScheufeleDA. Framing as a theory of media effects. J Commun1999; 49: 103–122.
31.
GamsonWA. Talking politics, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
32.
DorfmanLWallackL. Moving nutrition upstream: the case for reframing obesity. J Nutr Educ Behav2007; 39: S45–S50.
33.
HilgartnerSBoskCL. The rise and fall of social problems: a public arenas model. Am J Sociol1988, pp. 53–78.
34.
ShoemakerPJReeseSD. Mediating the message White Plains, New York, NY: Longman, 1996.
35.
ArmitageD. Adaptive capacity and community-based natural resource management. Environ Manage2005; 35: 703–715.
36.
LeiserowitzA. Climate change risk perception and policy preferences: the role of affect, imagery, and values. Climatic Change2006; 77: 45–72.
37.
William-JonesB. ‘Be ready against cancer, now’: direct-to-consumer advertising for genetic testing. New Genet Soc2006; 25: 89–107.
38.
Genetic Alliance. Comments to the secretary’s advisory committee on genetics, health and society on oversight of genetic tests, http://geneticalalliance.org/ (2008, accessed 29 October 2015).
39.
RubinPH. Pharmaceutical advertising as a consumer empowerment device. J Biolaw Business2001; 4: 59–65.
40.
Government Accountability Office. Nutrigenetic testing: tests purchased from four web sites mislead consumers. http://www.gao.gov/assets/120/114612.pdf (2006, accessed 29 October 2015).
41.
GollustSEWilfondBSHullSC. Direct-to-consumer sales of genetic services on the Internet. Genet Med2003; 5: 332–337.
BaeH. Product differentiation in national TV newscasts: a comparison of the cable all-news networks and the broadcast networks. J Broadcast Electron Media2000; 44: 62–77.
44.
DenzinNKLincolnYSIntroduction: the discipline and practice of qualitative research. In: DenzinNKLincolnYS (eds). Handbook of qualitative research, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc, 2000, pp. 1–29.
45.
HertogJKMcLeodDMA multiperspectival approach to framing analysis: a field guide. In: ReeseSDGandy JrOHGrantAE (eds). Framing public life: perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2001, pp. 139–161.
46.
IhlenØThorbjørnsrudK. Tears and framing contests: public organizations countering critical and emotional stories. Int J Strategic Commun2014; 8: 45–60.
47.
GrosecloseTMilyoJ. A measure of media bias. Quarter J Econom2015; 120: 1191–1237.
48.
HoDEQuinnKM. Measuring explicit political positions of media. Quarter J Politic Sci2008; 3: 353–377.
CreswellJW. Qualitative inquiry & research design: choosing among five approaches, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications Inc, 2007.
51.
GlaserBG. The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems1965; 12: 436–445.
52.
StraussACorbinJ. Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1998.
53.
PriceVTewksburyDNews value and public opinion: a theoretical account of media priming and framing. In: BarnettGBostersFJ (eds). Progress in communication sciences, New York, NY: Ablex, 1997, pp. 214–257.
54.
ConnerMNormanP. Predicting health behavior: search and practice with social cognition models, Buckingham, UK: Open University Press, 1996.
55.
Meyers C and Rhoades E. Covering canker: a framing analysis of citrus canker coverage in Florida newspapers. In: Association for Communication Excellence annual research conference, Quebec, Canada, 2–6 June 2006.
56.
PaulyJJ. A beginner’s guide to doing qualitative research in mass communication. J Commun Monograph1991; 125: 32–32.
