In characterizing the European debate on agricultural biotechnology as a risk conflict between different social groups with competing interests, the research question posed by this article is whether and to what extent news media are found to facilitate democratic debate about this technology, in terms of interpretive frames (and their sponsors) that influence or fail to influence news discourse. Data are presented from a content analysis (N = 1385) with a specific focus on how three elite and two popular newspapers in Northern Belgium report this debate between January 1998 and December 2007 in terms of a systematic selection of events, sources and frames. The aggregate findings indicate a politicization of the debate between February 1999 and April 2004, whereas the debate was primarily framed as a matter to be left to technocratic decision-making and/or market forces before and after. A more complex picture emerges when the results are considered by newspaper title.
Bauer MW and Gaskell G (eds) (2002) Biotechnology: The Making of a Global Controversy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2.
Beck U. ( 1992) Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi: Sage.
3.
Beck U. ( 1999) World Risk Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.
4.
Benford RD and Snow DA ( 2000) Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology26(1): 611-639.
5.
Carragee KM and Roefs W. ( 2004) The neglect of power in recent framing research. Journal of Communication54(2): 214-233.
6.
Carvalho A. ( 2007) Ideological cultures and media discourses on scientific knowledge: Re-reading news on climate change. Public Understanding of Science16(2): 223-243.
7.
Carvalho A. ( 2008) Media(ted) discourse and society: Rethinking the framework of critical discourse analysis. Journalism Studies9(2): 161-177.
8.
Cottle S. ( 1998) Ulrich Beck, ‘risk society’ and the media: A catastrophic view?European Journal of Communication13(1): 5-32.
9.
Crawley CE ( 2007) Localized debates of agricultural biotechnology in community newspapers: A quantitative content analysis of media frames and sources. Science Communication28(3): 314-346.
10.
Gamson WA and Modigliani A. ( 1989) Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology95(1): 1-37.
11.
Gaskell G and Bauer MW (eds) (2001) Biotechnology 1996-2000: The Years of Controversy. London: Science Museum.
12.
Giddens A. ( 2003) Runaway World: How Globalization is Reshaping our Lives , 3rd edn. Cambridge: Polity Press.
13.
Hagedorn C. and Allender-Hagedorn S. ( 1997) Issues in agricultural and environmental biotechnology: Identifying and comparing biotechnology issues from public opinion surveys, the popular press and technical/regulatory sources. Public Understanding of Science6(3): 233-245.
14.
Hansen A. ( 1991) The media and the social construction of the environment. Media, Culture and Society13(4): 443-458.
15.
Hansen A (ed.) (1993) The Mass Media and Environmental Issues. Leicester: Leicester University Press.
16.
Hibino A. and Nagata M. ( 2006) Biotechnology in the Japanese media: Comparative analysis of newspaper articles on genetic engineering in Japan and Europe. Asian Journal of Social Psychology9(1): 12-23.
17.
Kinchy AJ, Kleinman DL and Autry R. ( 2008) Against free markets, against science? Regulating the socio-economic effects of biotechnology. Rural Sociology73(2): 147-179.
18.
Kohring M. and Matthes J. ( 2002) The face(t)s of biotech in the nineties: How the German press framed modern biotechnology. Public Understanding of Science11(2): 143-154.
19.
Krimsky S. ( 2005) From Asilomar to industrial biotechnology: Risks, reductionism and regulation. Science as Culture14(4): 309-323.
20.
Maeseele P.(2009) NGOs and GMOs: A case study in alternative science communication. Javnost - The Public16(4): 55-72.
21.
Maeseele P.(2010) On neo-luddites led by ayatollahs: The frame matrix of the GM food debate in Northern Belgium. Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture4(3): 277-300.
22.
Maeseele PA and Schuurman D. ( 2008) Biotechnology and the popular press in Northern Belgium: A case study of hegemonic media discourses and the interpretive struggle. Science Communication29(4): 435-471.
23.
Nisbet MC and Huge M. ( 2006) Attention cycles and frames in the plant biotechnology debate: Managing power and participation through the press/policy connection . Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics11(2): 3-40.
24.
Nisbet MC and Lewenstein BV ( 2002) Biotechnology and the American media: The policy process and the elite press, 1970 to 1999. Science Communication23(4): 359-391.
25.
Priest SH and Ten Eyck T. ( 2003) News coverage of biotechnology debates. Society40(6): 29-34.
26.
Van Larebeke N., Genetello C., Schell J. et al. (1975) Acquisition of tumour-inducing ability by non-oncogenic agrobacteria as a result of plasmid transfer. Nature255: 742-743.
27.
Verstraeten H. ( 1996) The media and the transformation of the public sphere: A contribution for a critical political economy of the public sphere. European Journal of Communication11(3): 347-370.
28.
VIB (Flanders Interuniversity Institute for Biotechnology). ( 2008) Available at: www.vib.be/InfoEdu/EN/Educational+material/
29.
West DM ( 2007) Biotechnology Policy across National Boundaries: The Science-Industrial Complex. New York: Palgrave Macmillan .
