Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vvkck Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T16:02:48.542Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

News coverage of controversial emerging technologies: Evidence for the issue attention cycle in print and online media

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2016

Ashley A. Anderson ,
Dominique Brossard  and
Dietram A. Scheufele
Ashley A. Anderson
Affiliation:
Center for Climate Change Communication, George Mason University, 4400 University Drive, Fairfax, VA 22030, aander24@gmu.edu
Dominique Brossard
Affiliation:
Department of Life Sciences Communication, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Hiram Smith Hall, 1545 Observatory Drive 324, Madison, WI 53706, dbrossard@wisc.edu
Dietram A. Scheufele
Affiliation:
Department of Life Sciences Communication, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Hiram Smith Hall, 1545 Observatory Drive 309, Madison, WI 53706, scheufele@wisc.edu
Get access

Abstract

This study analyzes the issue attention cycle for print and online media coverage of a scientific publication examining the deaths of Chinese factory workers due to lung damage from chronic exposure to nanoparticles. The results of the nanoparticle study, published in 2009, embody news values that would make the study a prime candidate for press coverage, namely, novelty, negativity, controversy, and potential widespread impact. Nevertheless, mentions of the event in traditional English-language print media were nearly nonexistent. Online media, on the other hand, gave the story greater coverage. This case study exemplifies why online media may not be bound to the same issue attention cycle that print media are for controversial scientific events.

Keywords

Science newsnanotechnologyonline mediaprint mediacontroversyissue attention cyclesemerging technology
Type
Perspective
Information
Politics and the Life Sciences , Volume 31 , Issue 1-2 , Spring/Fall 2012 , pp. 87 - 96
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Politics and the Life Sciences 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Mooney, Chris and Kirshenbaum, Sheril, “Unpopular science,” The Nation August 17, 2009, http://www.thenation.com/article/unpopular-science Google Scholar
2. Tanner, Andrea H., “Agenda building, source selection, and health news at local television stations: A nationwide survey of local television health reporters,” Science Communication 2004, 25(4): 350–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Kiernan, Vincent, Embargoed Science (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2006).Google Scholar
4. National Nanotechnology Initiative, “FAQs: Nanotechnology,” http://www.nano.gov/.Google Scholar
5. Khushf, George, “An ethic for enhancing human performance through integrative technologies,” in Managing Nano-Bio-Info-Cogno Innovations: Converging Technologies in Society, Bainbridge, William Sims and Roco, Mihail C., eds. (Dordrecht: Springer, 2006), pp. 255–278.Google Scholar
6. National Nanotechnology Initiative, “NNI budget,” http://www.nano.gov/.Google Scholar
7. “Nanotech-enabled consumer products continue to rise,” Nanotechproject.org, March 10, 2011, http://www.nanotechproject.org/news/archive/9231/.Google Scholar
8. Song, Y., Li, X., and Du, X., “Exposure to nanoparticles is related to pleural effusion, pulmonary fibrosis and granuloma,” European Respiratory Journal 2009, 34: 559–567.Google Scholar
9. Maynard, Andrew, “Nanoparticle exposure and occupational lung disease: Six expert perspectives on a new clinical study,” 2020 Science November 2, 2009, http://2020science.org/2009/08/18/nanoparticle-exposure-and-occupational-lung-disease-six-expert-perspectives-on-a-new-clinical-study/.Google Scholar
10. Maynard, Andrew, “Do peer review journals need a media code of conduct?” 2020 Science October 14, 2009, http://2020science.org/2009/10/14/do-peer-review-journals-need-a-media-code-of-conduct/.Google Scholar
11. Brain, J. D., Kreyling, W., and Gehr, P., “To the editors,” European Respiratory Journal 2010, 35(1): 226–227.Google Scholar
12. Inoue, K. and Takano, H., “Effects of nanoparticles on lung damage in humans,” European Respiratory Journal 2010, 35(1): 224–225.Google Scholar
13. Song, Y., Li, X., and Du, X., “From the authors,” European Respiratory Journal 2010, 25(1): 225–226.Google Scholar
14. European Respiratory Journal Editors, “From the editors,” European Respiratory Journal, 2010, 35(1): 227.Google Scholar
15. Ren, H. and Huang, X., “Polyacrylate nanoparticles: Toxicity or new nanomedine?” European Respiratory Journal 2010, 36(1): 218–221.Google Scholar
16. Song, Yuguo and Tang, Shichuan, “Nanoexposure, unusual diseases, and new health and safety concerns,” The Scientific World Journal 2011, 11:1821–1828.Google Scholar
17. Song, Yuguo, Li, Xue, Wang, Liying, Rojanasakul, Yon, Castranova, Vincent, Li, Huiling, and Ma, Jing, “Nanomaterials in humans: Identification, characteristics, and potential damage,” Toxicologic Pathology 2011, 39(5): 841–849.Google Scholar
18. Lyn, Tan E. “Deaths, lung damage linked to nanoparticles in China,” Reuters, August 19, 2009, http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/08/19/us-china-nanoparticles-idUSTRE57I1Y720090819 Google Scholar
19. Galtung, Johan and Ruge, Mari Holmboe, “The structure of foreign news,” Journal of Peace Research 1965, 2(1):64–91.Google Scholar
20. Wallis, Roger and Baran, Stanley, The Known World of Broadcast News (New York: Routledge, 1990).Google Scholar
21. Harcup, Tony and O'Neill, Deirdre, “What is news? Galtung and Ruge revisited,” Journalism Studies 2001, 2(2): 261–280.Google Scholar
22. Dudo, Anthony, Dunwoody, Sharon, and Scheufele, Dietram A., “The emergence of nano news: Tracking thematic trends and changes in U.S. newspaper coverage of nanotechnology,” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 2011, 88(1): 55–75.Google Scholar
23. Gamson, William A. and Modigliani, Andre, “Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach,” American Journal of Sociology 1989, 95(1): 1–37.Google Scholar
24. Ladwig, Peter, Anderson, Ashley A., Brossard, Dominique, Scheufele, Dietram A., and Shaw, Bret, “Narrowing the nano discourse?” Materials Today 2010, 13(5): 52–54.Google Scholar
25. Gans, Herbert, Deciding What's News: A Study of the CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, Newsweek and Time (London: Constable, 1979).Google Scholar
26. Bergstein, Brian, “Study: Carbon nanotubes mimic asbestos in mouse tests,” USA Today May 20, 2008, http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/nano/2008-05-20-carbon-nanotubes-asbestos_N.htm Google Scholar
27. Berkowitz, Dan. “Who sets the media agenda? The ability of policymakers to determine news decisions,” in Public Opinion, the Press, and Public Policy, David Kennamer, J., ed. (Westport: Praeger, 1992), pp. 81–102.Google Scholar
28. Downs, Anthony, “Up and down with ecology: The issue attention cycle,” The Public Interest 1972, 28: 38–51.Google Scholar
29. McComas, Katherine and Shanahan, James, “Telling stories about global climate change: Measuring the impact of narratives on issue cycles,” Communication Research 1999, 26(1): 30–57.Google Scholar
30. Nisbet, Matthew C. and Huge, Mike, “Attention cycles and frames in the plant biotechnology debate: Managing power and participation through the press/policy connection,” Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics 2006, 11(2): 3–40.Google Scholar
31. Shih, Tsung-Jen, Wijaya, Rosalyna, and Brossard, Dominique, “Media coverage of public health epidemics: Linking framing and issue attention cycles toward an integrated theory of print news coverage of epidemics,” Mass Communication and Society 2008, 11(2): 141–160.Google Scholar
32. Brossard, Dominique, Shanahan, James, and McComas, Katherine, “Are issue-cycles culturally constructed? A comparison of French and American coverage of global climate change,” Mass Communication & Society 2004, 7(3): 359–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
33. Drezner, Daniel W. and Farrell, Henry, “Web of influence,” Foreign Policy 2004 145: 32–40.Google Scholar
34. Gillmor, Dan, We the Media: Grassroots Journalism by the People, for the People (Sepastopol: O'Reilly, 2004).Google Scholar
35. Wallsten, Kevin, “Agenda setting and the blogosphere: An analysis of the relationship between mainstream media and political blogs,” Review of Policy Research 2007, 24(6): 567–587.Google Scholar
36. Lawrence, Steve and Lee Giles, C., “Searching the World Wide Web,” Science 1998, 280(5360): 98–100.Google Scholar
37. Lewandowski, Dirk, “A three-year study on the freshness of Web search engine databases,” Journal of Information Science 2008, 34(6): 817–831.Google Scholar
38. The Nielsen Company, “Bing overtakes Yahoo! as the #2 U.S. search engine,” September 14, 2010, http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/bing-overtakes-yahoo-as-the-2-search-engine/.Google Scholar
39. Horrigan, John B., “The internet as a resource for news and information about science,” Pew Internet & American Life Project November 20, 2006, http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2006/The-Internet-as-a-Resource-for-News-and-Information-about-Science.aspx Google Scholar
40. Stone, Gerald C. and McCombs, Maxwell E., “Tracing the time lag in agenda-setting,” Journalism Quarterly 1981, 58(1): 51–55.Google Scholar
41. William Engdahl, F., “Nano particles used in untested H1N1 Swine Flu vaccines,” Centre for Research on Globalization September 13, 2009, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?aid=15092&;context=va Google Scholar
42. Fishman, Mark, “Crime waves as ideology,” Social Problems 1978, 25(5): 531–543.Google Scholar
43. Poland, Craig A., Duffin, Rodger, Kinloch, Ian, Maynard, Andrew, Wallace, William A. H., Seaton, Anthony, Stone, Vicki, Brown, Simon, MacNee, William, and Donaldson, Ken, “Carbon nanotubes introduced into the abdominal cavity of mice show asbestos-like pathogenicity in a pilot study,” Nature Nanotechnology 2008, 3(7): 423–428.Google Scholar
44. Shoemaker, Pamela J., “A new gatekeeping model,” in McQuail's Reader in Mass Communication Theory, McQuail, D., ed. (London: Sage, 2002), pp. 253–259.Google Scholar
45. Hilgartner, Stephen and Bosk, Charles L., “The rise and fall of social problems: A public arenas model,” American Journal of Sociology 1988, 94: 53–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar