Big science, little news: Science coverage in the Italian daily press, 1946-1997

Public Understanding of Science

Volumn 12, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 7-24

  Bucchi, Massimiano ^a   Mazzolini, Renato G ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TRENTO   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0042378662     PISSN: 09636625     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0963662503012001413     Document Type: Article

References (68)

1. Cf. Sharon M. Friedman et al., eds., Scientists and Journalists. Reporting Science as News (New York: The Free Press, 1986); John Burnham, How Superstition Won and Science Lost: Popularizing Science and Health in the United States (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987); Peter L. Farrands, Don't Panic, Panic! (Melbourne: Text, 1993); Barrie Gunter et al.,"The media and public understanding of biotechnology," Science Communication (1999): 373-394. For similar arguments in specific relation to the Italian context, see for instance Gianfranco Bettetini and Aldo Grasso, eds., Lo specchio sporco della televisione (Torino: Fondazione Agnelli, 1988); Jader Jacobelli, ed., Scienza e informazione (Roma-Bari: Laterza, 1996).
2. Cf. Sharon M. Friedman et al., eds., Scientists and Journalists. Reporting Science as News (New York: The Free Press, 1986); John Burnham, How Superstition Won and Science Lost: Popularizing Science and Health in the United States (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987); Peter L. Farrands, Don't Panic, Panic! (Melbourne: Text, 1993); Barrie Gunter et al.,"The media and public understanding of biotechnology," Science Communication (1999): 373-394. For similar arguments in specific relation to the Italian context, see for instance Gianfranco Bettetini and Aldo Grasso, eds., Lo specchio sporco della televisione (Torino: Fondazione Agnelli, 1988); Jader Jacobelli, ed., Scienza e informazione (Roma-Bari: Laterza, 1996).
3. Cf. Sharon M. Friedman et al., eds., Scientists and Journalists. Reporting Science as News (New York: The Free Press, 1986); John Burnham, How Superstition Won and Science Lost: Popularizing Science and Health in the United States (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987); Peter L. Farrands, Don't Panic, Panic! (Melbourne: Text, 1993); Barrie Gunter et al.,"The media and public understanding of biotechnology," Science Communication (1999): 373-394. For similar arguments in specific relation to the Italian context, see for instance Gianfranco Bettetini and Aldo Grasso, eds., Lo specchio sporco della televisione (Torino: Fondazione Agnelli, 1988); Jader Jacobelli, ed., Scienza e informazione (Roma-Bari: Laterza, 1996).
4. Cf. Sharon M. Friedman et al., eds., Scientists and Journalists. Reporting Science as News (New York: The Free Press, 1986); John Burnham, How Superstition Won and Science Lost: Popularizing Science and Health in the United States (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987); Peter L. Farrands, Don't Panic, Panic! (Melbourne: Text, 1993); Barrie Gunter et al.,"The media and public understanding of biotechnology," Science Communication (1999): 373-394. For similar arguments in specific relation to the Italian context, see for instance Gianfranco Bettetini and Aldo Grasso, eds., Lo specchio sporco della televisione (Torino: Fondazione Agnelli, 1988); Jader Jacobelli, ed., Scienza e informazione (Roma-Bari: Laterza, 1996).
5. Cf. Sharon M. Friedman et al., eds., Scientists and Journalists. Reporting Science as News (New York: The Free Press, 1986); John Burnham, How Superstition Won and Science Lost: Popularizing Science and Health in the United States (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987); Peter L. Farrands, Don't Panic, Panic! (Melbourne: Text, 1993); Barrie Gunter et al.,"The media and public understanding of biotechnology," Science Communication (1999): 373-394. For similar arguments in specific relation to the Italian context, see for instance Gianfranco Bettetini and Aldo Grasso, eds., Lo specchio sporco della televisione (Torino: Fondazione Agnelli, 1988); Jader Jacobelli, ed., Scienza e informazione (Roma-Bari: Laterza, 1996).
6. Cf. Sharon M. Friedman et al., eds., Scientists and Journalists. Reporting Science as News (New York: The Free Press, 1986); John Burnham, How Superstition Won and Science Lost: Popularizing Science and Health in the United States (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987); Peter L. Farrands, Don't Panic, Panic! (Melbourne: Text, 1993); Barrie Gunter et al.,"The media and public understanding of biotechnology," Science Communication (1999): 373-394. For similar arguments in specific relation to the Italian context, see for instance Gianfranco Bettetini and Aldo Grasso, eds., Lo specchio sporco della televisione (Torino: Fondazione Agnelli, 1988); Jader Jacobelli, ed., Scienza e informazione (Roma-Bari: Laterza, 1996).
7. The "Di Bella affair" was centered on an alleged "alternative" cure for cancer and for several weeks was one of the most visible issues in the Italian media, provoking a heated public debate. In the course of the debate, a document on the "ethics of scientific journalism" was signed by scientists and scientific journalists, which berated the media for their treatment of the affair (www.ilsole24ore.it/etica).
8. Cf. Elisabeth S. Clemens, "Of asteroids and dinosaurs: the role of the press in shaping the scientific debate," Social Studies of Science 16 (1986): 421-456; Elisabeth S. Clemens, "The impact hypothesis and popular science: conditions and consequences of interdisciplinary debate," in The Mass-Extinction Debates: How Science Works in a Crisis, ed. William Glen, (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1994), 92-120; Bruce V. Lewenstein, "From fax to facts: communication in the cold fusion saga," Social Studies of Science 25 (1995): 403-436; Steven Epstein, Impure Science: AIDS, Activism and the Politics of Knowledge (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996).
9. Cf. Elisabeth S. Clemens, "Of asteroids and dinosaurs: the role of the press in shaping the scientific debate," Social Studies of Science 16 (1986): 421-456; Elisabeth S. Clemens, "The impact hypothesis and popular science: conditions and consequences of interdisciplinary debate," in The Mass-Extinction Debates: How Science Works in a Crisis, ed. William Glen, (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1994), 92-120; Bruce V. Lewenstein, "From fax to facts: communication in the cold fusion saga," Social Studies of Science 25 (1995): 403-436; Steven Epstein, Impure Science: AIDS, Activism and the Politics of Knowledge (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996).
10. Cf. Elisabeth S. Clemens, "Of asteroids and dinosaurs: the role of the press in shaping the scientific debate," Social Studies of Science 16 (1986): 421-456; Elisabeth S. Clemens, "The impact hypothesis and popular science: conditions and consequences of interdisciplinary debate," in The Mass-Extinction Debates: How Science Works in a Crisis, ed. William Glen, (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1994), 92-120; Bruce V. Lewenstein, "From fax to facts: communication in the cold fusion saga," Social Studies of Science 25 (1995): 403-436; Steven Epstein, Impure Science: AIDS, Activism and the Politics of Knowledge (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996).
11. Cf. Elisabeth S. Clemens, "Of asteroids and dinosaurs: the role of the press in shaping the scientific debate," Social Studies of Science 16 (1986): 421-456; Elisabeth S. Clemens, "The impact hypothesis and popular science: conditions and consequences of interdisciplinary debate," in The Mass-Extinction Debates: How Science Works in a Crisis, ed. William Glen, (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1994), 92-120; Bruce V. Lewenstein, "From fax to facts: communication in the cold fusion saga," Social Studies of Science 25 (1995): 403-436; Steven Epstein, Impure Science: AIDS, Activism and the Politics of Knowledge (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996).
12. Cf. Terry Shinn Richard Whitley eds. Expository science: Forms Functions of Popularization (Dordrecht: Reidel 1985); Stephen Hilgartner "The dominant view of popularization" Social Studies of Science 20 (1990): 519-39; David M. Phillips et. al. "Importance of the lay press in the transmission of medical knowledge to the scientific community" New England Journal of Medicine (11 Oct 1991): 1180-1183; Bruce V. Lewenstein "Science the media." in Handbook of Science Technology Studies eds. Sheila Jasanoff et al (Thousand Oaks: Sage 1995) 343-359; Massimiano Bucchi Science the Media. Alternative Routes in Scientific Communication (London New York: Routledge 1998).
13. Cf. Terry Shinn and Richard Whitley, eds., Expository science: Forms and Functions of Popularization (Dordrecht: Reidel, 1985); Stephen Hilgartner "The dominant view of popularization," Social Studies of Science 20 (1990): 519-39; David M. Phillips et. al., "Importance of the lay press in the transmission of medical knowledge to the scientific community," New England Journal of Medicine (11 Oct 1991): 1180-1183; Bruce V. Lewenstein "Science and the media." in Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, eds. Sheila Jasanoff et al, (Thousand Oaks: Sage, 1995), 343-359; Massimiano Bucchi, Science and the Media. Alternative Routes in Scientific Communication (London and New York: Routledge, 1998).
14. Cf. Terry Shinn and Richard Whitley, eds., Expository science: Forms and Functions of Popularization (Dordrecht: Reidel, 1985); Stephen Hilgartner "The dominant view of popularization," Social Studies of Science 20 (1990): 519-39; David M. Phillips et. al., "Importance of the lay press in the transmission of medical knowledge to the scientific community," New England Journal of Medicine (11 Oct 1991): 1180-1183; Bruce V. Lewenstein "Science and the media." in Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, eds. Sheila Jasanoff et al, (Thousand Oaks: Sage, 1995), 343-359; Massimiano Bucchi, Science and the Media. Alternative Routes in Scientific Communication (London and New York: Routledge, 1998).
15. Cf. Terry Shinn and Richard Whitley, eds., Expository science: Forms and Functions of Popularization (Dordrecht: Reidel, 1985); Stephen Hilgartner "The dominant view of popularization," Social Studies of Science 20 (1990): 519-39; David M. Phillips et. al., "Importance of the lay press in the transmission of medical knowledge to the scientific community," New England Journal of Medicine (11 Oct 1991): 1180-1183; Bruce V. Lewenstein "Science and the media." in Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, eds. Sheila Jasanoff et al, (Thousand Oaks: Sage, 1995), 343-359; Massimiano Bucchi, Science and the Media. Alternative Routes in Scientific Communication (London and New York: Routledge, 1998).
16. Cf. Terry Shinn and Richard Whitley, eds., Expository science: Forms and Functions of Popularization (Dordrecht: Reidel, 1985); Stephen Hilgartner "The dominant view of popularization," Social Studies of Science 20 (1990): 519-39; David M. Phillips et. al., "Importance of the lay press in the transmission of medical knowledge to the scientific community," New England Journal of Medicine (11 Oct 1991): 1180-1183; Bruce V. Lewenstein "Science and the media." in Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, eds. Sheila Jasanoff et al, (Thousand Oaks: Sage, 1995), 343-359; Massimiano Bucchi, Science and the Media. Alternative Routes in Scientific Communication (London and New York: Routledge, 1998).
17. Cf. Anders Hansen, ed., The Mass Media and Environmental Issues (Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1993); Deborah Lupton, Moral Threats and Dangerous Desires: AIDS in the News Media (London: Taylor and Francis, 1994); Martin Bauer et al., "The dramatisation of biotechnology in elite mass media," in Biotechnology 1996-2000: The Years of Controversy, eds. George Gaskell and Martin Bauer (London: Science Museum, 2001), 35-52. A thorough analysis of the coverage of biotechnology in the Italian media is, for instance, in Agnes Allansdottir et al., "Italy from moral hazards to a cautious take on risks," in Biotechnology 1996-200: the Years of Controversy, eds. George Gaskell and Martin Bauer, (London: Science Museum, 2001), 215-228; Agnes Allansdottir et al., "Italy," in Biotechnology in the Public Sphere: A European Sourcebook, eds. John Durant et al., (London: Science Museum, 1998), 89-99.
18. Cf. Anders Hansen, ed., The Mass Media and Environmental Issues (Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1993); Deborah Lupton, Moral Threats and Dangerous Desires: AIDS in the News Media (London: Taylor and Francis, 1994); Martin Bauer et al., "The dramatisation of biotechnology in elite mass media," in Biotechnology 1996-2000: The Years of Controversy, eds. George Gaskell and Martin Bauer (London: Science Museum, 2001), 35-52. A thorough analysis of the coverage of biotechnology in the Italian media is, for instance, in Agnes Allansdottir et al., "Italy from moral hazards to a cautious take on risks," in Biotechnology 1996-200: the Years of Controversy, eds. George Gaskell and Martin Bauer, (London: Science Museum, 2001), 215-228; Agnes Allansdottir et al., "Italy," in Biotechnology in the Public Sphere: A European Sourcebook, eds. John Durant et al., (London: Science Museum, 1998), 89-99.
19. Cf. Anders Hansen, ed., The Mass Media and Environmental Issues (Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1993); Deborah Lupton, Moral Threats and Dangerous Desires: AIDS in the News Media (London: Taylor and Francis, 1994); Martin Bauer et al., "The dramatisation of biotechnology in elite mass media," in Biotechnology 1996-2000: The Years of Controversy, eds. George Gaskell and Martin Bauer (London: Science Museum, 2001), 35-52. A thorough analysis of the coverage of biotechnology in the Italian media is, for instance, in Agnes Allansdottir et al., "Italy from moral hazards to a cautious take on risks," in Biotechnology 1996-200: the Years of Controversy, eds. George Gaskell and Martin Bauer, (London: Science Museum, 2001), 215-228; Agnes Allansdottir et al., "Italy," in Biotechnology in the Public Sphere: A European Sourcebook, eds. John Durant et al., (London: Science Museum, 1998), 89-99.
20. Cf. Anders Hansen, ed., The Mass Media and Environmental Issues (Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1993); Deborah Lupton, Moral Threats and Dangerous Desires: AIDS in the News Media (London: Taylor and Francis, 1994); Martin Bauer et al., "The dramatisation of biotechnology in elite mass media," in Biotechnology 1996-2000: The Years of Controversy, eds. George Gaskell and Martin Bauer (London: Science Museum, 2001), 35-52. A thorough analysis of the coverage of biotechnology in the Italian media is, for instance, in Agnes Allansdottir et al., "Italy from moral hazards to a cautious take on risks," in Biotechnology 1996-200: the Years of Controversy, eds. George Gaskell and Martin Bauer, (London: Science Museum, 2001), 215-228; Agnes Allansdottir et al., "Italy," in Biotechnology in the Public Sphere: A European Sourcebook, eds. John Durant et al., (London: Science Museum, 1998), 89-99.
21. Cf. Anders Hansen, ed., The Mass Media and Environmental Issues (Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1993); Deborah Lupton, Moral Threats and Dangerous Desires: AIDS in the News Media (London: Taylor and Francis, 1994); Martin Bauer et al., "The dramatisation of biotechnology in elite mass media," in Biotechnology 1996-2000: The Years of Controversy, eds. George Gaskell and Martin Bauer (London: Science Museum, 2001), 35-52. A thorough analysis of the coverage of biotechnology in the Italian media is, for instance, in Agnes Allansdottir et al., "Italy from moral hazards to a cautious take on risks," in Biotechnology 1996-200: the Years of Controversy, eds. George Gaskell and Martin Bauer, (London: Science Museum, 2001), 215-228; Agnes Allansdottir et al., "Italy," in Biotechnology in the Public Sphere: A European Sourcebook, eds. John Durant et al., (London: Science Museum, 1998), 89-99.
22. Cf. Brian Wynne, "Public understanding of science," in Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, eds. Sheila Jasanoff et al. (Thousand Oaks: Sage, 1995), 361-387. Similar conclusions have recently been reached by studies of the attitudes of Europeans to biotechnologies - see George Gaskell and Martin Bauer (eds.). Biotechnology 1996-2000: the Years of Controversy (London: Science Museum, 2001); George Gaskell et al. "Biotechnology in the European public," Nature Biotechnology 18 (2000): 935-938; surveys conducted in Italy on the same theme include see for instance Massimiano Bucchi and Federico Neresini, "Biotech remains unloved by the more informed," Nature 216 (2002): 461.
23. Cf. Brian Wynne, "Public understanding of science," in Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, eds. Sheila Jasanoff et al. (Thousand Oaks: Sage, 1995), 361-387. Similar conclusions have recently been reached by studies of the attitudes of Europeans to biotechnologies - see George Gaskell and Martin Bauer (eds.). Biotechnology 1996-2000: the Years of Controversy (London: Science Museum, 2001); George Gaskell et al. "Biotechnology in the European public," Nature Biotechnology 18 (2000): 935-938; surveys conducted in Italy on the same theme include see for instance Massimiano Bucchi and Federico Neresini, "Biotech remains unloved by the more informed," Nature 216 (2002): 461.
24. Cf. Brian Wynne, "Public understanding of science," in Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, eds. Sheila Jasanoff et al. (Thousand Oaks: Sage, 1995), 361-387. Similar conclusions have recently been reached by studies of the attitudes of Europeans to biotechnologies - see George Gaskell and Martin Bauer (eds.). Biotechnology 1996-2000: the Years of Controversy (London: Science Museum, 2001); George Gaskell et al. "Biotechnology in the European public," Nature Biotechnology 18 (2000): 935-938; surveys conducted in Italy on the same theme include see for instance Massimiano Bucchi and Federico Neresini, "Biotech remains unloved by the more informed," Nature 216 (2002): 461.
25. Cf. Brian Wynne, "Public understanding of science," in Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, eds. Sheila Jasanoff et al. (Thousand Oaks: Sage, 1995), 361-387. Similar conclusions have recently been reached by studies of the attitudes of Europeans to biotechnologies - see George Gaskell and Martin Bauer (eds.). Biotechnology 1996-2000: the Years of Controversy (London: Science Museum, 2001); George Gaskell et al. "Biotechnology in the European public," Nature Biotechnology 18 (2000): 935-938; surveys conducted in Italy on the same theme include see for instance Massimiano Bucchi and Federico Neresini, "Biotech remains unloved by the more informed," Nature 216 (2002): 461.
26. Cf. Marcel C. La Follette, Making Science Our Own. Public Images of Science 1910-1955 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990); Anders Hansen and Roger Dickinson, "Science coverage in the British mass media: media output and source input," Communication 17 (1992): 365-377; Edna F. Einsiedel, "Framing science and technology in the Canadian press," Public Understanding of Science 1 (1992): 89-103; Marianne. G. Pellechia, "Trends in science coverage: a content analysis of three US newspapers," Public Understanding of Science 6 (1997): 49-68.
27. Cf. Marcel C. La Follette, Making Science Our Own. Public Images of Science 1910-1955 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990); Anders Hansen and Roger Dickinson, "Science coverage in the British mass media: media output and source input," Communication 17 (1992): 365-377; Edna F. Einsiedel, "Framing science and technology in the Canadian press," Public Understanding of Science 1 (1992): 89-103; Marianne. G. Pellechia, "Trends in science coverage: a content analysis of three US newspapers," Public Understanding of Science 6 (1997): 49-68.
28. Cf. Marcel C. La Follette, Making Science Our Own. Public Images of Science 1910-1955 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990); Anders Hansen and Roger Dickinson, "Science coverage in the British mass media: media output and source input," Communication 17 (1992): 365-377; Edna F. Einsiedel, "Framing science and technology in the Canadian press," Public Understanding of Science 1 (1992): 89-103; Marianne. G. Pellechia, "Trends in science coverage: a content analysis of three US newspapers," Public Understanding of Science 6 (1997): 49-68.
29. Cf. Marcel C. La Follette, Making Science Our Own. Public Images of Science 1910-1955 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990); Anders Hansen and Roger Dickinson, "Science coverage in the British mass media: media output and source input," Communication 17 (1992): 365-377; Edna F. Einsiedel, "Framing science and technology in the Canadian press," Public Understanding of Science 1 (1992): 89-103; Marianne. G. Pellechia, "Trends in science coverage: a content analysis of three US newspapers," Public Understanding of Science 6 (1997): 49-68.
30. A more comprehensive account of the project's results is contained in Gustavo Guizzardi (ed.), La Scienza negoziata. Discipline biomediche nello spazio pubblico (Bologna: II Mulino, 2002).
31. M. Bauer et al., Science and Technology in the British Press, Research Report, 1946-1990 (London: Science Museum, 1995). A similarly constructed study has also been carried out in Bulgaria, Kristina Petkova et al., Modernisation and Images of Science: Comparing Britain and Bulgaria 1946-1994, Research Report (Budapest: Central European University, 2000).
32. M. Bauer et al., Science and Technology in the British Press, Research Report, 1946-1990 (London: Science Museum, 1995). A similarly constructed study has also been carried out in Bulgaria, Kristina Petkova et al., Modernisation and Images of Science: Comparing Britain and Bulgaria 1946-1994, Research Report (Budapest: Central European University, 2000).
33. th and the Wednesday of that week, and so on. The operation was repeated for the next year, but by moving the week forward by one unit (so that we now started with the ninth week rather than the eighth) and moving the weekday back by one unit (so that it was now Sunday rather than Monday).
34. Cf. S.M. DiBella et al., "Scientists' reasons for consenting to mass media interviews: a national survey," Journalism Quarterly 68 (1991): 740-749; Sharon Dunwoody and B.T. Scott, "Scientists as Mass Media Sources," Journalism Quarterly, no. 59 (1982): 52-59; Daniel Jacobi and Bernard Schiele (eds.), Vulgariser la science: le procès de l'ignorance (Paris: Champ Vallon, 1988); Anders Hansen. "Journalistic practices and science reporting in the brilish press," Public Understanding of Science 3 (1994): 111-134.
35. Cf. S.M. DiBella et al., "Scientists' reasons for consenting to mass media interviews: a national survey," Journalism Quarterly 68 (1991): 740-749; Sharon Dunwoody and B.T. Scott, "Scientists as Mass Media Sources," Journalism Quarterly, no. 59 (1982): 52-59; Daniel Jacobi and Bernard Schiele (eds.), Vulgariser la science: le procès de l'ignorance (Paris: Champ Vallon, 1988); Anders Hansen. "Journalistic practices and science reporting in the brilish press," Public Understanding of Science 3 (1994): 111-134.
36. Cf. S.M. DiBella et al., "Scientists' reasons for consenting to mass media interviews: a national survey," Journalism Quarterly 68 (1991): 740-749; Sharon Dunwoody and B.T. Scott, "Scientists as Mass Media Sources," Journalism Quarterly, no. 59 (1982): 52-59; Daniel Jacobi and Bernard Schiele (eds.), Vulgariser la science: le procès de l'ignorance (Paris: Champ Vallon, 1988); Anders Hansen. "Journalistic practices and science reporting in the brilish press," Public Understanding of Science 3 (1994): 111-134.
37. Cf. S.M. DiBella et al., "Scientists' reasons for consenting to mass media interviews: a national survey," Journalism Quarterly 68 (1991): 740-749; Sharon Dunwoody and B.T. Scott, "Scientists as Mass Media Sources," Journalism Quarterly, no. 59 (1982): 52-59; Daniel Jacobi and Bernard Schiele (eds.), Vulgariser la science: le procès de l'ignorance (Paris: Champ Vallon, 1988); Anders Hansen. "Journalistic practices and science reporting in the brilish press," Public Understanding of Science 3 (1994): 111-134.
38. David M. Phillips et al., "Importance of the lay press in the transmission of medical knowledge to the scientific community," New England Journal of Medicine. (11 October 1991): 1180-1183.
39. Hansen, "Journalistic practices."
40. Daniel Jacobi and Bernard Schiele, "Scientific imagery and popularized imagery: differences and similarities in the photographic portraits of scientists," Social Studies of Science 19 (1989): 731-53; Massimiano Bucchi, "La scienza e i mass media: la fusione fredda nei quotidiani italiani," Nuncius, 2 (1996): 581-611.
41. Daniel Jacobi and Bernard Schiele, "Scientific imagery and popularized imagery: differences and similarities in the photographic portraits of scientists," Social Studies of Science 19 (1989): 731-53; Massimiano Bucchi, "La scienza e i mass media: la fusione fredda nei quotidiani italiani," Nuncius, 2 (1996): 581-611.
42. The little attention paid by daily press coverage of science to the processes of science (experimental procedures, tests) is also documented by other studies, see for instance Einsiedel, "Framing Science and Technology;" see also Marcel C. LaFollette, Making Science Our Own; Dorothy Nelkin, Selling Science: How the Press Covers Science and Technology (New York: Freeman, 1995).
43. The little attention paid by daily press coverage of science to the processes of science (experimental procedures, tests) is also documented by other studies, see for instance Einsiedel, "Framing Science and Technology;" see also Marcel C. LaFollette, Making Science Our Own; Dorothy Nelkin, Selling Science: How the Press Covers Science and Technology (New York: Freeman, 1995).
44. Cf W. F. Bodmer, The Public Understanding of Science (London: Royal Society, 1985). On the subject of "balance" in representing science issues see also James W. Dearing, "Newspaper coverage of maverick science: creating controversy through balancing," Public Understanding of Science 4 (1995): 341-361.
45. Cf W. F. Bodmer, The Public Understanding of Science (London: Royal Society, 1985). On the subject of "balance" in representing science issues see also James W. Dearing, "Newspaper coverage of maverick science: creating controversy through balancing," Public Understanding of Science 4 (1995): 341-361.
46. Cf. Jeanne Fahnestock, "Accommodating science: the rhetorical life of scientific facts," Written Communication 3: 275-296; S. Holly Stocking, "How journalists deal with scientific uncertainty," in Communicating Uncertainty. Media Coverage of Controversial Science, ed. Sharon M. Friedman et al. (Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1999), 23-42.
47. Cf. Jeanne Fahnestock, "Accommodating science: the rhetorical life of scientific facts," Written Communication 3: 275-296; S. Holly Stocking, "How journalists deal with scientific uncertainty," in Communicating Uncertainty. Media Coverage of Controversial Science, ed. Sharon M. Friedman et al. (Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1999), 23-42.
48. Hansen, "Journalistic practices." On the prominence of scientists as sources of media coverage and on their "control over the media agenda" see also Einsiedel, "Framing science and technology."
49. Hansen, "Journalistic practices." On the prominence of scientists as sources of media coverage and on their "control over the media agenda" see also Einsiedel, "Framing science and technology."
50. The total is more than 100 because an article title may refer to more than one aspect.
51. Einsiedel, "Framing science and technology;" Cf. Hans Mathias Kepplinger, Künstliche Horizonte. Folgen, Darstellung and Akzeptanz von Technik in der Bundesrepublik (Frankfurt: Campus, 1989). Kepplinger examined the coverage of science in the German daily press between 1965 and 1985, considering its increasingly negative attitude towards science to be responsible of the vanishing confidence of German citizens in scientific research.
52. Einsiedel, "Framing science and technology;" Cf. Hans Mathias Kepplinger, Künstliche Horizonte. Folgen, Darstellung and Akzeptanz von Technik in der Bundesrepublik (Frankfurt: Campus, 1989). Kepplinger examined the coverage of science in the German daily press between 1965 and 1985, considering its increasingly negative attitude towards science to be responsible of the vanishing confidence of German citizens in scientific research.
53. Renate G. Bader, "How Science News Influence Newspaper Science Coverage: A Case Study," Journalism Quarterly 67 (1990): 88-96.
54. Australian Science Indicators Report, section "Science and technology news in the media," 1991; Kepplinger, Künstliche Horizonte. See Bauer, Science and Technology.
55. Australian Science Indicators Report, section "Science and technology news in the media," 1991; Kepplinger, Künstliche Horizonte. See Bauer, Science and Technology.
56. Australian Science Indicators Report, section "Science and technology news in the media," 1991; Kepplinger, Künstliche Horizonte. See Bauer, Science and Technology.
57. Einsiedel, "Framing science and technology." Einsedel's study, however, analyzes in detail only one year of science coverage (1987) by seven Canadian newspapers.
58. Bauer, Science and Technology; Martin Bauer, "The Medicalization of Science News - from the Rocket-Scalpel to the Gene-Meteorite Complex," Social Science Information 37 (1998): 731-751.
59. Bauer, Science and Technology; Martin Bauer, "The Medicalization of Science News - from the Rocket-Scalpel to the Gene-Meteorite Complex," Social Science Information 37 (1998): 731-751.
60. Petkova, Modernisation and Images of Science.
61. See, for instance, the two Observa reports on Biotechnology and Public Opinion in Italy, 2000 and 2001 (www.observanet.it); Massimiano Bucchi and Federico Neresini, "Biotech Remains Unloved by the More Informed," Nature 216 (2002): 461.
62. See, for instance, the two Observa reports on Biotechnology and Public Opinion in Italy, 2000 and 2001 (www.observanet.it); Massimiano Bucchi and Federico Neresini, "Biotech Remains Unloved by the More Informed," Nature 216 (2002): 461.
63. Einsiedel, "Framing science and technology."
64. Einsiedel, "Framing science and technology."
65. For a theoretical distinction between popularization ("science-oriented public communication of science") and science-as-news ("problem-oriented public communication of science") see Hans Peter Peters, "Wissenschaftliche Experte in der Öffentliche Kommunikation über Technik, Umwelt, und Risiken," in Öffentlichkeit, öffentliche Meinung, Soziale Bewegungen Special Issue, Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 34 (1994):162-190; Bucchi, Science and the Media.
66. For a theoretical distinction between popularization ("science-oriented public communication of science") and science-as-news ("problem-oriented public communication of science") see Hans Peter Peters, "Wissenschaftliche Experte in der Öffentliche Kommunikation über Technik, Umwelt, und Risiken," in Öffentlichkeit, öffentliche Meinung, Soziale Bewegungen Special Issue, Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 34 (1994):162-190; Bucchi, Science and the Media.
67. th PCST Conference, Geneva, 1 February 2000.
68. For an analysis of media coverage of issues in terms of frames and "symbolic packages," see, for instance, William A. Gamson and Andre Modigliani, "Media Discourse and Public Opinion on Nuclear Power: A Constructionist Approach," American Journal of Sociology 95 (1989): 1-37.