"we begin tonight with fruits and vegetables": Genetically modified food on the evening news 1980-2003

Science Communication

Volumn 29, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 147-176

  Nucci, Mary L ^a   Kubey, Robert ^a  

^a Rutgers University   (United States)

Author keywords

Evening broadcast news; Food; Genetic modification; Television

Indexed keywords

EID: 35748969279     PISSN: 10755470     EISSN: 15528545     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1075547007308173     Document Type: Article

References (72)

1. Allan, S. (1998). News from nowhere: Televisual news discourse and the construction of hegemony. In A. Bell & P. Garrett (Eds.), Approaches to media discourse (pp. 105-141). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
2. Althaus, S.L., Edy, J.A., & Phalen, P.F. (2002). Using the Vanderbilt television abstracts to track broadcast news content: Possibilities and pitfalls. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 46, 473-492.
3. Altheide, D., & Snow, R.P. (1991). Media worlds in the postjournalism era. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
4. Auletta, K. (2005). Sign-off: The long and complicated career of Dan Rather. The New Yorker, 81 (3). 48-61.
5. Bae, H.S. (2000). Product differentiation in national TV newscasts: A comparison of the cable all-news networks and the broadcast networks. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 44 (1). 62-77.
6. Bauer, M.W., & Bonfadelli, H. (2002). Controversy, mass media coverage and public knowledge. In M. W. Bauer & G. Gaskell (Eds.), Biotechnology: The making of a global controversy (pp. 149-175). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
7. Bauer, M.W., Durant, J., & Gaskell, G. (1998). Biotechnology in the public sphere. London: Science Museum.
8. Besley, J.C., & Shanahan, J. (2005). Media attention and exposure in relation to support for agricultural biotechnology. Science Communication, 26, 347-367.
9. Boedeker, H. (2003). Brevity counts: Tight half-hours of network news still grab the numbers. Anniston Star.com. Retrieved from http://www. cleburnenews.com/entertainment/2003/as-tv-0904-0-3i03w1402.htm
10. Center for Media and the Public Interest. (2003). Surprise! TV's war news was fairly balanced. Retrieved from http://www.cmpa.com/pressReleases/ TVsWarNewsWasFairlyBalanced.htm
11. Conrad, P. (1999). Uses of expertise: Sources, quotes and voices in the reporting of genetics in the news. Public Understanding of Science, 8 (4). 285-302.
12. Croteau, D., & Hoynes, W. (1994). By invitation only: How the media limit public debate. Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press.
13. Ericson, R.V., Baranek, P.M., & Chan, J.B.L. (1989). Negotiating control: A study of news sources. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
14. Fiske, J. (1989). Television culture. London: Routledge.
15. Gans, H.J. (1979). Deciding what's news: A study of CBS evening news, NBC nightly news, Newsweek and Time. New York: Vintage Books.
16. Gaskell, G., Bauer, M.W., Durant, J., & Allum, N.C. (1999). Worlds apart? The reception of genetically modified foods in Europe and the US. Science, 285, 384-387.
17. Genetically Modified Organisms-Public Issues Education Project (GEO-PIE). (2006). GE foods in the market. Retrieved from http://www.geo-pie.cornell.edu/ crops/eating.html
18. Gibbons, M. (1999). Science's new social contract with society. Nature, 402 (Supp), C81 - C84.
19. Gitlin, T. (1980). The whole world is watching. Berkeley: University of California Press.
20. Goodell, R. (1987). The role of mass media in scientific controversy. In H. T. Engelhardt & A. L. Caplan (Eds.), Scientific controversies: Case studies in the resolution and closure of disputes in science and technology (pp. 585-597). London: Cambridge University Press.
21. Graber, D.A. (1989). Content and meaning: What's it all about? American Behavioral Scientist, 33 (2). 144-152.
22. Hallman, W.K., Hebden, W.C., Aquino, H. Cuite, C., & Lang, J. (2003). Public perceptions of genetically modified foods: A national study of American knowledge and opinion (Food Policy Institute Report RR-1003-004). Retrieved from http://www.foodpolicyinstitute.org/docs/reports/NationalStudy2003.pdf
23. Hallman, W.K., Hebden, W.C., Cuite, C., Aquino, H.L., & Lang, J. (2004). Americans and GM food: Knowledge, opinion and interest in 2004 (Food Policy Institute Report RR-1104-007). Retrieved from http://www. foodpolicyinstitute.org/docs/reports/NationalStudy2004.pdf
24. Holliman, R. (2004). Media coverage of cloning: A study of media content, production and reception. Public Understanding of Science, 13, 107-130.
25. Hoynes, W., & Croteau, D. (1991). The chosen few: Nightline and the politics of public affairs. Critical Sociology, 18, 19-34.
26. Iyengar, S., Peters, M.D., & Kinder, D.R. (1982). Experimental demonstrations of the "not so minimal" consequences of television news programs. American Political Science Review, 76, 848-858.
27. Kubey, R., Shifflet, M., Weerakkody, N., & Ukeiley, S. (1995). Demographic diversity on cable: Have the new cable channels made a difference in the representation of gender, race and age? Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 39, 297-312.
28. Lang, A., (1991). Emotion, formal features and memory for televised political advertisements. In F. Biocca (Ed.), Television and political advertising: Vol. I. Psychological processes (pp. 221-244). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
29. Lang, A., & Dhillon, K. (1995). The effects of emotional arousal and valence on television viewer's cognitive capacity and memory. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 39 (3). 313-328.
30. Lee, C.J., & Scheufele, R. (2006). The influence of knowledge and deference toward scientific authority: A media effects model for public attitudes towards nanotechnology. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 83 (4). 819-834.
31. Logan, R.A. (2001). News' compartmentalization: Implications for food biotechnology coverage. AgBioForum, 4 (3 / 4). 135-163.
32. Logan, R.A., Fears, L., & Wilson, N.F. (1998). Social responsibility in science news: Four case studies. Washington, DC: Media Institute.
33. Losey, J.E., Rayor, L.S., & Carter, M.E. (1999). Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae. Nature, 399, 214.
34. Marks, L.A. (2001). Communicating about agrobiotechnology. AgBioForum, 4 (3&4), 152-154.
35. Marks, L.A., Kalaitzandonakes, N., Allison, K., & Zakharova, L. (2002). Media coverage of agrobiotechnology: Did the butterfly have an effect? Journal of Agribusiness, 21, 1-20.
36. Marks, L.A., Kalaitzandonakes, N., & Vickner, S.S. (2003). Evaluating consumer response to GM foods: Some methodological considerations. Current Agriculture, Food and Resource Issues, 4, 80-94.
37. Mazur, A. (1981). Media coverage and public opinion on scientific controversies. Journal of Communication, 31, 106-115.
38. McCombs, M.E. (1981). The agenda setting approach. In D. Nimmo & K. Sanders (Eds.), Handbook of political communication (pp. 121-140). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
39. McCombs, M.E., & Shaw, D.L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, 276-287.
40. McInerney, C., Bird, N., & Nucci, M. (2004). The flow of scientific knowledge from lab to the lay public: The case of genetically modified food. Science Communication, 26, 44-74.
41. Miller, D. (1999). Mediating science-Promotional strategies, media coverage, public belief, and decision making. In E. Scanlon, E. Whitelegg, & S. Yates (Eds.), Communicating science: Contexts and channels (pp. 206-226). London: Routledge.
42. National Science Board. (2006). Science and engineering indicators 2006 (Vol. 1). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. Retrieved from from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/
43. Nelkin, D. (1995). Selling science: How the press covers science and technology. New York: Freeman.
44. Newhagen, J., & Reeves, B. (1992). This evening's bad news: Effects of compelling negative television news images on memory. Journal of Communication, 42, 25-41.
45. Nisbet, M., & Lewenstein, B. (2002). Biotechnology and the American media: The policy process and the elite press, 1970-1999. Science Communication, 23, 359-391.
46. Niven, D. (2005). An economic theory of political journalism. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 82 (2). 247-263.
47. Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology. (2006). Public sentiment about genetically modified food. Retrieved from http://pewagbiotech/research/ 2006update/2006
48. Poortinga, W., & Pidgeon, N. (2003). Exploring the dimensionality of trust in risk regulation. Risk Analysis, 23 (5). 961-972.
49. Priest, S.H. (1995). Information equity, public understanding of science, and the biotechnology debate. Journal of Communication, 45, 39-54.
50. Priest, S. (1999). Popular beliefs, media and biotechnology. In S. M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, & C. L. Rogers (Eds.), Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
51. Priest, S.H., Bonfadelli, H., & Rusanen, M. (2003). The "trust gap" hypothesis: Predicting support for biotechnology across national cultures as a function of trust in actors. Risk Analysis, 23 (4). 751-766.
52. Priest, S., & Talbert, J. (1994). Mass media and the ultimate technological fix: Newspaper coverage of biotechnology. Southwestern Mass Communication Journal, 19 (1). 76-85.
53. Priest, S., & Ten Eyck, T. (2003). News coverage of biotechnology debates. Society, 40 (6). 29-34.
54. Project for Excellence in Journalism. (2003). The state of the news media: Annual report. New York: Columbia University.
55. Project for Excellence in Journalism. (2004). The state of the news media: Annual report. Retrieved from http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2004/ index.asp
56. Project for Excellence in Journalism. (2005). The state of the news media: Annual report. Retrieved from http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2005/ index.asp
57. Project for Excellence in Journalism. (2006). The state of the news media: Annual report. Retrieved from http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2006/ index.asp
58. Reeves, B., Newhagen, E., Maibach, E., Basil, M., & Kurz, K. (1991). Negative and positive television messages: Effects of message type and message context on attention and memory. American Behavioral Scientist, 34, 679-694.
59. Schudson, M. (1995). The power of news. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
60. Shoemaker, P.J., & Reese, S.D. (1996). Mediating the message: Theories of influence on mass media content. New York: Longman.
61. Stempel, G.H. (1988). Topic and story choice of five network newscasts. Journalism Quarterly, 65 (3). 750-752.
62. Tan, A. (1986). Mass communication theories and research. New York: Macmillan.
63. Ten Eyck, T.A. (1999). Shaping a food safety debate. Science Communication, 20 (4). 426-445.
64. Ten Eyck, T.A., Thompson, P.B., & Priest, S.H. (2001). Biotechnology in the United States of America: Mad or moral science? In G. Gaskell & M. W. Bauer (Eds.), Biotechnology: 1996-2000. London: Science Museum.
65. Ten Eyck, T.A., & Williment, M. (2003). The national media and things genetic: Coverage in The New York Times (1971-2000)
66. and The Washington Post (1977-2001). Science Communication, 25, 129-152.
67. Tuchman, G. (1976). Telling stories. Journal of Communication, 26 (4). 93-97.
68. Van Dijck, J. (2003). After the two cultures: Toward a (multi)cultural practice of science communication. Science Communication, 25, 177-190.
69. Ward, J. (1992). Television. In B. V. Lewenstein (Ed.), When science meets the public (pp. 103-106). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
70. Wilkins, L. (1993). Between facts and values: Print media coverage of the greenhouse effect, 1987-1990. Public Understanding of Science, 2 (1). 71-84.
71. Williams, J.L. (2001). The rise and decline of public interest in global warming: Towards a pragmatic concept of environmental problems. Huntington, NY: Nova Science.
72. Zucker, H.G. (1978). The variable nature of news media influence. In B. D. Ruben (Ed.), Communication yearbook 2. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.