Biotechnology and the Popular Press in Northern Belgium: A Case Study of Hegemonic Media Discourses and the Interpretive Struggle

Science Communication

Volumn 29, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 435-471

  Maeseele, Pieter A ^a   Schuurman, Dimitri ^a  

^a GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Belgium; Biotechnology; Framing; Media sociology; Popular press

Indexed keywords

EID: 43349102232     PISSN: 10755470     EISSN: 15528545     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1075547008316221     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Altman, D.G. (1991). Practical statistics for medical research. London: Chapman and Hall.
2. Bauer, M.W. (2003). "Science in the media" as a cultural indicator: Contextualizing surveys with media analysis. In M. Dierkes & C. von Grote (Eds.) Between understanding and trust. The public, science and technology (pp. 157-178). London / New York: Routledge.
3. Bauer, M.W. (2005). Distinguishing red and green biotechnology: Cultivation effects of the elite press. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 17 (1). 63-89.
4. Bauer, M. W., & Gaskell, G. (Eds.). (2002). Biotechnology-The making of a global controversy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5. Bauer, M.W., & Gutteling, J.M. (2006). Issue salience and media framing over 30 years. In G. Gaskell and M. W. Bauer (Eds.) Genomics & society. Legal, ethical & social dimensions (pp. 113-130). London: Earthscan.
6. Bauer, M.W., & Howard, S. (2004). Biotechnology and the public. Media module. Europe, North America and Japan. In Integrated codebook: LSE Methodology Institute Report: The Elite Press [ 1973-2002 ].
7. Bauer, M.W., Kohring, M., Allansdottir, A., & Gutteling, J. (2001). The dramatisation of biotechnology in elite mass media. In G. Gaskell and M. W. Bauer (Eds.), Biotechnology 1996-2000: The years of controversy (pp. 35-52). London: Science Museum.
8. Besley, J.C., & Shanahan, J. (2005). Media attention and exposure in relation to support for agricultural biotechnology. Science Communication 26 (4). 347-367.
9. Bucchi, M. (1998). Science and the media. Alternative routes in scientific communication. London / New York: Routledge.
10. Carragee, K.M., & Roefs, W. (2004). The neglect of power in recent framing research. Journal of Communication 54 (2). 214-233.
11. Claeys, J., Debusscher, M., Elchardus, M., & Smets, L. (2004). Biotechnologie in de publieke sfeer. Deelrapport 1: Het maatschappelijk draagvlak voor biotechnologische innovatie. Onderzoeksgroep TOR, Vakgroep Sociologie, Vrije Universiteit Brussel. Available at http://www.vub.ac.be/TOR/ main/publicaties/downloads/t2004_7.pdf, consulted July 2006.
12. Crawley, K.E. (2007). Localized debates of agricultural biotechnology in community newspapers: A quantitative content analysis of media frames and sources. Science Communication 28 (3). 314-346.
13. Devos, Y., Maeseele, P., Reheul, D., Van Speybroeck, L., & De Waele, D. (2008). Ethics in the societal debate on genetically modified organisms: A (re)quest for sense and sensibility. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 21 (1). 29-61.
14. Dornan, C. (1990). Some problems in conceptualizing the issue of "science and the media." Critical Studies in Mass Communication 7 (1). 48-71.
15. Durant, J., Bauer, M. W., & Gaskell, G. (Eds.). (1998). Biotechnology in the public sphere: A European sourcebook. London: Science Museum.
16. European Commission. (2001). Special Eurobarometer 154 - Europeans, science and technology. Available at http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/press/ 2001/pr0612en-report.pdf, consulted April 2005.
17. European Commission. (2005). Special Eurobarometer 225-Social values, science and technology. Available at http://www.infoeuropa.ro/ieweb/imgupload/ Social_Values,_Science_and_Technology_report_00001.pdf, consulted July 2006.
18. Ferree, M. M., Gamson, W. A., Gerhards, J., & Rucht, D. (Eds.). (2002). Shaping abortion discourse. Democracy and the public sphere in Germany and the United States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19. Flynn, J., Slovic, P., & Kunreuther, H. (2001). Risk, media and stigma. Understanding public challenges to modern science and technology. London: Earthscan.
20. Gamson, W.A. (1988). The 1987 distinguished lecture: A constructionist approach to mass media and public opinion. Symbolic Interaction 11 (2). 161-174.
21. Gamson, W.A. (2003). Foreword. In S. D. Reese, O.H. Gandy Jr., & A. E. Grant (Eds.), Framing public life. Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world (pp. ix - xi). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
22. Gamson, W.A., & Modigliani, A. (1989). Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology, 95 (1). 1-37.
23. Gamson, W.A., & Wolfsfeld, G. (1993). Movements and media as interacting systems. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences 528, (1). 114-125.
24. Gaskell, G. (2001). Attitudes, social representations, and beyond. In K. Deaux and G. Philogne (Eds.), Representations of the social. Bridging theoretical traditions (pp. 228-241). Oxford: Blackwell.
25. Gaskell, G., Allansdottir, A., Allum, N., Corcher, C., Fischler, C., Hampel, J., et al. (2006). Eurobarometer 64.3-Europeans and Biotechnology in 2005: Patterns and trends. A report to the European Commission's Directorate-General for Research, May 2006. Available at http://www.ec.europa. eu/research/press/2006/pdf/pr1906_eb_64_3_final_report-may2006_en.pdf, consulted July 2006.
26. Gaskell, G., & Bauer, M. W. (Eds.). (2001). Biotechnology 1996-2000: The years of controversy. London: Science Museum.
27. Gaskell, G., & Bauer, M. W. (Eds.). (2006). Genomics & society. Legal, ethical & social dimensions. London: Earthscan.
28. Grabner, P., Hampel, J., Lindsey, N., & Torgersen, H. (2001). Biopolitical diversity: The challenge of multilevel policy-making. In G. Gaskell, and M. W. Bauer (Eds.), Biotechnology 1996-2000: The years of controversy (pp. 15-34). London: Science Museum.
29. Gunter, B., Kinderlerer, J., & Beyleveld, D. (1999). The media and public understanding of biotechnology. A survey of scientists and journalists. Science Communication, 20 (4). 373-394.
30. Gutteling, J.M., Olofsson, A., Fjaestad, B., & Kohring, M. (2002). Media coverage 1973-1996: Trends and dynamics. In M. W. Bauer and G. Gaskell (Eds.), Biotechnology-The making of a global controversy (pp. 95-128). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31. Hibino, A., & Nagata, M. (2006). Biotechnology in the Japanese media: Comparative analysis of newspaper articles on genetic engineering in Japan and Europe. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 9 (1). 12-23.
32. Irwin, A., & Wynne, B. (Eds.). (1996). Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
33. Jasanoff, S. (2005). Designs on nature. Science and democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
34. Landis, J.R., & Koch, G.G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33 (1). 159-174.
35. Lewenstein, B.V. (1995). Science and the media. In S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Petersen and T. Pinch (Eds.), Handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 343-360). Thousand Oaks, CA / London / New Delhi: Sage.
36. Maeseele, P.A. (2007). Science and technology in a mediatized and democratized society. Journal of Science Communication, 6 (1). 1-10.
37. Meyer, G. (2006). Journalism and science: How to erode the idea of knowledge. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 19 (3). 239-252.
38. Nelkin, D. (1995). Selling science: How the press covers science and technology. New York: W. H. Freeman.
39. Nisbet, M., & Lewenstein, B. (2002). Biotechnology and the American media. Science Communication, 23 (4). 359-391.
40. Nisbet, M.C., & 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/Politics, 11 (2). 3-40.
41. Nisbet, M.C., Scheufele, D.A., Shanahan, J., Moy, P., Brossard, D., & Lewenstein, B.V. (2002). Knowledge, reservations, or promise? A media effects model for public perceptions of science and technology. Communication Research, 29 (5). 584-608.
42. Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-thinking science. Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity.
43. Priest, S.H. (2001). A grain of truth: The media, the public, and biotechnology. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
44. Priest, S., & Ten Eyck, T. (2003). News coverage of biotechnology debates. Society, 40 (6). 29-34.
45. Priest, S., & Ten Eyck, T. (2004). Transborder information, local resistance, and the spiral of silence: Biotechnology and public opinion in the United States. In S. Braman (Ed.), Biotechnology and communication. The meta-technologies of information (pp. 175-196). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
46. Ten Eyck, T., & Williment, M. (2003). The national media and things genetic. Science Communication, 25 (2). 129-152.
47. Tuchman, G. (1978). Making news: A study in the construction of reality. New York: Free Press.
48. van Brabander, F. (2003). Exclusieve enquête. Wetenschap en technologie: Wat denkt ú ervan? EOS (12). 38-45.
49. 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 Communication, 11 (3). 347-70.
50. Verstraeten, H., & Maeseele, P.A. (2006). Science, media, and the public sphere: A media sociological perspective. In Media change and social theory, CD-Rom of the 2nd Centre for Research on Socio-Cultural Change conference, St Hughs College, The University of Oxford (United Kingdom), September 6-8.
51. Wagner, W., Kronberger, N., & Seifert, F. (2002). Collective symbolic coping with new technology: Knowledge, images and public discourse. British Journal of Social Psychology, 41 (3). 323-343.
52. West, D.M. (2007). Biotechnology policy across national boundaries. The science-industrial complex. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
53. Wynne, B. (1992). Misunderstood misunderstanding: Social identities and public uptake of science. Public Understanding of Science, 1 (3). 281-304.