"Teach the controversy": The relationship between sources and frames in reporting the intelligent design debate

Science Communication

Volumn 31, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 167-186

  Grimm, Joshua ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

Author keywords

Evolution; Framing; Intelligent design; Science; Source

Indexed keywords

EID: 72249086183     PISSN: 10755470     EISSN: 15528545     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1075547009335346     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. Annenberg Public Policy Center. (2004). White evangelical or born-again Protestants by state. Retrieved January 9, 2009, from http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/Downloads/Political_Communication/naes/2004_03_evangelical-table_09-27_pr.pdf.
2. Berra, T.M. (1990). Evolution and the myth of creationism. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
3. Bishop, G.F. (2005). The illusion of public opinion: Fact and artifact in American public opinion polls. Oxford, UK: Rowan & Littlefield.
4. Campbell, B.L. (1985). Uncertainty as symbolic action in disputes among experts. Social Studies of Science, 15, 429-453.
5. Carpenter, S. (2007). U.S. elite and non-elite newspapers' portrayal of the Iraq War: A comparison of frames and source use. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 84, 761-776.
6. Carragee, K.M., & Roefs, W. (2004). The neglect of power in recent framing research. Journal of Communication, 54, 214-233.
7. Clarke, C.E. (2008). A question of balance: The autism-vaccine controversy in the British and American elite press. Science Communication, 30, 77-107.
8. Chong, D., & Druckman, J.N. (2007). Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 103-126.
9. D'Angelo, P. (2002). News framing as a multiparadigmatic research program: A response to Entman. Journal of Communication, 52, 890-918.
10. Dawkins, R. (1995). River out of Eden. New York: Basic Books.
11. Dearing, J.W. (1995). Newspaper coverage of maverick science: Creating controversy through balancing. Public Understanding of Science, 4, 341-361.
12. Dunwoody, S. (1986). The scientist as a source. In S. M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, & C. L. Rogers (Eds.), Scientists and journalists: Reporting science as news (pp. 3-16). New York: Free Press.
13. Dunwoody, S. (1999). Scientists, journalists, and the meaning of uncertainty. In S. M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, & C. L. Rogers (Eds.), Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science (pp. 59-79). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14. Edy, J.A., & Meirick, P.C. (2007). Wanted, dead or alive: Media frames, frame adoption, and support for the war in Afghanistan. Journal of Communication, 57, 119-141.
15. Eldridge, N. (2001). The triumph of evolution and the failure of creationism. New York: Henry Holt & Company.
16. Entman, R. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51-59.
17. Eve, R.A., & Harrold, F.B. (1991). The creationist movement in modern America. Boston: Twayne.
18. Federal Elections. (2004). 2004 Election results. Retrieved April 7, 2009, from http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2004/tables.pdf.
19. Florida's Theory. (2008, March 6). Florida's theory of. . . The New York Times, p. A30. Retrieved April 7, 2009, from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/06/opinion/06thu3.html.
20. Forrest, B. (2001). The wedge at work: How intelligent design creationism is wedging its way into the cultural and academic mainstream. In R. T. Pennock (Ed.), Intelligent design creationism and its critics (pp. 5-53). Cambridge: MIT Press.
21. Forrest, B., & Gross, P.R. (2004). Creationism's Trojan horse: The wedge of intelligent design. New York: Oxford University Press.
22. Frank, T. (2004). What's the matter with Kansas? New York: Owl Books.
23. Funk, J. (2005, May 6). Kansas education board opens hearings on teaching evolution. The Wichita Eagle, p. A1.
24. Gans, H. (1980). Deciding what's news: A study of CBS evening news, NBC nightly news, Newsweek, and Time. New York: Random House.
25. Hertog, J., & McLeod, D. (2001). A multiperspectival approach to framing analysis: A field guide. In S. D. Reese, O. Gandy, & A. Grant (Eds.), Framing public life: Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world (pp. 139-161). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
26. Kinder, D.R. (2007). Curmudgeonly advice. Journal of Communication, 57, 9-20.
27. LaFollette, M.C. (1990). Making science our own. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
28. Liebler, C.M., & Bendix, J. (1996). Old-growth forests on network news: News sources and the framing of an environmental controversy. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 73, 53-65.
29. Mayr, E. (2001). What evolution is. New York: Basic Books.
30. Miller, K. (1999). Finding Darwin's god. New York: HarperCollins.
31. Mindich, D.T. (1998). Just the facts: How objectivity came to define American journalism. New York: New York University Press.
32. Mooney, C. (2005). The Republican war on science. New York: Basic Books.
33. Nelkin, D. (1995). Selling science: How the press covers science and technology. New York: W. H. Freeman.
34. Nisbet, M. (2005). The competition for worldviews: Values, information, and public support for stem cell research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17, 90-112.
35. Nisbet, M.C., Brossard, D., & Kroepsch, A. (2003). Framing science: The stem cell controversy in an age of press/politics. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 8(2), 36-70.
36. Nisbet, M.C., & Lewenstein, B.V. (2002). Biotechnology and the American media: The policy process and the elite press, 1970 to 1999. Science Communication, 23, 584-608.
37. Pan, Z., & Kosicki, G. (1993). Framing analysis: An approach to news discourse. Political Communication, 10, 55-75.
38. Perakh, M. (2004). Unintelligent design. New York: Prometheus Books.
39. Poindexter, P.M. & McCombs, M.E. (2000). Research in mass communication: A practical guide. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's.
40. Pollock, J.C. & Yulis, S.G. (2004). Nationwide newspaper coverage of physician-assisted suicide: A community structure approach. Journal of Health Communication, 9, 281-307.
41. Reese, S. (2001) Framing public life: A bridging model for media research. In S. Reese, O. Gandy, & A. Grant (Eds.), Framing public life: Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world (pp. 1-31). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
42. Reese, S.D., Grant, A., & Danielian, L.H. (1994). 'The structure of news sources on television: A network analysis of CBS News, Nightline, McNeil/Lehrer and This week with David Brinkley. Journal of Communication, 44(2), 64-83.
43. Religion a strength and weakness for both parties (2005, August 30). The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. Retrieved from http://people-press.org/report/254/religion-a-strength-and-weakness-for-both-parties.
44. Riffe, D., Lacy, S., & Fico, F.G. (1998). Analyzing media messages. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
45. Rogers, C.L. (1999). The importance of understanding audiences. In S. M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, & C. L. Rogers (Eds.), Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science (pp. 179-200). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
46. Scheufele, D. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication, 49(1), 103-123.
47. Scheufele, D.A. (2000). Agenda-setting, priming, and framing revisited: Another look at cognitive effects of political communication. Mass Communication & Society, 3(2&3), 297-316.
48. Schudson, M. (2001). The objectivity norm in American journalism. Journalism, 2, 149-171.
49. Schudson, M. (2003). The sociology of news. New York: W. W. Norton.
50. Shah, D.V., Watts, M.D., Domke, D., & Fan, D.P. (2002). News framing and cueing of issue regimes: Explaining Clinton's public approval in spite of scandal. Public Opinion Quarterly, 66, 339-370.
51. Shoemaker, P.J. & Reese, S.D. (1996). Mediating the message: Theories of influences on mass media content (2nd ed.), New York: Longman.
52. Snow, D.A., & Bedford, R.D. (1988). Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization. International Social Movement Research, 1, 197-217.
53. Stocking, S.H. (1999). How journalists deal with scientific uncertainty. In S. M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, & C. L. Rogers (Eds.), Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science (pp. 23-41). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
54. Swisher, K., & Reese, S.D. (1992). The smoking and health issue in newspapers: Influence of regional economies, the Tobacco Institute and news objectivity. Journalism Quarterly, 69, 987-1000.
55. Tankard, J.W., & Ryan, M. (1974). News source perceptions of accuracy of science coverage. Journalism Quarterly, 51, 219-225.
56. Taylor, C.A., & Condit, C.M. (1988). Objectivity and elites: A creation science trial. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 5, 293-312.
57. Toppo, G. (2005, November 10). Kansas schools can teach intelligent design. USA Today, p. A4.
58. Tuchman, G. (1978). Making news: A study in the construction of reality. New York: Free Press.
59. Wallis, C. (2005, August 15). The evolution wars. Time, 166(7), 26-35.
60. Wilkins, L. (1993). Between facts and values: Print media coverage of the greenhouse effect, 1987-1990. Public Understanding of Science, 2, 71-84.
61. Zehr, S.C. (1994). Flexible interpretations of acid rain and the construction of scientific uncertainty in political settings. Politics and the Life Sciences, 13, 205-216.
62. Zehr, S.C. (2000). Public representations of scientific uncertainty about global climate change. Public Understanding of Science, 9, 85-103.
63. Zimmer, C. (2001). Evolution. New York: HarperCollins.