Framing risk: Nanotechnologies in the news

Journal of Risk Research

Volumn 13, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 29-44

  Allan, Stuart ^a   Anderson, Alison ^b   Petersen, Alan ^c  

^a BOURNEMOUTH UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PLYMOUTH   (United Kingdom)

^c MONASH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Framing; Journalists; Nanotechnologies; News production; News sources; Scientists

Indexed keywords

COMPLEX PROCESSES; FRAMING; FRAMING RISKS; FUTURE APPLICATIONS; NEWS MEDIA; NEWS REPORTING; NEWS SOURCES; POLICY MAKERS; PUBLIC PERCEPTION; SOCIAL RELATIONS; THEORETICAL TERMS;

NANOTECHNOLOGY;

EID: 77249141665     PISSN: 13669877     EISSN: 14664461     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13669870903135847     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (41)

1. Allan, S. 2002. Media, risk and science. Maidenhead/New York: Open University Press.
2. ---. 2009. Making science newsworthy: Exploring the conventions of science journalism. In Investigating science communication in the information age: Implications for public engagement and popular media, ed. R. Holliman, J. Thomas, S. Smidt, E. Scanlon, and L. Whitelegg, 149-165 Oxford: Oxford University Press.
3. Anderson, A. 2006. Media and risk. In Beyond the risk society, ed. S. Walklate and G. Mythen, 114-131 Milton Keynes: Open University Press/McGraw-Hill.
4. ---. 2007. Spinning the rural agenda: The countryside alliance, fox hunting and social policy. In Challenging welfare issues in the global countryside, ed. G. Giarchi, 140-156 Oxford: Blackwell.
5. Anderson, A., S. Allan, A. Petersen, and C. Wilkinson. 2005. The framing of nanotechnologies in the British newspaper press. Special issue, Science Communication 27, no.2: 200-220
6. Anderson, A., A. Petersen, and M. David. 2005. Communication or spin? Source-media relations in science journalism. In Journalism: Critical issues, ed. S. Allan, 188-199 Maidenhead: Open University Press.
7. Anderson, A., A. Petersen, C. Wilkinson, and S. Allan. 2009. Nanotechnology, risk and communication. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
8. Arnaldi, S. 2008. Converging technologies in the Italian daily press 2002-2006: Preliminary results of an ongoing research project. Innovation: European Journal of Social Sciences 21, no.1: 87-94.
9. Bakir, V. 2005. Greenpeace v. Shell: Media exploitation and the social amplification of risk framework (SARF). Journal of Risk Research 8, nos. 7-8: 679-691
10. Bucchi, M. 1998. Science and the media: Alternative routes in scientific communication. London: Routledge.
11. CARMA (Asia Pacific). 2008. Report: Nanotechnology. In-depth quantitative and qualitative media analysis - Australia. Singapore: CARMA International (Asia Pacific).
12. Conrad, P. 1999. Use of expertise: Sources, quotes, and voice in the reporting of genetics in the news. Public Understanding of Science 8, no.4: 285-302.
13. Davis, A. 2009. Journalist-source relations, mediated reflexivity and the politics of politics. Journalism Studies 10, no.2: 204-219
14. Driedger, S.M. 2008. Creating shared realities through communication: Exploring the agendabuilding role of the media and its sources in the E. Coli contamination of a Canadian public drinking water supply. Journal of Risk Research 11, nos. 1-2: 23-40.
15. Entman, R.M. 1993. Framing: Towards clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication 43, no.4: 51-58
16. ---. 2004. Projections of power: Framing news, public opinion, and US foreign policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
17. Friedman, S., and B. Egolf. 2005. Nanotechnology in the US and British mass media. Paper presented at the international Association for Science, Technology and Society meeting, February 11, in Baltimore, Maryland.
18. ---. 2007. Changing patterns of media coverage of nanotechnology risks. Paper presented at 'Nanotechnology & the Media: The Inside Story' seminar, Project on Emerging Technologies, Woodrow Wilson, December 19. http://www.nanotechproject.org/process/ assets/files/5920/ woodrowwilsonwashingtondec182007final.pdf (accessed February 11, 2009).
19. Gandy, O.H. 1982. Beyond agenda setting: Information subsidies and public policy. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
20. Gieryn, T.F. 1999. Cultural boundaries of science: Credibility on the line. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
21. Goffman, E. 1974. Frame analysis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
22. Gorss, J., and B. Lewenstein. 2005. The salience of small: Nanotechnology coverage in the American press, 1986-2004. Paper presented at International Communication Association Conference, May 27, in New York.
23. Holliman, R. 2004. Media coverage of cloning: A study of media content, production and reception. Public Understanding of Science 13, no.2: 107-130
24. Kjærgaard, R.S. 2008. Making a small country count: Nanotechnology in Danish newspapers from 1996 to 2006. Public Understanding of Science. http://pus.sagepub.com/cgi/ rapidpdf/0963662508093090v1 (accessed February 8, 2009).
25. Manning, P. 2001. News and news sources: A critical introduction. London: Sage.
26. McCarthy, M., M. Brennan, M. De Boer, and C. Ritson. 2008. Media risk communication: What was said by whom and how was it interpreted. Journal of Risk Research 11, no.3: 375-394
27. Nisbet, M., and B. Lewenstein. 2002. Biotechnology and the American media: The policy process and the elite press, 1970 to 1999. Science Communication 23, no.4: 359-391
28. Olausson, U. 2009. Global warming - global responsibility? Collective action frames and the discourse of certainty. Public Understanding of Science. http://pus.sagepub.com/cgi/ rapidpdf/0963662507081242v1 (February 8, 2009).
29. Perri, A. 2005. What's in a frame? Social organization, risk perception and the sociology of knowledge. Journal of Risk Research 8, no.2: 91-118.
30. Petersen, A. 1999. The portrayal of research into genetic-based differences of sex and sexual orientation: A study of 'popular' science journals, 1980 to 1997. Journal of Communication Inquiry 23, no.2: 163-182
31. ---. 2001. Biofantasies: Genetics and medicine in the print news media. Social Science and Medicine 52, no.8: 1255-1268
32. Petersen, A., and A. Anderson. 2007. A question of balance or blind faith? Scientists' and policymakers' representations of the benefits and risks of nanotechnologies. NanoEthics 1, no.3: 243-256
33. Petersen, A., A. Anderson, and S. Allan. 2005. Science fiction/science fact: Medical genetics in fictional and news stories. New Genetics and Society 24, no.3: 337-353
34. Petersen, A., A. Anderson, S. Allan, and C. Wilkinson. 2008. Opening the black box: Scientists' views on the role of the mass media in the nanotechnology debate. Public Understanding of Science. http://pus.sagepub.com/cgi/rapidpdf/ 0963662507084202v1.pdf (accessed February 8, 2009).
35. Reese, S., O.H. Gandy, and A.E. Grant, eds. 2003. Framing public life. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
36. RS/RAE. 2004. Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties. London: Royal Society & Royal Academy of Engineering.
37. Schlesinger, P. 1990. Rethinking the sociology of journalism: Source strategies and the limits of media-centrism. In Public communication: The new imperatives, ed. M. Ferguson, 61-83. London: Sage.
38. Stephens, L.F. 2005. News narratives about nano S&T in major US and non US newspapers. Special issue, Science Communication 27, no.2: 175-199
39. Te Kulve, H.T. 2006. Evolving repertoires: Nanotechnology in daily newspapers in the Netherlands. Science as Culture 15, no.4: 367-382
40. Wilkinson, C., S. Allan, A. Anderson, and A. Petersen. 2007. From uncertainty to risk? Scientific and news media portrayals of nanoparticle safety. Health, Risk and Society 9, no.2: 145-157
41. Wood, S., R. Jones, and A. Geldart. 2007. Nanotechnology, from the science to the social: The social, ethical and economic aspects of the debate. Swindon: Economic and Social Research Council. http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac. uk/ESRCInfoCentre/Images/ESRC- Nano07-tcm6-18918.pdf (accessed May 16, 2008).