Introduction: Science journalism in a digital age

Journalism

Volumn 12, Issue 7, 2011, Pages 771-777

  Allan, Stuart ^a  

^a BOURNEMOUTH UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 80052706484     PISSN: 14648849     EISSN: 17413001     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1464884911412688     Document Type: Review

References (37)

1. Allan S Investigating Science Communication in the Information Age: Implications for Public Engagement and Popular Media. Holliman R Whitelegg E Scanlon E Smidt S Thomas J, ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press ; 2009 :
2. AllgaierJ (2010) Networking expertise: Discursive coalitions and collaborative networks of experts in a public creationism controversy in the UK. Public Understanding of Science. Available at: http://pus.sagepub.com/content/ early/2010/11/16/0963662510383385
3. Journalism, Science and Society: Science Communication between News and Public Relations. Bauer MW Bucchi M, ed. London: Routledge ; 2007 :
4. BeddingtonJ (2011) We need both scepticism and consensus. New Scientist, 18February. Available at: http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/thesword/2011/02/ science-scepticism-and-consens.html
5. Climate Change and the Media. Boyce T Lewis J, ed. New York: Peter Lang ; 2009 :
6. Brumfiel G. Science journalism: Supplanting the old media?. Nature. 2009 ; 458: 274-278
7. Chalmers M. A revolution in bits. Physics World. 2007 ; 20 (1). 18-21
8. Condit CM. Science reporting to the public. Canadian Medical Association Journal. 2004 ; 170 (9). 1415-1416
9. Davies N Flat Earth News. London: Chatto and Windus ; 2008 :
10. Diethelm P, McKee M. Denialism: What is it and how should scientists respond?. European Journal of Public Health. 2009 ; 19 (1). 2-4
11. Dwyer J, Hood L. Beddington goes to war against bad science. Research Fortnight. 2011 ;:
12. Francl M. Blogging on the sidelines. Nature Chemistry. 2011 ; 3: 183-184
13. Geller G, Bernhardt B, Gardner M, Rodgers J, Holtzman N. Scientists' and science writers' experiences reporting genetic discoveries: Toward an ethic of trust in science journalism. Genetics in Medicine. 2005 ; 7 (3). 198-205
14. Gething L. 'Them and us': Scientists and the media-attitudes and experiences. South African Medical Journal. 2003 ; 93 (3). 197-201
15. Goldacre B Bad Science. London: Harper Perennial ; 2009 :
16. Hansen A. Communication, media and environment: Towards reconnecting research on the production, content and social implications of environmental communication. International Communication Gazette. 2011 ; 73 (1-2). 7-25
17. Investigating Science Communication in the Information Age: Implications for Public Engagement and Popular Media. Holliman R Whitelegg E Scanlon E Smidt S Thomas J, ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press ; 2009 :
18. Hermida A Science and the Media. Kennedy D Overholser G, ed. Cambridge, MA: American Academy of Arts and Sciences ; 2010 :
19. Jensen E. Between credulity and scepticism: Envisaging the fourth estate in 21st-century science journalism. Media, Culture & Society. 2010 ; 32 (4). 615-630
20. Kiernan V Embargoed Science. Urbana: University of Illinois Press ; 2006 :
21. Kitzinger J, Williams C. Forecasting science futures: Legitimising hope and calming fears in the embryo stem cell debate. Social Science & Medicine. 2005 ; 61: 731-740
22. Ladle R, Jepso P, Whittaker R. Scientists and the media: The struggle for legitimacy in climate change and conservation science. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews. 2005 ; 30 (3). 231-240
23. Lester L Media and Environment. Cambridge: Polity Press ; 2010 :
24. Mandavilli A. Trial by Twitter. Nature. 2011 ; 469 (7330). 286-287
25. Nature (2009) Survey of Science Journalists in Different National Contexts. Available at: http://tinyurl.com/c38kp6
26. Editorial: Science scorned. Nature. 2010 ; 467 (7312). 133
27. Nielsen KH, Carsten RK, Dahlgaard J. Scientists and science communication: A Danish survey. Journal of Science Communication. 2007 ; 6 (1). 1-12
28. Nisbet M, Mooney C. Framing science. Science. 2007 ; 316: 56
29. ObamaB (2009) Inaugural address: Transcript. New York Times, 20January. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/20/us/politics/20text-obama.html
30. Petersen A, Anderson A, Allan S, Wilkinson C. Opening the black box: Scientists' views on the role of the news media in the nanotechnology debate. Public Understanding of Science. 2009 ; 18 (5). 512-530
31. Priest SH Investigating Science Communication in the Information Age: Implications for Public Engagement and Popular Media. Holliman R Whitelegg E Scanlon E Smidt S Thomas J, ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press ; 2009 :
32. RieschH (2010) Changing news: Re-adjusting science studies to online newspapers. Public Understanding of Science. Available at: http://pus.sagepub. com/content/early/2010/08/23/0963662510376342.abstract
33. RIN (2010) If You Build It, Will They Come? How Researchers Perceive and Use Web 2.0. London: The Research Information Network. Available at: http://www.rin.ac.uk/
34. Russell C. Science journalism goes global. Science. 2009 ; 324: 1491
35. Trench B Investigating Science Communication in the Information Age: Implications for Public Engagement and Popular Media. Holliman R Whitelegg E Scanlon E Smidt S Thomas J, ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press ; 2009 :
36. Wilcox SA. Cultural context and the conventions of science journalism: Drama and contradiction in media coverage of biological ideas about sexuality. Critical Studies in Media Communication. 2003 ; 20 (3). 225-247
37. Williams A, Clifford S Mapping the Field: Specialist Science News Journalism in the UK National Media. Cardiff: Cardiff University School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies ; 2009 :