Restricted voices in the New Zealand GM debate: An analysis of New Zealand metropolitan newspaper coverage (1998 to February 2002)

East Asian Science, Technology and Society

Volumn 5, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 505-528

  Ashwell, Douglas ^a  

^a MASSEY UNIVERSITY   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

Agenda setting; Genetic modification; News media

Indexed keywords

EID: 84855991543     PISSN: 18752160     EISSN: 18752152     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1215/18752160-1457871     Document Type: Article

References (75)

1. Ashwell, Douglas, and Su Olsson (2004). Political party issue or party credibility contest? An analysis of rhetoric in the debate on genetic modification, leading up to the 2002 general election in New Zealand. Communication Journal of New Zealand 4: 45-63.
2. Association of Crown Research Institutes Inc. (2000). The place of genetic technology in New Zealand. Wellington: Association of Crown Research Institutes Inc.
3. Baran, Stanley J., and Dennis K. Davis (2006). Mass communication theory: Foundations, ferment, and future. 4th ed. Boston: Wadsworth.
4. Berkowitz, Dan (1992). Who sets the media agenda? The ability of policymakers to determine news decisions. In Public opinion, the press, and public policy, edited by J. David Kennamer, 81-102. Westport, CT: Praeger.
5. Beston, A. (2002). Anti-GM sabotage destroys potatoes. New Zealand Herald, 11 January.
6. Billington, Gregory, and Barbara C. Bibby (1991). Survey of attitudes to, and understanding of, science and technology in New Zealand. Wellington: Ministry of Research, Science and Technology.
7. Brown, Jane D., Carl R. Bybee, Stanley T. Wearden, and Dulcie M. Straughan (1987). Invisible power: Newspaper news and sources and the limits of diversity. Journalism Quarterly 64: 45-54.
8. Campbell, Hugh (2000). The future of New Zealand's food exports. In Designer genes: The New Zealand guide to the issues, facts, and theories about genetic engineering, edited by Prebble Ray, 71-84. Wellington: Dark Horse.
9. Caufield, Timothy, Tania Bubela, and C. J. Murdoch (2007). Myriad and the mass media: The covering of a gene patent controversy. Genetics in Medicine 9 (12): 850-55.
10. Coleman, Renita, and Maxwell McCombs (2007). The young and agenda-less? Exploring age-related differences in agenda setting on the youngest generation, baby boomers, and the civic generation. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 84 (3): 495-508.
11. Craft, Stephanie, and Wayne Wanta (2004). U.S. public concerns in the aftermath of 9-11: A test of second level agenda setting. International Journal of Public Opinion 16 (4): 457-63.
12. Davis, Aaron (2000). Public relations, news production, and changing patterns of source access in the British national media. Media, Culture, and Society 22 (1): 39-59.
13. Dornan, Christopher (1990). Some problems in conceptualizing the issue of "science and the media. " Critical Studies in Mass Communication 7 (1): 48-71.
14. Doyle, Timothy, and Doug McCeachern (2008). Environment and politics. 3rd ed. London: Routledge.
15. Durant, John, Martin W. Bauer, and George Gaskell, eds. (1998). Biotechnology in the public sphere: European sourcebook. London: Science Museum.
16. Fitzsimons, J. (2000). The nuclear-free issue of the twenty-first century. In Designer genes: The New Zealand guide to the issues, facts, and theories about genetic engineering, edited by Ray Prebble, 187-96. Wellington: Dark Horse.
17. Gans, Herbert J. (1979). Deciding what's news: A study of CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, Newsweek, and Time. New York: Pantheon.
18. Gibb, J. (1999). Modified canola threat to NZ image. Otago Daily Times, 14 April.
19. Hansen, Anders, Simon Cottle, Ralph Negrine, and Chris Newbold (1998). Mass communication research methods. New York: New York University Press.
20. Hindmarsh, Richard, and Rosemary Du Plessis (2008). The new civic geography of life sciences governance: Transitions and trajectories in Australia and New Zealand. New Genetics and Society 27 (3): 175-80.
21. Ho, Mae-Wan (2004). Foreword: Science, ethics, and nature. In Recoding nature: Critical perspectives on genetic engineering, edited by Richard Hindmarsh and Geoffrey Lawrence, 15-20. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press.
22. Hollings, James, Geoff Lealand, Alan Samson, and Elspeth Tilley (2007). The big NZ journalism survey: Underpaid, under-trained, under-resourced, unsure about the future-but still realistic. Pacific Journalism Review 13 (2): 175-97.
23. Hornig-Priest, Susanna (2001). Grain of truth: The media, the public, and biotechnology. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
24. Hutchings, Jessica (2004). Tradition and test tubes: Maori and GM. In Recoding nature: Critical perspectives on genetic engineering, edited by Richard Hindmarsh and Geoffrey Lawrence, 179-91. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press.
25. Hyde, John (2006). News coverage of genetic cloning: When science journalism becomes future oriented speculation. Journal of Communication Inquiry 30 (3): 229-50.
26. Kedgley, Sue (1998). Eating safely in a toxic world. Auckland: Penguin (NZ).
27. Kitzinger, Jenny, and Clare Williams (2005). Forecasting science futures: Legitimising hope and calming fears in the embryo stem cell debate. Social Science and Medicine 61 (3): 731-40.
28. Knowledge Basket (2011). All about Newztext. (http://www.knowledge-basket.co.nz/newztext/welcome. html, accessed on 24 July 2011)
29. Kohring, Matthias, and Alexander Gorke (2000). Genetic engineering in the international media: Analysis of opinion-leading magazines. New Genetics and Society 19 (3): 345-63.
30. Krimsky, Sheldon (1982). Genetic alchemy: The social history of the recombinant DNA controversy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
31. Kuypers, Jim A. (2002). Press bias and politics: How the media frame controversial issues. Westport, CT: Praeger.
32. Langdon, C. (2001). Marchers promote anti-GM message. Dominion, 1 November.
33. Legat, N. (1999). GM food: Should we worry? North and South, August, 39-50.
34. Louw, P. Eric (2005). The media and political process. London: Sage.
35. Macer, Darryl (1998). Public perceptions of biotechnology in New Zealand and the international community: Eurobarometer 46.1. Christchurch: Eubios Ethics Institute.
36. Macer, Darryl, Howard Bezar, Nicola Harman, Hiroshi Kamada, and Nobuko Y. Macer (1997). Attitudes to biotechnology in Japan and New Zealand in 1997, with international comparisons. Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 7: 137-51.
37. Malone, Ruth E., Elizabeth Boyd, and Lisa A. Bero (2000). Science in the news: Journalists' constructions of passive smoking as a social problem. Social Studies of Science 30 (5): 713-35.
38. McCombs, Maxwell E., and Salma I. Ghanem (2001). The convergence of agenda setting and framing. In Framing public life: Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world, edited by Stephen D. Reese, Oscar H. Gandy, and August E. Grant, 67-82. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
39. McCombs, Maxwell E., and Donald L. Shaw (1977). Agenda-setting and the political process. In The emergence of American political issues: The agenda-setting function of the press, edited by Donald L. Shaw and Maxwell E. McCombs, 149-56. St. Paul, MN: West.
40. McGuiness, Wendy, Miriam White, and Steph Versteeg (2008). The history of genetic modification in New Zealand. (http://www.sustainablefuture.info/Site/Publications/Project_Reports.aspx, accessed on 29 July 2011)
41. McQuail, Denis (1987). Mass communication theory: An introduction. London: Sage.
42. Miller, M. Mark, and Bonnie P. Riechert (2000). Interest groups strategies and journalistic norms: News media framing of environmental issues. In Environmental risks and the media, edited by Stuart Allan, Barbara Adam, and Cynthia Carter, 45-54. London: Routledge.
43. Milne, J. (1999). Push for human genes in cows. Dominion, 25 August.
44. Nelkin, Dorothy (1995). Selling science: How the press covers science and technology. Revised ed. New York: Freeman.
45. John C. Nerone, ed. (1995). Last rights: Revisiting four theories of the press. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
46. New Zealand Press Association (1999). National MPs block Bunkle gene-food bill. Dominion, 17 March.
47. New Zealand Press Association (2000a). Gene experiment tipped to go ahead. Dominion, 22 July.
48. New Zealand Press Association (2000b). Scientists warn on gene bans. Dominion, 25 October.
49. New Zealand Press Association (2000c). University gene work shut down. Dominion, 13 April.
50. Newspaper Advertising Bureau (2008). 2008 Newspaper readership survey and circulation results [electronic version], 1. (http://www.infonews.co.nz/news.cfm?l=1andt=138andid=33510, accessed on 7 July 2010).
51. Nisbet, Matthew C., Dominique Brossard, and Adrianne Kroepsch (2003). Framing science: The stem cell controversy in an age of press/politics. Press/Politics 8 (2): 36-70.
52. Nisbet, Matthew C., and Bruce V. Lewenstein (2002). Biotechnology and the American media: The policy process and the elite press, 1970 to 1999. Science Communication 23 (4): 359-91.
53. Petersen, Alan (2001). Biofantasies: Genetics and medicine in the print news media. Social Science and Medicine 52 (1): 1255-68.
54. Pfund, Nancy, and Laura Hofstadter (1981). Biomedical innovation and the press. Journal of Communication 31 (2): 138-54.
55. Richardson-Harman, Nicola, Tracey Phelps, Pauline Mooney, and Rod Ball (1998). Consumer perceptions of fruit production technologies. New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science 26 (3): 181-92.
56. Roberts, Nigel S., and Stephen Levine (1996). Bias and reliability: Political perceptions of the New Zealand media. In Dangerous democracy: New media politics in New Zealand, edited by Judy McGregor, 197-209. Palmerston North: Dunmore.
57. Rogers-Hayden, Tee (2004). Commissioning genetic modification: The marginalisation of dissent in the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification. Ph.D. diss., University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.
58. Rogers-Hayden, Tee, and John R. Campbell (2003). Re-negotiating science in environmentalists' submissions to New Zealand's Royal Commission on Genetic Modification. Environmental Values 12 (4): 515-34.
59. Rogers-Hayden, Tee, and Richard Hindmarsh (2002). Modernity contextualises New Zealand's Royal Commission on Genetic Modification: A discourse analysis. Journal of New Zealand Studies 1 (1): 41-62.
60. Rosenberg, Bill (2008). News media ownership in New Zealand. Christchurch: Campaign against Foreign Control of Aotearoa.
61. Royal Commission on Genetic Modification (2001). The report of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification. Wellington: Printlink.
62. Rupar, Verica (2007). Investigating the journalistic field: The influence of objectivity as a journalistic norm on the public debate on genetic engineering in New Zealand. Ph.D. diss., Waikato University, Hamilton.
63. Samson, A. (1999). Call to halt tests after possible trial crop "escape. " Dominion, 12 April.
64. Samson, A. (2001). Case for food labelling argued. Dominion, 22 February.
65. Scheufele, Dietram A., and Bruce V. Lewenstein (2005). The public and nanotechnology: How citizens make sense of emerging technologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 7: 659-67.
66. Sheafer, Tamir (2007). How to evaluate it: The role of story-evaluative tone in agenda setting and priming. Journal of Communication 57: 21-39.
67. Tucker, Corrina A. (2003). Contaminated democracy: A discourse analysis of the submissions to the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification. Master's thesis, Massey University, Palmerston North.
68. Wahl-Jorgensen, Karin (2001). Letters to the editor as a forum for public deliberation: Modes of publicity and democratic debate. Critical Studies in Media Communication 18 (3): 303-20.
69. Wanta, Wayne, and Salma Ghanem (2007). Effects of agenda setting. In Mass media effects research: Advances through meta-analysis, edited by Raymond W. Priess, Barbara M. Gayle, Nancy Burrell, Mike Allen, and Jennings Bryant, 37-52. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
70. Wanta, Wayne, Guy Golan, and Cheolhan Lee (2004). Agenda setting and international news: Media influence on public perceptions of foreign nations. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 81 (2): 364-77.
71. Watson, James D. (2000). The debate on genetic engineering. In Designer genes: The New Zealand guide to the issues, facts, and theories about genetic engineering, edited by Ray Prebble, 187-96. Wellington: Dark Horse.
72. Weaver, C. Kay, and Judy Motion (2002). Sabotage and subterfuge: Public relations, democracy, and genetic engineering in New Zealand. Media, Culture, and Society 24 (3): 325-43.
73. Wynne, Brian (1982). Rationality and ritual: The Windscale Inquiry and nuclear decisions in Britain. Bucks: British Society for the History of Science.
74. Wynne, Brian (2001). Creating public alienation: Expert cultures of risk and ethics on GMOs. Science as Culture 10 (4): 445-81.
75. Yin, Jiafei (2008). Beyond the four theories of the press: A new model for the Asian and world press. Journalism Communication Monographs 10 (1): 5-62.