Conflicting stories about public scientific controversies: Effects of news convergence and divergence on scientists' credibility

Public Understanding of Science

Volumn 21, Issue 6, 2012, Pages 689-704

  Jensen, Jakob D ^a   Hurley, Ryan J ^b  

^a PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

cancer communications; health and media; interaction experts publics; media and science; public understanding of science; representations of science; science attitudes and perceptions

Indexed keywords

EID: 84864062228     PISSN: 09636625     EISSN: 13616609     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0963662510387759     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Berger CRLanguage and Social Psychology. Giles HSt. Clair R, ed. Oxford: Blackwell; 1979:122-144.
2. Berger CRInterpersonal Processes: New Directions in Communication Research. Roloff MMiller G, ed. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE; 1987:39-62.
3. Berger CR,Calabrese RJ.Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication.Human Communication Research. 1975;1:99-112.
4. Brashers DE.Communication and uncertainty management.Journal of Communication. 2001;51:477-497.
5. Brashers DE,Goldsmith DJ,Hsieh E.Information seeking and avoiding in health contexts.Human Communication Research. 2002;28:258-271.
6. Brechman J,Lee C,Cappella JN.Lost in translation? A comparison of cancer-genetics reporting in the press release and its subsequent coverage in the press.Science Communication. 2009;30 (4): 453-474.
7. Brossard D.Media, scientific journals and science communication: Examining the construction of scientific controversies.Public Understanding of Science. 2009;18:258-274.
8. Burrell NA,Koper RJPersuasion: Advances through Meta-analysis. Allen MPreiss RW, ed. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press; 1998:203-215.
9. Chaffee SHInter-media. Gumpert GCathcart R, ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 1986:62-80.
10. Clarke CE.A question of balance: The autism-vaccine controversy in the British and American elite press.Science Communication. 2008;30:77-107.
11. Cohen EL,Caburnay CA,Luke DA,Rodgers S,Cameron GT,Kreuter MW.Cancer coverage in general-audience and black newspapers.Health Communication. 2008;23:427-435.
12. Corbett JB,Durfee JL.Testing public (un)certainty of science: Media representations of global warming.Science Communication. 2004;26:129-151.
13. Dearing JW.Newspaper coverage of maverick science: Creating controversy through balancing.Public Understanding of Science. 1995;4:341-361.
14. Dunwoody SCommunicating Uncertainty: Media Coverage of New and Controversial Science. Friedman SDunwoody SRogers C, ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1999:59-80.
15. Ebeling MFE.Mediating uncertainty: Communicating the financial risks of nanotechnologies.Science Communication. 2008;29:335-361.
16. Fico F,Soffin S.Fairness and balance of selected newspaper coverage of controversial national, state, and local issues.Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. 1995;72 (3): 621-633.
17. Friedman SMCommunicating Uncertainty: Media Coverage of New and Controversial Science. Friedman SDunwoody SRogers C, ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1999:113-136.
18. Friedman SM,Villamil K,Suriano RA,Egolf BP.Alar and apples: Newspapers, risk and media responsibility.Public Understanding of Science. 1996;5:1-20.
19. Gantz W.The influence of researcher methods on television and newspaper news credibility evaluations.Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media. 1981;25:155-169.
20. Gutteling JM.Mazur's hypothesis on technology controversy and media.International Journal of Public Opinion Research. 2005;17:23-41.
21. Hewes DE,Graham ML,Doelger J,Pavitt C."Second-guessing": Message interpretation in social networks.Human Communication Research. 1985;11:299-334.
22. Hosman LA,Siltanen SA.Powerful and powerless language forms: Their consequences for impression formation, attributions of control of self and control of others, cognitive responses, and message memory.Journal of Language and Social Psychology. 2006;25:33-46.
23. Hwang Y,Southwell BG.Science TV news exposure predicts science beliefs.Communication Research. 2009;36:724-242.
24. Jensen JD.Scientific uncertainty in news coverage of cancer research: Effects of hedging on scientists' and journalists' credibility.Human Communication Research. 2008;34:347-369.
25. Jensen JD,Hurley RJ.Third-person effects and the environment: Social distance, social desirability, and presumed behavior.Journal of Communication. 2005;55:242-256.
26. Jensen JD,Carcioppolo N,King AJ,Bernat JK,Davis LA,Yale R,Smith J.Including limitations in news coverage of cancer research: Effects of news hedging on fatalism, medical skepticism, patient trust, and backlash.Journal of Health Communication. in press;:.
27. Jensen JD,Moriarty CM,Hurley RJ,Stryker JE.Making sense of cancer news coverage trends: A comparison of three comprehensive content analyses.Journal of Health Communication. 2010;15:136-151.
28. Kahlor L,Rosenthal S.If we seek, do we learn? Predicting knowledge of global warming.Science Communication. 2009;30:380-414.
29. Lai WYY,Lane T.Characteristics of medical research news reported on front pages of newspapers.PLoS ONE. 2009;4 (7): e6103.
30. Liebler CM,Bendix J.Old-growth forests on network news: News sources and the framing of an environmental controversy.Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. 1996;73 (1): 53-65.
31. Machlis GE,Rosa EA.Desired risk: Broadening the social amplification of risk framework.Risk Analysis. 1990;10:161-168.
32. Mazur A.Media coverage and public opinion on scientific controversies.Journal of Communication. 1981;31:106-115.
33. Miller JD.Public understanding of, and attitudes toward, scientific research: What we know and what we need to know.Public Understanding of Science. 2004;13:273-294.
34. Moriarty CM,Jensen JD,Stryker JE.Frequently cited sources in cancer news coverage: A content analysis examining the relationship between cancer news content and source citation.Cancer Causes & Control. 2010;21:41-49.
35. Science and Engineering Indicators: 2010. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation; 2010:.
36. Nelkin DSelling Science: How the Press Covers Science and Technology. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman & Company; 1995:.
37. Niederdeppe J,Frosch DL,Hornik RC.Cancer news coverage and information seeking.Journal of Health Communication. 2008;13:181-199.
38. Niederdeppe J,Hornik RC,Kelly BJ,Frosch DL,Romantan A,Stevens RS,Barg FK,Weiner JL,Schwartz JS.Examining the dimensions of cancer-related information seeking and scanning behavior.Health Communication. 2007;22:153-167.
39. Pellechia MG.Trends in science coverage: A content analysis of three U.S. newspapers.Public Understanding of Science. 1997;6:49-68.
40. Popper KThe Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Science Editions, Inc; 1961:.
41. Rall DP.Media and science: Harmless dioxin, benign CFCs, and good asbestos.Environmental Health Perspectives. 1994;102:10-11.
42. Roper BWPublic Attitudes toward Television and other Media in a Time of Change. New York: Roper Organization Inc; 1985:.
43. Rosen NO,Knäuper B.A little uncertainty goes a long way: State and trait differences in uncertainty interact to increase information seeking but also increase worry.Health Communication. 2009;24:228-238.
44. Russell C.Living can be hazardous to your health: How the news media cover cancer risks.Journal of the National Cancer Institute Monographs. 1999;25:167-170.
45. Schneider J.Making space for the "nuances of truth": Communication and uncertainty at an environmental journalists' workshop.Science Communication. 2010;32:171-201.
46. Slater M,Rouner D.How message evaluation and source attributes may influence credibility assessment and belief change.Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. 1996;73:974-991.
47. Slater MD,Long M,Bettinghaus EP,Reineke JB.News coverage of cancer in the United States: A national sample of newspapers, television, and magazines.Journal of Health Communication. 2008;13 (6): 523-537.
48. Star SL.Simplification in scientific work: An example from neuroscience research.Social Studies of Science. 1983;13:205-228.
49. Stocking SHCommunicating Uncertainty: Media Coverage of New and Controversial Science. Friedman SDunwoody SRogers C, ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1999:23-42.
50. Stocking SH,Holstein LW.Manufacturing doubt: Journalists' role and the construction of ignorance in a scientific controversy.Public Understanding of Science. 2009;18:23-42.
51. Tankard JW,Ryan M.News sources' perceptions of accuracy in science coverage.Journalism Quarterly. 1974;51:219-223.
52. Tichenor PJ,Donohue GA,Olien CNCommunity Conflict and the Press. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE; 1980:.
53. Tuchman G.Objectivity as a strategic ritual: An examination of newsmen's notions of objectivity.American Journal of Sociology. 1972;77:660-679.
54. Wallington SF,Blake K,Taylor-Clark K,Viswanath K.Antecedents to agenda setting and framing in health news: An examination of priority, angle, source, and resource usage from a national survey of U.S. health reporters and editors.Journal of Health Communication. 2010;15:76-94.
55. Yaros RA.Is it the medium or the message? Structuring complex news to enhance engagement and situational understanding by non-experts.Communication Research. 2006;33 (4): 285-309.
56. Zehr SCCommunicating Uncertainty: Media Coverage of New and Controversial Science. Friedman SDunwoody SRogers C, ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1999:3-21.
57. Zheng W,Gantz W.Health content in local television news: A current appraisal.Health Communication. 2010;25:230-237.