Coverage of emerging technologies: A comparison between print and online media

New Media and Society

Volumn 14, Issue 6, 2012, Pages 1039-1059

  Cacciatore, Michael A ^a   Anderson, Ashley A ^a   Choi, Doo Hun ^a   Brossard, Dominique ^a   Scheufele, Dietram A ^a   Liang, Xuan ^a   Ladwig, Peter J ^a   Xenos, Michael ^a   Dudo, Anthony ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

Author keywords

blogs; Google; internet; nanotechnology; newspapers

Indexed keywords

EID: 84865253092     PISSN: 14614448     EISSN: 14617315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1461444812439061     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Adamic L,Glance N.The political blogosphere and the 2004 US election: Divided they blog. Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Link Discovery; 2005Chicago, IL; 2005. 36.
2. Alexa (2011). Top Sites. Available at: http://www.alexa.com/topsites (accessed 3 December 2011).
3. Anderson AA,Brossard D,Scheufele DA.The changing information environment for nanotechnology: Online audiences and content.Journal of Nanoparticle Research. 2010;12 (4): 1083-1094.
4. Bickerstaff K,Lorenzoni I,Pidgeon NF, et al.Reframing nuclear power in the UK energy debate: Nuclear power, climate change mitigation and radioactive waste.Public Understanding of Science. 2008;17:145-169.
5. Brossard D,Shanahan J,McComas K.Are issue-cycles culturally constructed? A comparison of French and American coverage of global climate change.Mass Communication and Society. 2004;7 (3): 359-377.
6. Brumfiel G.Supplanting the old media?.Nature. 2009;458:274-277.
7. Cammaerts B.Critiques on the participatory potentials of Web 2.0.Communication, Culture & Critique. 2008;1:358-377.
8. Cammaerts B,Van Audenhove L.Online political debate, unbounded citizenship, and the problematic nature of a transnational public sphere.Political Communication. 2005;22:179-196.
9. Dahlgren P.The Internet, public spheres, and political communication: Dispersion and deliberation.Political Communication. 2005;22:147-162.
10. De Boer C,Catsburg I.The impact of nuclear accidents on attitudes toward nuclear energy.Public Opinion Quarterly. 1988;52:254-261.
11. Deuze M.Convergence culture in the creative industries.International Journal of Cultural Studies. 2007;10 (2): 243-263.
12. Downs A.Up and down with ecology: The issue attention cycle.Public Interest. 1972;28:38-50.
13. Drezner D,Farrell H.Web of influence.Foreign Policy. 2004;145:32-41.
14. Dudo A,Dunwoody A,Scheufele DA.The emergence of nano news: Tracking thematic trends and changes in US newspaper coverage of nanotechnology.Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly. 2011;88 (1): 55-75.
15. Ferber D.Risks and benefits - GM crops in the cross hairs.Science. 1999;286:1662-1666.
16. Ferree MM,Gamson WA,Gerhards J, et alShaping Abortion Discourse: Democracy and the Public Sphere in Germany and the United States. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2002:.
17. Friedman SM,Egolf BP.Nanotechnology risks and the media.IEEE Technology and Society Magazine. 2005;24:5-11.
18. Gaskell G,Allum N,Wagner W, et al.GM foods and the misperception of risk perception.Risk Analysis. 2004a;24:185-194.
19. Gaskell G,Ten Eyck T,Jackson J, et al.From our readers: Public attitudes to nanotech in Europe and the United States.Nature Materials. 2004b;3:496.
20. Gerhards J,Schafer MS.Is the internet a better public sphere? Comparing old and new media in the USA and Germany.New Media & Society. 2010;12:143-160.
21. Gillespie T.The politics of 'platforms'.New Media & Society. 2010;12:347-364.
22. Goldberg G.Rethinking the public/virtual sphere: The problem with participation.New Media & Society. 2011;13 (5): 739-754.
23. Goldman EWeb Search. Spink AZimmer M, ed. Berlin: Springer; 2008:121-133.
24. Hindman MThe Myth of Digital Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2009:.
25. HindmanMTsioutsiouliklisKJohnsonJA (2003) Googlearchy: How a few heavily-linked sites dominate politics on the web. Paper presented to the Midwest Political Science Association. Available at: http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~kt/mpsa03.pdf (accessed 16 August 2011).
26. Horrigan JBWashington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project; 2006:.
27. Iyengar S,Hahn K.Red media, blue media: Evidence of ideological selectivity in media use.Journal of Communication. 2009;59:19-39.
28. Jankowski NW,Van Os RDemocracy Online: The Prospects for Political Renewal through the Internet. Shane P, ed. London: Routledge; 2004:181-194.
29. Jenkins HConvergence Culture. New York: New York University Press; 2006:.
30. Jones J,Himelboim I.Just a guy in pajamas? Framing the blogs in mainstream US newspaper coverage (1999-2005).New Media & Society. 2010;12:271-288.
31. Kenix LJ.Blogs as alternative.Journal of Computer-mediated Communication. 2009;14 (4): 790-822.
32. Meraz S.Is there an elite hold? Traditional media to social media agenda setting influence in blog networks.Journal of Computer-mediated Communication. 2009;14:682-707.
33. MooneyC (2008) The science writer's lament. Available at: http://scienceprogress.org/2008/10/the-science-writers-lament/ (accessed 29 October 2008).
34. National Nanotechnology Initiative (2010) Research and development leading to a revolution in technology and industry: Supplement to the President's FY 2011 budget. Available at: https://engineering.purdue.edu/nanotrees/files/NNI_2011_budget_supplement.pdf (accessed 10 February 2010).
35. National Science Board (2010) Science and engineering indicators. Available at: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind10/ (accessed 31 January 2010).
36. NielsenWire (2010) Top U.S. search sites for May 2010. Available at: http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/top-u-s-search-sites-for-may-2010/ (accessed 17 June 2010).
37. Nisbet MC,Huge M.Attention cycles and frames in the plant biotechnology debate - managing power and participation through the press/policy connection.Harvard International Journal of Press-politics. 2006;11:3-40.
38. Pan B,Hembrooke H,Joachims T, et al.In Google we trust: Users' decisions on rank, position, and relevance.Journal of Computer-mediated Communication. 2007;12:801-823.
39. Papacharissi Z.The virtual sphere: The Internet as a public sphere.New Media & Society. 2002;4 (1): 9-27.
40. Papacharissi Z.Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups.New Media & Society. 2004;6 (2): 259-283.
41. Pariser EThe Filter Bubble: What the Internet Is Hiding from You. New York: The Penguin Press; 2011:.
42. Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism (2010) The state of the news media: An annual report on American journalism. Available at: http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2010/index.php (accessed 15 March 2010).
43. Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism (2011) Google drives most users. Available at: http://www.journalism.org/analysis_report/google_drives_most_users (accessed 19 May 2010).
44. Pew Research Center (2008) Audience segments in a changing news environment: Key news audiences now blend traditional and online sources. Available at: http://www.people-press.org/2008/08/17/key-news-audiences-now-blend-online-and-traditional-sources/ (accessed 17 August 2008).
45. PrakosoA (2011) Google blog search - how your blog can be found by more than 21,000 people at once. Available at: http://www.makemoneyblogguide.com/google-blog-search-how-your-blog-can-be-found-by-more-than-21000-people-at-once/ (accessed 16 August 2011).
46. Rucht D,Yang M,Zimmermann APolitische Diskurse im Internet und in Zeitungen. Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag; 2008:.
47. Satterfield T,Kandlikarm M,Beaudrie CEH, et al.Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies.Nature Nanotechnology. 2009;4:752-758.
48. Scheufele DA,Lewenstein BV.The public and nanotechnology: How citizens make sense of emerging technologies.Journal of Nanoparticle Research. 2005;7 (6): 659-667.
49. Scheufele DA,Tewksbury D.Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The evolution of three media effects models.Journal of Communication. 2007;57 (1): 9-20.
50. Shih TJ,Wijaya R,Brossard D.Media coverage of public health epidemics: Linking framing and issue attention cycle toward an integrated theory of print news coverage of epidemics.Mass Communication and Society. 2008;11 (2): 141-160.
51. Sjoberg L.Principles of risk perception applied to gene technology.EMBO Reports. 2004;5:S47-S51.
52. Stephens LF.News narratives about nano S&T in major US and non-US newspapers.Science Communication. 2005;27:175-199.
53. Sunstein CRepublic.com. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2001:.
54. Usher N.Goodbye to the news: How out-of-work journalists assess enduring news values and the new media landscape.New Media & Society. 2010;12:911-928.
55. Van De Donk W,Loader BD,Nixon PG, et alCyberprotest: New Media, Citizens, and Social Movements. London: Routledge; 2004:.
56. Van Os R,Jankowski N,Vergeer M.Political communication about Europe on the Internet during the 2004 European Parliament election campaign in nine EU member states.European Societies. 2007;9:755-775.
57. Vogl P,Barrett M.Regulating the information gatekeepers.Communications of the ACM. 2010;53 (11): 67-72.
58. Wallsten K.Agenda setting and the blogosphere: An analysis of the relationship between mainstream media and political blogs.Review of Policy Research. 2007;24:567-587.
59. Weaver DA,Bimber B.Finding news stories: A comparison of searches using LexisNexis and Google News.Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. 2008;85 (3): 515-530.
60. Weaver DA,Lively E,Bimber B.Searching for a frame: News media tell the story of technological progress, risk, and regulation.Science Communication. 2009;31:139-166.
61. Wirth W,Bocking T,Karnowski V, et al.Heuristic and systematic use of search engines.Journal of Computer-mediated Communication. 2007;12:778-800.