Where do science debates come from? understanding attention cycles and framing

The Public, the Media and Agricultural Biotechnology

Volumn , Issue , 2007, Pages 193-230

  Nisbet, M C ^a   Huge, M ^b  

^a AMERICAN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84890604370     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (55)

1. Baumgartner, F. and Jones, B. (1993) Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago University Press, Chicago, Illinois.
2. Becker, G.S. (2005) Agricultural Biotechnology: Overview and Selected Issues. Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, IB10109 (available at: http://www.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRS/abstract.cfm?NLEid=54715).
3. Bennett, L.W. (2001) News: The Politics of Illusion. Addison Wesley Longman, New York.
4. Bosso, C.J. (1987) Pesticides and Politics: the Life Cycle of a Public Issue. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
5. Capella, J. and Jamieson, K.H. (1997) Spiral of Cynicism: the Press and the Public Good. Oxford University Press, New York.
6. Cobb, R.W. and Elder, C.D. (1983) Participation in American Politics: the Dynamics of Agenda-Building, 2nd edn. Allyn and Bacon, Boston, Massachusetts.
7. Cook, T.E. (1996) Afterword: Political values and production values. Political Communication 13, 469-481.
8. Cook, T.E. (1998) Governing with the News: the News Media as a Political Institution. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.
9. Durant, J., Bauer, M. and Gaskell, G. (eds) (1998) Biotechnology in the Public Sphere: a European Source Book. Science Museum, London.
10. Downs, A. (1972) Up and down with ecology: The issue attention cycle. The Public Interest 28, 38-51.
11. Edelman, M. (1964) The Symbolic Uses of Politics. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.
12. Ferree, M.M., Gamson, W.A., Gerhards, J. and Rucht, D. (2002) Shaping Abortion Discourse: Democracy and the Public Sphere in Germany and the USA. Cambridge University Press, New York.
13. Fishman, M. (1978) Crime waves as ideology. Social Problems 25, 531-543.
14. Fishman, M. (1980) Manufacturing the News. University of Texas Press, Austin, Texas.
15. Goodall, J. (2005) Harvest for Life: a Guide to Mindful Eating. Warner Books, New York.
16. Grist Magazine (2005) Don't Fear the Reapers: a special series on the alleged 'death of environmentalism' (available at http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2005/01/ 13/doe-intro/).
17. Hallin, D.C. (1994) We Keep America on Top of the World. Routledge, New York.
18. Jasanoff, S. (1987) Contested boundaries in policy-relevant science. Social Studies of Science 17 (2), 195-230.
19. Jasanoff, S. (2005) Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the USA. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
20. Kepplinger, H.M. (1992) Artificial horizons: how the press presented and how the population received technology in Germany from 1965-1986. In: Rothman, S. (ed.) The Mass Media in Liberal Democratic Societies. Peragon, New York, pp. 147-176.
21. Kepplinger, H.M. (1995) Individual and institutional impacts upon press coverage of sciences: the case of nuclear power and genetic engineering in Germany. In: Bauer, M. (ed.) Resistance to New Technology: Nuclear Power, Information Technology, and Biotechnology. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 357-377.
22. Krippendorf, K. (1980) Content Analysis: an Introduction to its Methodology. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, California.
23. Lawrence, R. (2000) Game-framing the issues: tracking the strategy frame in public policy news. Political Communication 17, 93-114.
24. Leiss, W. (2000) The Trouble with Science: Understanding Risk Controversies. Environment Canada Policy Research Seminar Series (available at: http://www.ec.gc.ca/seminar/WL_e.html).
25. Lyson, T.A. (2001) How do agricultural scientists view advanced biotechnologies? Chemical Innovation 31, 50-53.
26. Marks, L.A., Kalaitzandonakes, N., Allison K. and Zakharova, L. (2003) Media coverage of agrobiotechnology: did the butterfly have an effect? Journal of Agribusiness 21 (1), 1-20.
27. Maynard-Moody, S. (1992) The fetal research dispute. In: Nelkin, D. (ed.) Controversy: Politics of Technical Decisions, 3rd edn. Sage, Newbury Park, California, pp. 3-25.
28. Maynard-Moody, S. (1995) Managing controversies over science: the case of fetal research. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 5, 5-8.
29. McComas, K. and Shanahan, J.E. (1999) Telling stories about global climate change: measuring the impact of narratives on issue cycles. Communication Research 26 (1), 30-57.
30. McInerney, C., Nucci, M. and Bird, N. (2004) The flow of scientific knowledge from lab to the lay public: the case of genetically modified food. Science Communication 26 (1), 44-74.
31. Mooney, C. (2005) The Republican War on Science. Basic Books, New York.
32. Mooney, C. and Nisbet, M.C. (2005) When coverage of evolution shifts to the political and opinion pages, the scientific context falls away, unraveling Darwin. Columbia Journalism Review, Sep/Oct, 31-39.
33. Nelkin, D. (1975) The political impact of technical expertise. Social Studies of Science 5, 34-54.
34. Nelkin, D. (1992) Science, technology, and political conflict: analyzing the issues. In: Nelkin, D. (ed.) Controversy: Politics of Technical Decisions. Sage, Newbury Park, California, pp. 7-9.
35. Nelkin, D. (1995) Selling Science: How the Press Covers Science and Technology. W.H. Freeman and Co., New York.
36. Nestle, M. (2004) Safe Food: Bacteria, Biotechnology, and Bioterrorism. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.
37. Nisbet, M.C. (2004) The stem cell controversy: towards a model of mediated issue development. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the International Communication Association, New Orleans, Louisiana.
38. Nisbet, M.C. and Lewenstein, B.V. (2002) Biotechnology and the American media: the policy process and the elite press, 1970 to 1999. Science Communication 4, 359-391.
39. Nisbet, M.C., Brossard, D. and Kroepsch, A. (2003) Framing science: The stem cell controversy in an age of press/politics. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics 8 (2), 36-70.
40. Pan, Z. and Kosicki, G.M. (2001) Framing as a strategic action in public deliberation. In: Reese, S.D., Gandy, O. and Grant, A. (eds) Farming Public Life: Perspectives on Media and our Understanding of the Social World. Lawrence Eribaum, Mahwah, New York, pp. 35-66.
41. Patterson, T.E. (1994) Out of Order. Vintage Books, New York.
42. Patterson, T.E. (2001) Doing Well and Doing Good: How Soft News and Critical Journalism are Shrinking the News Audience and Weakening Democracy - and what News Outlets can do about it. The Joan Shorenstein Center for Press, Politics, and Public Policy at Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
43. Priest, S.H. (2001) A Grain of Truth: the Media, the Public, and Biotechnology. Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, Maryland.
44. Priest, S.H. and Gillespie, A.W. (2000) Seeds of discontent: expert opinion, mass media messages, and the public image of agricultural biotechnology. Science and Engineering Ethics 6 (4), 529-539.
45. Reese, S.D. (2001) Prologue - framing public life: a bridging model for media research. In: Reese, S.D., Gandy, O.H. Jr. and Grant, A.E. (eds) Framing Public Life: Perspectives on Media and our Understanding of the Social World. Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, Mahweh, New Jersey, pp. 7-32.
46. Rochefort, D.A. and Cobb, R.W. (1994) Problem definition: an emerging perspective. In: Rochefort, D.A. and Cobb, R.W. (eds) The Politics of Problem Definition: Shaping the Policy Agenda. University of Kansas Press, Lawrence, Kansas, pp. 1-32.
47. Rodemeyer, M. and Jones, S.A. (2002) When media, science, and public policy collide: The case of food and biotechnology. Proceedings from a workshop sponsored by the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology and the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics, and Public Policy of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts (available at: http://pewagbiotech.org/events/1121/proceedings.pdf).
48. Scheufele, D.A. (1999) Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication 29, 103-123.
49. Schnattschneider, E.E. (1960) The Semi-Sovereign People. Holt, Reinhart and Winston, New York.
50. Segarra, A.E. (2000) Biosafety Protocol for Genetically Modified Organisms: Overview. Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, RL20594 (available at: http://www.ncseonline.org/nle/crsreports/agriculture/ag-93.cfm).
51. Shanahan, J., Scheufele, D.A. and Lee, E. (2001) The polls - trends: attitudes about biotechnology and genetically modified organisms. Public Opinion Quarterly 65 (2), 267-281.
52. Sheingate, A. (2006) Promotion versus precaution: the evolution of biotechnology policy in the USA. British Journal of Political Science 36, 243-268.
53. Shoemaker, P.J., Tankard, J.W. and Lasorsa, D.L. (2003) How to Build Social Science Theories. Sage Publishing, Newbury Park, California.
54. Taylor, M.R. and Tick, J.S. (2001) The StarLink Case: Issues for the Future. Report of the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology (available at: http://pewa gbiotech.org/resources/issuebriefs/starlink/).
55. Weart, S.R. (1988) Nuclear Fear: a History of Images. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.