Technophobia towards emerging technologies? A comparative analysis of the media coverage of nanotechnology in Austria, Switzerland and Germany

Journalism

Volumn 15, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 463-481

  Metag, Julia ^a   Marcinkowski, Frank ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MÜNSTER   (Germany)

Author keywords

Comparative research; Contextual approach; Nanotechnology; Risk communication; Science journalism

Indexed keywords

EID: 84899548964     PISSN: 14648849     EISSN: 17413001     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1464884913491045     Document Type: Article

References (80)

1. Allan S, Anderson A, Petersen A. Framing risk: Nanotechnologies in the news. Journal of Risk Research. 2010 ; 13 (1). 29-44
2. Allen R. Primacy or recency: The order of presentation. Journalism Quarterly. 1973 ; 50 (1). 135-138
3. AllenspachRMüllerHSoltmannCZinklW (2010) Swiss Nanotech Report. Available at: http://www.empa.ch/plugin/template/empa/*/91537
4. Anderson A, Peterson A, Wilkinson C, Allan S Nanotechnology, Risk, and Communication. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan ; 2009 :
5. Bauer MW, Kohring M, Allansdottir A, Gutteling J Biotechnology 1996-2000: The Years of Controversy. Gaskell G Bauer MW, ed. London: Science Museum ; 2001: 35-52.
6. Bell A. Media (mis)communication on the science of climate change. Public Understanding of Science. 1994 ; 3 (3). 259-275
7. Bonfadelli H Medienwirkungsforschung II. Anwendungen in Politik, Wirtschaft und Kultur. Konstanz: Universitätsverlag ; 2004 :
8. Bonfadelli H, Dahinden U, Leonarz M. Biotechnology in Switzerland: High on the public agenda, but only moderate support. Public Understanding of Science. 2002 ; 11 (2). 113-130
9. Bubela TM, Caulfield TA. Do the print media 'hype' genetic research? A comparison of newspaper stories and peer-reviewed research papers. Canadian Medical Association Journal. 2004 ; 170 (9). 1399-1407
10. Burri RV. Coping with uncertainty: Assessing nanotechnologies in a citizen panel in Switzerland. Public Understanding of Science. 2009 ; 18 (5). 498-511
11. Burri RV, Bellucci S. Public perception of nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research. 2008 ; 10 (3). 387-391
12. Cacciatore MA, Scheufele DA, Corley EA. From enabling technology to applications: The evolution of risk perceptions about nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science. 2011 ; 20 (3). 385-404
13. Cacciatore MA, Anderson AA, Choi D, et al. Coverage of emerging technologies: A comparison between print and online media. New Media & Society. 2012 ; 14 (6). 1039-1059
14. Donk A, Metag J, Kohring M, Marcinkowski F. Framing emerging technologies: Risk perceptions of nanotechnology in the German press. Science Communication. 2012 ; 34 (1). 5-29
15. Dudo A, Dunwoody S, Scheufele DA. The emergence of nano news: Tracking thematic trends and changes in U.S. newspaper coverage of nanotechnology. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. 2011 ; 88 (1). 55-75
16. Dunwoody S, Peters HP. Mass media coverage of technological and environmental risk: A survey of research in the United States and Germany. Public Understanding of Science. 1992 ; 1 (2). 199-230
17. FitzgeraldST (2007) Constructing Risk: Media Coverage of Nanotechnology. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, TBA. New York: New York City. Available at: http://www.allacademic.com/meta/ p181900-index.html
18. Frewer LJ, Miles S, Marsh R. The media and genetically modified foods: Evidence in support of social amplification of risk. Risk Analysis. 2002 ; 22 (4). 701-711
19. Friedman SM, Egolf BP. A longitudinal study of newspaper and wire service coverage of nanotechnology risks. Risk Analysis. 2011 ; 31 (11). 1701-1717
20. Gaskell G, Eyck TT, Jackson J, Veltri G. Imagining nanotechnology: Cultural support for technological innovation in Europe and the United States. Public Understanding of Science. 2005 ; 14 (1). 81-90
21. Görke A Risikojournalismus und Risikogesellschaft. Sondierung und Theorieentwurf. Opladen, Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag ; 1999 :
22. Grobe A, Eberhard C, Hutterli M Nanotechnologie im Spiegel der Medien: Medienanalyse zur Berichterstattung über Chancen und Risiken der Nanotechnologie. St. Gallen: Stiftung Riskio-Dialog ; 2005 :
23. Groboljsek B, Mali F. Daily newspapers' views on nanotechnology in Slovenia. Science Communication. 2012 ; 34 (1). 30-56
24. Gutteling JM. Mazur's hypothesis on technology controversy and media. International Journal of Public Opinion Research. 2005 ; 17 (1). 23-41
25. Hampel J, Pfenning U, Kohring M, Görke A, Ruhrmann G Biotechnology 1996-2000: The Years of Controversy. Gaskell G Bauer MW, ed. London: Science Museum ; 2001: 191-203.
26. Haugtvedt CP, Wegener DT. Message order effects in persuasion: An attitude strength perspective. Journal of Consumer Research. 1994 ; 21 (1). 205-218
27. Hjörleifsson S, Árnason V, Schei E. Decoding the genetics debate: Hype and hope in Icelandic news media in 2000 and 2004. New Genetics and Society. 2008 ; 27 (4). 377-394
28. Hughes E, Kitzinger J, Murdock G Risk in Social Science. Taylor-Gooby P Zinn J, ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press ; 2006: 250-270.
29. IVW (2012a) Quartalsauflagen. Verlag Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung GmbH. Berlin: Informationsgemeinschaft zur Feststellung und Verbreitung von Werbeträgern e.V. Available at: http://daten.ivw.eu/index.php?menuid= 1&u=&p=&20124=ON&20123=ON&detail=true&titelnrliste= 1056;&alle=[Details] (accessed 27 January 2013).
30. KanervaM (2009) Assessing Risk Discourses: Nano S&T in the Global South. Working Paper Series of the United Nations University Maastricht. Available at: http://www.merit.unu.edu/publications/wppdf/2009/wp2009-063.pdf
31. Kanouse DE, Hanson LR Attribution: Perceiving the Causes of Behavior. Jones EE Kanouse DE Kelley HH Nisbett RE Valins S Weiner B, ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum ; 1987: 47-62.
32. Kepplinger HM Künstliche Horizonte. Folgen, Darstellung und Akzeptanz von Technik in der Bundesrepublik. Frankfurt am Main: Campus ; 1989 :
33. Kepplinger HM Risikokommunikation. Technikakzeptanz, Medien und Kommunikationsrisiken. Krüger J Russ-Mohl S, ed. Berlin: Edition Sigma ; 1991: 109-143.
34. Kepplinger HM. Historical notes on German press coverage of technology. Risk: Health, Safety & Environment. 1994 ; 5 (3). 213-222
35. Kepplinger HM, Ehmig SC, Ahlheim C Gentechnik im Widerstreit. Zum Verhältnis von Wissenschaft und Journalismus. Frankfurt am Main: Campus ; 1991 :
36. Kjolberg KL. Representations of nanotechnology in Norwegian newspapers - implications for public participation. Nanoethics. 2009 ; 3 (1). 61-72
37. Kohring M Wissenschaftsjournalismus. Forschungsüberblick und Theorieentwurf. Konstanz: Universitätsverlag ; 2005 :
38. Kohring M, Matthes J. The face(t)s of biotech in the nineties: How the German press framed modern biotechnology. Public Understanding of Science. 2002 ; 11 (2). 143-154
39. Kulinowski K. Nanotechnology: From 'wow' to 'yuck'?. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society. 2004 ; 24 (1). 13-20
40. LaingA (2006) A Report on Canadian and American News Media Coverage of Nanotechnology Issues. Available at: http://www.nanotechproject.org/ publications/archive/a-report-on-canadian-american
41. Li N, Brossard D.. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the International Communication Association ; 2012 Phoenix, USA ; 2012..
42. LingenhöhlS (2011) Fukushima und die 'German Angst'. Handelsblatt, 6April. Available at: http://www.handelsblatt.com/technologie/forschung-medizin/ forschung-innovation/fukushima-und-die-german-angst/4029788.html
43. MarcinkowskiFKohringMFriedemannADonkA (2010) Risk Perceptions of Nanotechnology - Analysis of Media Coverage. Berlin: BfR Wissenschaft. Available at: http://www.bfr.bund.de/de/bfr-wissenschaft-2010.html (accessed 2 February 2013).
44. Marks LA, Kalaitzandonakes N, Allison K, Zakharova L Market Developments and Genetically Modified Foods. Santaniello V Evenson RE Zilberman D, ed. New York: CAB International ; 2002: 217-226.
45. Mazur A. Nuclear power, chemical hazards, and the quantity of reporting. Minerva. 1990 ; 28 (3). 294-323
46. Nanokommission der deutschen Bundesregierung (2008) Verantwortlicher Umgang mit Nanotechnologien. Bericht und Empfehlungen der NanoKommission der deutschen Bundesregierung 2008 [Responsible use of nanotechnologies. Report and recommendations of the German government's committee on nanotechnology 2008]. Berlin: Bundesumweltministerium. Available at: http://www.bmu.de/fileadmin/bmu- import/files/pdfs/allgemein/application/pdf/nanokomm
47. Nentwich M, Kurath M, Fleischer T, Grunwald A, Eisenberger I.. Paper presented at the Second Annual Conference of the Society for the Study of Nanoscience and Emerging Technologies ; 2010 Darmstadt, Germany ; 2010..
48. Nimmo D, McCombs J. 'The horror tonight'. Network television news and Three Mile Island. Journal of Broadcasting. 1981 ; 25 (3). 289-293
49. Nisbet MC, Scheufele DA, Shanahan J, Moy P, Brossard D, Lewenstein BV. Knowledge, reservations, or promise? A media effects model for public perceptions of science and technology. Communication Research. 2002 ; 29 (5). 584-608
50. O'Connor C, Rees G, Joffe H. Neuroscience in the public sphere. Neuron. 2012 ; 74: 220-226
51. ÖAK (2012) Auflagenliste 1. Halbjahr. Wien: Verein Österreichische Gemeinschaft zur Feststellung und Verbreitung von Werbeträgern/Österreichische Auflagenkontrolle. Available at: http://www.oeak.at/content/intern/Auflagenlisten/OEAK-2012-1HJ.pdf (accessed 27 January 2013).
52. O'Neill S, Nicholson-Cole S. 'Fear won't do it': Promoting positive engagement with climate change through visual and iconic representations. Science Communication. 2009 ; 30 (3). 355-379
53. Paschen H, Coenen C, Fleischer T, Grünwald R, Oertel D, Revermann C TA-Projekt Nanotechnologie. Endbericht. Berlin: Büro für Technikfolgenabschätzung beim Deutschen Bundestag ; 2003 :
54. Peters HP. Mass media as an information channel and public arena. Risk: Health, Safety & Environment. 1994 ; 5 (3). 241-250
55. Pidgeon N, Harthorn B, Satterfield T. Nanotechnology risk perceptions and communication: Emerging technologies, emerging challenges. Risk Analysis. 2011 ; 31 (11). 1694-1700
56. ReedS (2012) Fracking still controversial in Europe. New York Times, 13November. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/14/business/energy- environment/fracking-still-controversial-in-europe.html (accessed 14 February 2013).
57. Reinemann C, Stanyer J, Scherr S, Legnante G. Hard and soft news: A review of concepts, operationalizations and key findings. Journalism. 2012 ; 13 (2). 221-239
58. ReyL (2006) Public Reactions to Nanotechnology in Switzerland. The Findings of Publifocus Discussion Forum 'Nanotechnology, Health and the Environment'. Bern: TA-Swiss Centre for Technology Assessment. Available at: http://www.ta-swiss.ch/a/nano-pfna/2006-TAP8-Nanotechnologien-e.pdf
59. Rothman S. Journalists, broadcasters, scientific experts and public opinion. Minerva. 1990 ; 28 (2). 117-133
60. Rothman S Öffentliche Meinung. Theorien, Methoden, Befunde. Wilke J, ed. Freiburg, München: Alber ; 1992: 143-155.
61. Rothman S, Lichter SR. Elite ideology and risk perception in nuclear energy policy. American Political Science Review. 1987 ; 81 (2). 383-404
62. Sandman P Explaining Environmental Risk. Some Notes on Environmental Risk Communication. Washington, DC: Environmental Communication Research Program ; 1986 :
63. Sandman PM, Sachsman DB, Greenberg MR, Gochfeld M Environmental Risk and the Press. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books ; 1987 :
64. Scheufele DA, Lewenstein BV. The public and nanotechnology: How citizens make sense of emerging technologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research. 2005 ; 7 (6). 659-667
65. Schmidt Kjærgaard R. Making a small country count: Nanotechnology in Danish newspapers from 1996 to 2006. Public Understanding of Science. 2010 ; 19 (1). 80-97
66. Schütz H, Wiedemann PM. Framing effects on risk perception of nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science. 2008 ; 17 (3). 369-379
67. Shoemaker PJ, Reese SD Mediating the Message. Theories of Influence on Mass Media Content. New York: Longman ; 1991 :
68. Shoemaker PJ, Vos T Gatekeeping Theory. New York: Routledge ; 2009 :
69. Singer E, Endreny PM Reporting on Risk. How the Mass Media Portray Accidents, Diseases, Disasters, and Other Hazards. New York: Russell Sage Foundation ; 1993 :
70. Stephens LF. News narratives about nano S&T in major U.S. and non-U.S. newspapers. Science Communication. 2005 ; 27 (2). 175-199
71. Public Reactions to Nanotechnology in Switzerland. Report of Publifocus Discussion Forum 'Nanotechnology, Health, and the Environment'. Berne: TA-Swiss ; 2006 :
72. Te Kulve H. Evolving repertoires: Nanotechnology in daily newspapers in the Netherlands. Science as Culture. 2006 ; 15 (4). 367-382
73. Torgersen H. Austria and the transatlantic agricultural biotechnology divide. Science Communication. 2002 ; 24 (2). 173-183
74. Torgersen H, Seifert F. Aversion preceding rejection: Results of the Eurobarometer Survey 39.1 on biotechnology and genetic engineering in Austria. Public Understanding of Science. 1997 ; 6 (2). 131-142
75. Vilella-Vila M, Costa-Font J. Press media reporting effects on risk perceptions and attitudes towards genetically modified (GM) food. Journal of Socio-Economics. 2008 ; 37: 2095-2106
76. Von Schomburg R Understanding Public Debate on Nanotechnologies. Options for Framing Public Policy. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union ; 2010: 5-12.
77. 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 (2). 139-166
78. WEMF (2012) WEMF Auflagenbulletin. Zürich: WEMF AG für Werbeforschung. Available at: http://www.wemf.ch/pdf/de/auflagen/ 2012Bulletinkomplett-d.pdf (accessed 27 January 2013).
79. Wilkins L, Patterson P Risky Business: Communicating Issues of Science, Risk and Public Policy. London: Greenwood Press ; 1991 :
80. WüstC (2012) Fear of fracking. Germany balks on natural gas bonanza. Spiegel Online, 5October. Available at: http://www.spiegel.de/international/ business/safety-worries-lead-germany-to-shun-fracking-for-natural-gas-a-859446. html (accessed 14 February 2013).