You are here

Home » Content

Science Explanations in News Coverage of the First Stem Cell Controversy

Journal Name:

  • Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies

Publication Year:

  • 2015

Key Words:

Author NameUniversity of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
Science writing curricula often stress the importance of using explanations to make a story understandable to readers. This study examines the use of explanation in news coverage of the first stem cell controversy in the U.S., through a content analysis of 343 news stories appearing in three major newspapers, three national newsweekly magazines, and three national network television news websites from 1994 to 2001. Two-thirds of the explanations were simple definitions. Consistent with previous research, the use of explanation was highest in specialized science sections and did not vary according to story length. However, online sources had the highest proportion of stories with in-text explanation (excluding links to related materials), challenging the idea that science explanation usage is deadline dependent. Stem-cell stories that reflected more play, in terms of length and placement, did not include more scientific explanations. However, more scientific explanations did appear in science or health section stories about stem-cell research, regardless of story play. Traditional print newspapers and newsmagazines did not provide more scientific explanations in stem-cell stories than web sites for broadcast and cable networks.
Bookmark/Search this post with
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon 538.pdf
  • 3
120
140
  • English

REFERENCES

References: 

Atwater, T. (1988).Reader interest in environmental news.Newspaper Research Journal, 10 (1),
31-39.
Bader, R. G. (1990). How science news sections influence newspaper science coverage: A case
study. Journalism Quarterly, 67 (1), 88-96.
Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Blum, D. & Knudson, M. (1997).A Field Guide for Science Writers. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Burkett, D. W. (1965). Writing Science News for the Mass Media. Houston: Gulf Publishing Co.
Burkett, W. (1986).News Reporting: Science, Medicine, and High Technology. Ames, Iowa:
Iowa State Press.
Carver, T. G. (1968). Editorial attitudes toward health insurance legislation.Journalism
Quarterly, 45 (1), 129-30.
Clark, J. (2001). Squandering Our Technological Future.New York Times, p. A19.
Durant, J. R., Evans, G. A., & Thomas, G. P. (1989).The public understanding of science.Nature,
340 (6228), 11-14.
Eveland, W. P., & Dunwoody, S. (1998). Users and navigation patterns of a science World Wide
Web site for the public.Public Understanding of Science, 7 (4), 285-311.
Friedenstein, A. J., Piatetzky, S., &Petrakova, K. V. (1966). Osteogenesis in transplants of bone
marrow cells.Journal of Embryology and Experimental Morphology, 16 (3), 381-387.
Friedman, S. M., Villamil, K., Suriano, R. A., &Egolf, B. P. (1996). Alar and apples:
Newspapers, risk and media responsibility. Public Understanding of Science, 5, 1-20.
Fuss, B. (1999). Michael J. Fox Seeks Health $$$. CBS
News.http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1999/09/28/politics/main64092.shtml.
Gastel, B. (1983). Presenting Science to the Public. Philadelphia: ISI Press.
Gillis, J., &Cannolly, C. (2001). Stem Cell Research Faces FDA Hurdle: With Mouse Cell Base,
Tough Rules Apply. Washington Post, p. A1.
© Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies 138
Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies
Volume: 5 – Issue: 3 July - 2015
Gray, B., &Donnellon, A. (1989).An Interactive Theory of Reframing in
Negotiation.Unpublished manuscript.Pennsylvania State University, College of Business
Administration.
Holland, S., Lebacqz, K., &Zoloth, L. (2001).The Human Embryonic Stem Cell Debate: Science,
Ethics, and Public Policy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Howard, H. H., Blick, E., & Quarles, J. P. (1987).Media choices for specialized news.Journalism
Quarterly, 64 (2), 620-623.
Kaufman, S., & Smith, J. (1997). Implementing change in existing locally unwanted land uses: A
case study. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 16 (3), 188-200.
Kaufman, S., & Smith, J. (1999). Framing and reframing in land use change conflicts. Journal of
Architectural & Planning Research, 16 (2), 164-180.
Krieghbaum, H. (1967). Science and the Mass Media. New York: New York University Press.
Long, M. (1995). Scientific explanation in U.S. newspaper science stories.Public Understanding
of Science, 4, 119-130.
Long, M., Steinke, J., Kalter, J., Schwaab, A., Savagian, A., Jaffer, N, Shim, J., & Wenzel, W.
(1991). Explanation in newspaper science section news articles.Association for
Education in Journalism and Mass Communication annual conference, Boston.
Miller, J. D. (1998). The measurement of civic scientific literacy.Public Understanding of
Science, 7 (3), 203-223.
Myers, J. L., Hansen, R. S., Robson, R. C., & McCann, J. (1983).The role of explanation in
learning elementary probability.Journal of Educational Psychology, 75 (3), 374-381.
NAS (2001).Under the Microscope: Looking at Stem Cell Research. Washington, DC: National
Academy of Sciences.
Nelkin, D. (1995). Selling Science: How the Press Covers Science and Technology. New York:
W. H. Freeman & Co.
Nunn, C. Z. (1979). Readership and coverage of science and technology in
newspapers.Journalism Quarterly, 56 (1), 27-30.
Ogles, R. M. (1985).An Overview of Content Analysis for Communication Research.Unpublished
manuscript.
Okarma, T. B. (2001). Human Embryonic Stem Cells: A Primer on the Technology and Its
© Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies 139
Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies
Volume: 5 – Issue: 3 July - 2015
Medical Applications. In S. Holland, K. Lebacqz, & L. Zoloth (Eds.), The Human
Embryonic Stem Cell Debate: Science, Ethics, and Public Policy. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Parisi, P. (1999). Astonishment and understanding: On the problem of explanation in journalism.
New Jersey Journal of Communication, 7 (1), 44-64.
Pellechia, M. G. (1997). Trends in science coverage: A content analysis of three U.S.
newspapers. Public Understanding of Science, 6 (1), 49-68.
Pingree, S., Hawkins, R., Yun, G. W., Park, S. Y., &Serlin, R. (2000).Consumers' Use of Science
Content and Site Address to Evaluate Web Health Stories.Association for Education in
Journalism and Mass Communication annual conference.
Pollack, A. (2001, August 28). Obscure biotech company becomes big player in stem cell world.
New York Times, p. C1.
Popli, R. (1999). Scientific literacy for all citizens: Different concepts and contents. Public
Understanding of Science, 8 (2), 123-137.
Princeton Survey Research Associates (1997).Framing the News: The Triggers, Frames, and
Messages in Newspaper Coverage: http://www.journalism.org/framing.html.
Washington, DC: Project for Excellence in Journalism.
Richards, M. (1996). Lay knowledge of genetics and inheritance. Public Understanding of
Science, 5 (3), 217-230.
Rowan, K. E. (1988).A contemporary theory of explanatory writing.Written Communication, 5
(1), 23-56.
Rowan, K. E. (1990).Strategies for explaining complex science news.Journalism Educator, 45
(2), 25-31.
Rowland, R. (2001, May 29). Skeletal stem cells may save ailing hearts. CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2001/HEALTH/conditions/05/29/heart.stem.cells/index.html
Shaw, D. L., &VanNevel, P. (1967). Informative value of medical science news.Journalism
Quarterly, 44, 548.
Sheppard, B. H., Blumenfeld-Jones, K., Minton, J. W., &Hyder, E. (1994). Informal conflict
intervention: Advice and dissent. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 7 (1),
53.
© Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies 140
Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies
Volume: 5 – Issue: 3 July - 2015
Stovall, J. G. (1998). Writing for the Mass Media. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Swinehart, J. W., & McLeod, J. M. (1960). News about science: Channels, audiences and effects.
Public Opinion Quarterly, 24, 583-589.
Tannen, D. (1979). What’s in a frame? Surface evidence for underlying expectations.In R. O.
Freedle (Ed.), New Directions in Discourse Processing. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing,
pp. 137-181.
Tversky, A. (1996). Contrasting rational and psychological principles of choice. In R. J.
Zeckhauser, R. L. Keeney & J. K. Sebenius (Eds.), Wise Choices: Decisions, Games, and
Negotiations. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, pp. 5-21.
Tversky, A., &Kahneman, D. (1991). Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference-dependent
model. Quarterly Journal of Economics, p. 1039-1061.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com