Although the literature addresses U.S. newspaper coverage of the issue of genetically modified (GM) food, there is no corresponding literature on television coverage, in spite of the fact that television is still a primary source in the United States for information about science. This article discusses national evening news coverage (ABC, CBS, NBC) of GM food on U.S. television from 1980 to 2003, critical years of both introduction and controversy. This examination of quantity, placement, length, and spokespersons pointed out minimal coverage by networks, as well as a lack of consonance, indicating different newsroom practices on the issue of GM food.
Allan, S. (1998). News from nowhere: Televisual news discourse and the construction of hegemony. In A. Bell & P. Garrett (Eds.), Approaches to media discourse (pp. 105-141). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
2.
Althaus, S.L., Edy, J.A., & Phalen, P.F. (2002). Using the Vanderbilt television abstracts to track broadcast news content: Possibilities and pitfalls. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 46, 473-492.
3.
Altheide, D., & Snow, R.P. (1991). Media worlds in the postjournalism era. New York: Aldinede Gruyter .
4.
Auletta, K. (2005). Sign-off: The long and complicated career of Dan Rather. The New Yorker, 81(3), 48-61.
5.
Bae, H.S. (2000). Product differentiation in national TV newscasts: A comparison of the cable all-news networks and the broadcast networks. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 44(1), 62-77.
6.
Bauer, M.W., & Bonfadelli, H. (2002). Controversy, mass media coverage and public knowledge. In M. W. Bauer & G. Gaskell (Eds.), Biotechnology: The making of a global controversy (pp. 149-175). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
7.
Bauer, M.W., Durant, J., & Gaskell, G. (1998). Biotechnology in the public sphere. London: Science Museum.
8.
Besley, J.C., & Shanahan, J. (2005). Media attention and exposure in relation to support for agricultural biotechnology. Science Communication, 26, 347-367.
9.
Boedeker, H. (2003). Brevity counts: Tight half-hours of network news still grab the numbers. Anniston Star.com. Retrieved from http://www.cleburnenews.com/entertainment/2003/as-tv-0904-0-3i03w1402.htm
10.
Center for Media and the Public Interest. ( 2003). Surprise! TV's war news was fairly balanced. Retrieved from http://www.cmpa.com/pressReleases/TVsWarNewsWasFairlyBalanced.htm
11.
Conrad, P. (1999). Uses of expertise: Sources, quotes and voices in the reporting of genetics in the news. Public Understanding of Science, 8(4), 285-302.
12.
Croteau, D., & Hoynes, W. (1994). By invitation only: How the media limit public debate. Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press.
13.
Ericson, R.V., Baranek, P.M., & Chan, J.B.L. (1989). Negotiating control: A study of news sources. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
14.
Fiske, J. (1989). Television culture. London : Routledge.
15.
Gans, H.J. (1979). Deciding what's news: A study of CBS evening news, NBC nightly news, Newsweek and Time. New York: Vintage Books.
16.
Gaskell, G., Bauer, M.W., Durant, J., & Allum, N.C. (1999). Worlds apart? The reception of genetically modified foods in Europe and the US. Science, 285, 384-387.
17.
Genetically Modified Organisms—Public Issues Education Project (GEO-PIE). (2006). GE foods in the market. Retrieved from http://www.geo-pie.cornell.edu/crops/eating.html
18.
Gibbons, M. (1999). Science's new social contract with society. Nature, 402(Supp), C81-C84.
19.
Gitlin, T. (1980). The whole world is watching. Berkeley: University of California Press.
20.
Goodell, R. (1987). The role of mass media in scientific controversy . In H. T. Engelhardt & A. L. Caplan (Eds.), Scientific controversies: Case studies in the resolution and closure of disputes in science and technology (pp. 585-597). London: Cambridge University Press.
21.
Graber, D.A. (1989). Content and meaning: What's it all about?American Behavioral Scientist, 33(2), 144-152.
22.
Hallman, W.K., Hebden, W.C., Aquino, H.Cuite, C., & Lang, J. (2003). Public perceptions of genetically modified foods: A national study of American knowledge and opinion (Food Policy Institute Report RR-1003-004). Retrieved from http://www.foodpolicyinstitute.org/docs/reports/NationalStudy2003.pdf
23.
Hallman, W.K., Hebden, W.C., Cuite, C., Aquino, H.L., & Lang, J. (2004). Americans and GM food: Knowledge, opinion and interest in 2004 (Food Policy Institute Report RR-1104-007). Retrieved from http://www.foodpolicyinstitute.org/docs/reports/NationalStudy2004.pdf
24.
Holliman, R. (2004). Media coverage of cloning: A study of media content, production and reception. Public Understanding of Science , 13, 107-130.
25.
Hoynes, W., & Croteau, D. (1991). The chosen few: Nightline and the politics of public affairs. Critical Sociology, 18, 19-34.
26.
Iyengar, S., Peters, M.D., & Kinder, D.R. (1982). Experimental demonstrations of the “not so minimal” consequences of television news programs. American Political Science Review, 76, 848-858.
27.
Kubey, R., Shifflet, M., Weerakkody, N., & Ukeiley, S. (1995). Demographic diversity on cable: Have the new cable channels made a difference in the representation of gender, race and age?Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 39, 297-312.
28.
Lang, A., (1991). Emotion, formal features and memory for televised political advertisements. In F. Biocca (Ed.), Television and political advertising: Vol. I. Psychological processes (pp. 221-244). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
29.
Lang, A., & Dhillon, K. (1995). The effects of emotional arousal and valence on television viewer's cognitive capacity and memory. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 39(3), 313-328.
30.
Lee, C.J., & Scheufele, R. (2006). The influence of knowledge and deference toward scientific authority: A media effects model for public attitudes towards nanotechnology. Journalism andMass Communication Quarterly, 83(4), 819-834.
Marks, L.A. (2001). Communicating about agrobiotechnology. AgBioForum, 4(3&4), 152-154.
35.
Marks, L.A., Kalaitzandonakes, N., Allison, K., & Zakharova, L. (2002). Media coverage of agrobiotechnology: Did the butterfly have an effect? Journal ofAgribusiness, 21, 1-20.
36.
Marks, L.A., Kalaitzandonakes, N., & Vickner, S.S. (2003). Evaluating consumer response to GM foods: Some methodological considerations. Current Agriculture, Food and Resource Issues, 4, 80-94.
37.
Mazur, A. (1981). Media coverage and public opinion on scientific controversies. Journal of Communication, 31, 106-115.
38.
McCombs, M.E. (1981). The agenda setting approach. In D. Nimmo & K. Sanders (Eds.), Handbook of political communication (pp. 121-140). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
39.
McCombs, M.E., & Shaw, D.L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, 276-287.
40.
McInerney, C., Bird, N., & Nucci, M. (2004). The flow of scientific knowledge from lab to the lay public: The case of genetically modified food. Science Communication, 26, 44-74.
41.
Miller, D. (1999). Mediating science—Promotional strategies, media coverage, public belief, and decision making. In E. Scanlon, E. Whitelegg, & S. Yates (Eds.), Communicating science: Contexts and channels (pp. 206-226). London: Routledge .
42.
National Science Board. (2006). Science and engineering indicators 2006 (Vol. 1). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. Retrieved from from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/
43.
Nelkin, D. (1995). Selling science: How the press covers science and technology. New York: Freeman .
44.
Newhagen, J., & Reeves, B. (1992). This evening's bad news: Effects of compelling negative television news images on memory. Journal of Communication , 42, 25-41.
45.
Nisbet, M., & Lewenstein, B. (2002). Biotechnology and the American media: The policy process and the elite press, 1970-1999. Science Communication, 23, 359-391.
46.
Niven, D. (2005). An economic theory of political journalism. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 82(2), 247-263.
47.
Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology. ( 2006). Public sentiment about genetically modified food. Retrieved from http://pewagbiotech/research/2006update/2006
48.
Poortinga, W., & Pidgeon, N. (2003). Exploring the dimensionality of trust in risk regulation. Risk Analysis, 23(5), 961-972.
49.
Priest, S.H. (1995). Information equity, public understanding of science, and the biotechnology debate. Journal of Communication, 45, 39-54.
50.
Priest, S. (1999). Popular beliefs, media and biotechnology. In S. M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, & C. L. Rogers (Eds.), Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum .
51.
Priest, S.H., Bonfadelli, H., & Rusanen, M. (2003). The “trust gap” hypothesis: Predicting support for biotechnology across national cultures as a function of trust in actors. Risk Analysis, 23(4), 751-766.
52.
Priest, S., & Talbert, J. (1994). Mass media and the ultimate technological fix: Newspaper coverage of biotechnology. Southwestern Mass Communication Journal,19(1), 76-85.
53.
Priest, S., & Ten Eyck, T. (2003). News coverage of biotechnology debates. Society, 40(6), 29-34.
54.
Project for Excellence in Journalism. (2003 ). The state of the news media: Annual report. New York: Columbia University.
55.
Project for Excellence in Journalism. (2004 ). The state of the news media: Annual report. Retrieved from http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2004/index.asp
56.
Project for Excellence in Journalism. (2005 ). The state of the news media: Annual report. Retrieved from http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2005/index.asp
57.
Project for Excellence in Journalism. (2006 ). The state of the news media: Annual report. Retrieved from http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2006/index.asp
58.
Reeves, B., Newhagen, E., Maibach, E., Basil, M., & Kurz, K. (1991). Negative and positive television messages: Effects of message type and message context on attention and memory. American Behavioral Scientist, 34, 679-694.
59.
Schudson, M. (1995). The power of news. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
60.
Shoemaker, P.J., & Reese, S.D. (1996). Mediating the message: Theories of influence on mass media content. New York: Longman .
61.
Stempel, G.H. (1988). Topic and story choice of five network newscasts . Journalism Quarterly, 65(3), 750-752.
62.
Tan, A. ( 1986). Mass communication theories and research. New York: Macmillan.
63.
Ten Eyck, T.A. (1999). Shaping a food safety debate. Science Communication, 20(4), 426-445.
64.
Ten Eyck, T.A., Thompson, P.B., & Priest, S.H. (2001). Biotechnology in the United States of America: Mad or moral science? In G. Gaskell & M. W. Bauer (Eds.), Biotechnology: 1996-2000. London: Science Museum.
65.
Ten Eyck, T.A., & Williment, M. (2003). The national media and things genetic: Coverage in The New York Times (1971- 2000) and The Washington Post (1977- 2001). Science Communication, 25, 129-152.
66.
Tuchman, G. (1976). Telling stories. Journal of Communication , 26(4), 93-97.
67.
Van Dijck, J. (2003). After the two cultures: Toward a (multi)cultural practice of science communication. Science Communication, 25, 177-190.
68.
Ward, J. (1992). Television. In B. V. Lewenstein (Ed.), When science meets the public (pp. 103-106). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
69.
Wilkins, L. (1993). Between facts and values: Print media coverage of the greenhouse effect, 1987-1990. Public Understanding of Science, 2(1), 71-84.
70.
Williams, J.L. (2001). The rise and decline of public interest in global warming: Towards a pragmatic concept of environmental problems. Huntington, NY: Nova Science.
71.
Zucker, H.G. (1978). The variable nature of news media influence. In B. D. Ruben (Ed.), Communication yearbook2. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
