Media attention to GM food cases: An innovation perspective

Flipse, Steven M.; Osseweijer, Patrícia

doi:10.1177/0963662512458631

Cited by 30 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 42 publications

(43 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The dramatic increase in media attention to biotechnology in the late 1990s and the observed peak in the early 2000s was driven mostly by events (Botelho & Kurtz 2008;Cook et al 2006;Flipse & Osseweijer 2013;Marks et al 2002Marks et al , 2003Marks et al , 2007 that were triggers to jump-start media coverage and public attention. Abbott & Eichmeier (1998) term this phenomenon the hoopla effect.…”

Section: The Agenda Setting Role Of News Mediamentioning

confidence: 95%

Media Coverage, Public Perceptions, and Consumer Behavior: Insights from New Food Technologies

McCluskey

Kalaitzandonakes

Swinnen

2016

Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The media often play the role of translating new science to consumers. We discuss the recent literature that has examined the supply and demand factors that affect media coverage of new food technologies and the impact on public perceptions and consumer behavior toward food that utilizes these technologies. We start with a discussion of the ways in which the media influence public perceptions and consumer behavior related to foods made with new technologies. We then discuss the incentives of news media and the potential sources of biases in their reporting. We review empirical studies that have examined media reporting of new agricultural and food technologies, especially biotechnology, in terms of both their agenda setting and framing effects and the social amplification of risk. We synthesize the findings of studies that have examined the influence of media coverage on public attitudes and consumer behavior. We conclude and discuss avenues for future research. 19.1

show abstract

Section: The Agenda Setting Role Of News Mediamentioning

confidence: 95%

Media Coverage, Public Perceptions, and Consumer Behavior: Insights from New Food Technologies

McCluskey

Kalaitzandonakes

Swinnen

2016

Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Indeed the pattern suggests reporting that is, if anything, mildly positive towards GM up until 2013. Country 1996199719981999200020022004200620072009201120122013…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hence the media can have great power as both a conduit of information from all sides in the debate as well as taking a position over the relative merits and demerits of GM. Unsurprisingly there have been numerous studies of press reporting of GM crops, both within countries and comparisons across countries, and indeed public attitudes towards the technology and what may be influencing those views (Bauer, 2005;Hughes, 2005;Cook et al, 2006;Shineha et al, 2008;Listerman, 2010;Augoustinos et al, 2010;Flipse and Osseweijer, 2013;Moses, 2015). Frewer et al (2002), for example, explored the 'social amplification of risk' following a spate of mostly negative reports in the UK media in the late 1990s on GM crops (Marks et al, 2003).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

They Can Read All about it: An Analysis of Global Newspaper Reporting of Genetically Modified Crop Varieties between 1996 and 2013

Morse¹

2016

Outlook Agric

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper provides an analysis of the reporting of genetically modified (GM) crop varieties by newspaper across the globe between 1996 and 2013. The aim of the research was to explore whether the significant increase in GM crop area between those years had been paralleled by an increase in press reporting, and if so then whether this was linked to more positive or negative views of the technology. Results suggest that the increase in GM area has been paralleled by an increase in newspaper reporting, and the pattern over time is similar across Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America, North America and Oceania. Topics typically associated with critiques of GM had significantly lower article counts compared with some that may be associated with more positive visions of GM. Indeed the pattern suggests reporting that is, if anything, mildly positive towards GM up until 2013.

show abstract

“…For other emerging technologies it has also been observed that in times of controversy, more arguments are included of alternative social actors (such as non-government organisations), bringing other perspectives to the media (Flipse and Osseweijer 2013; Listerman 2010; Bonfadelli et al 2002), than when an emerging technology is considered non-problematic (Romanach et al 2015). This indicates that neuroimaging is generally not seen as a controversial technology at the moment, as social groups are not mobilized to get alternate points across.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Responsible Reporting: Neuroimaging News in the Age of Responsible Research and Innovation

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Besides offering opportunities in both clinical and non-clinical domains, the application of novel neuroimaging technologies raises pressing dilemmas. ‘Responsible Research and Innovation’ (RRI) aims to stimulate research and innovation activities that take ethical and social considerations into account from the outset. We previously identified that Dutch neuroscientists interpret “responsible innovation” as educating the public on neuroimaging technologies via the popular press. Their aim is to mitigate (neuro)hype, an aim shared with the wider emerging RRI community. Here, we present results of a media-analysis undertaken to establish whether the body of articles in the Dutch popular press presents balanced conversations on neuroimaging research to the public. We found that reporting was mostly positive and framed in terms of (healthcare) progress. There was rarely a balance between technology opportunities and limitations, and even fewer articles addressed societal or ethical aspects of neuroimaging research. Furthermore, neuroimaging metaphors seem to favour oversimplification. Current reporting is therefore more likely to enable hype than to mitigate it. How can neuroscientists, given their self-ascribed social responsibility, address this conundrum? We make a case for a collective and shared responsibility among neuroscientists, journalists and other stakeholders, including funders, committed to responsible reporting on neuroimaging research.

show abstract

Media attention to GM food cases: An innovation perspective

Cited by 30 publications

References 42 publications

Media Coverage, Public Perceptions, and Consumer Behavior: Insights from New Food Technologies

Media Coverage, Public Perceptions, and Consumer Behavior: Insights from New Food Technologies

They Can Read All about it: An Analysis of Global Newspaper Reporting of Genetically Modified Crop Varieties between 1996 and 2013

Responsible Reporting: Neuroimaging News in the Age of Responsible Research and Innovation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About