“Othering” agricultural biotechnology: Slovenian media representation of agricultural biotechnology

Abstract

While studies on media representations of agricultural biotechnology mostly analyse media texts, this work is intended to fill a research gap with an analysis of journalistic interpretations of media representations. The purpose of this project was to determine how news media represent agricultural biotechnology and how journalists interpret their own representations. A content and critical discourse analysis of news texts published in the Slovenian media over two years and in-depth interviews with their authors were conducted. News texts results suggest that most of the news posts were "othering" biotechnology and biotechnologists: biotechnology as a science and individual scientists are represented as "they," who are socially irresponsible, ignorant, arrogant, and "our" enemies who produce unnatural processes and work for biotechnology companies, whose greed is destroying people, animals, and the environment. Most journalists consider these representations to be objective because they have published the biotechnologists' opinions, despite their own negative attitudes towards biotechnology.

Changes in Use of Communication Channels by Livestock Farmers during the COVID-19 Pandemic

“…This may partly be explained by the fact that agricultural information is rarely provided in Slovenian traditional media, such as television, and farmers must search for agricultural information via digital sources. Although Slovenia is traditionally an agricultural country and agriculture is an integral part of everyday culture, it is marginalized in the media and the image of agriculture and farmers is relatively poor [36]. The second reason might also be the dominance of middle-aged and younger respondents in the study, who largely rely on digital channels [35,36].…”

“…Although Slovenia is traditionally an agricultural country and agriculture is an integral part of everyday culture, it is marginalized in the media and the image of agriculture and farmers is relatively poor [36]. The second reason might also be the dominance of middle-aged and younger respondents in the study, who largely rely on digital channels [35,36].…”

Depicting Science in a Public Debate: The Philippine Legal Challenge Against GMO Eggplant

“…In the news, focus is placed on the applications of scientific findings rather than the long process that led to generating and replicating them (Dumas-Mallet, Smith, Boraud, & Gonon, 2018; Field & Powell, 2001; Owens, 2011; Priest, 1995; Van den Brul, 1995). The concept of scientific uncertainty is also difficult to communicate to nonscience audiences: While the public sees uncertainty as a lack of understanding, scientists are socialized to focus on the concept as part of their work (Hardy, Tallapragada, Besley, & Yuan, 2019) and are reluctant to speak in a definitive language (Zajc & Erjavec, 2014).…”

“…Research into the content and slant of GMO news is mostly quantitative, with a focus on frames, writing tone, and media discourse (Augoustinos et al, 2010; Carver et al, 2012; Crawley 2007; Du & Rachul, 2012; Lewison, 2007; Lundy & Irani, 2004; Marks et al, 2003; Pollock et al 2017). GM coverage varies across the world: Many oppositional viewpoints are presented (Crawley, 2007); multiple frames are used to cover the issue (Lundy & Irani, 2004); and coverage is positive in some countries (e.g., Du & Rachul, 2012; Navarro et al, 2007; Panopio & Navarro, 2011; Ten Eyck & Williment, 2003) while negative in others (Marks, Kalaitzandonakes, Wilkins, & Zakharova, 2007; Zajc & Erjavec, 2014). Scientists are often portrayed as tinkering with nature to create unnatural organisms (Hansen, 2006) or downplaying the risks and highlighting the benefits of the technology (Lewison, 2007; Vilella-Vila & Costa-Font, 2008).…”

Public Discourse on Stem Cell Research in Russia

“…It has, furthermore, been recognised that the agenda set by the media greatly influences decisions by policy-makers (Caspi, 1982;Bennett and Entman, 2001;Nisbet et al, 2003;Schäfer, 2011). The way in which the media present a particular topic shapes the perception of recipients and sets the tone in which proposed solutions are negotiated (Gibbons, 1999;Nisbet et al, 2003;Holliman, 2004;Bauer, 2005;Kitzinger and Williams, 2005;Weingart et al, 2008;Schäfer, 2009;Haran and Kitzinger, 2009;Zajc and Erjavec, 2014). Thereby, the media might stigmatise certain scientific activities (such as human embryo research) or support the sentiments about future research (Frickel et al, 2010).…”