VERIFICATION AND BALANCE IN SCIENCE NEWS: How THE NEW ZEALAND MASS MEDIA REPORT SCIENTIFIC CLAIMS A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy By Laura A. Sessions University of Canterbury 2003 T ABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRA CT •••• & ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• & •••••••••••••••••••••••• 0 •• 0 ••••• 0 •••••••• 00.0 ••••••••••• & ••• 111 •••• 1 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .& •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 0.&0 •••••••••• 0 •• &&0&.0.0 •••••••••••••• 2 1"1,, In the beginning there was Lyprinolo I) I) 00000.00000 ••••••• 0 ••••••• 00 ••••••• 000 •• 00000.00.00000000000" 2 1.2. The impetus for this researchooooo.oooooo.oo ••••• ooeooo.oooOOOOG.o.oo •••• oo0 •• 00 •••• oeooooo ••• ooo.000000003 1.3. Media constraints: Beyond resources to the social production of news ......... 5 1.4. Assumptions of this research ... oo.ooo •••••• oo •••••••••••• oo.o •• o.o ••• o.oo •••••• 0 •••••••••••••••••• 0 •• 00 ••• 6 1.5. Definitions ........... 0 ••••••••• 0.00000000000000000000000.00000000000 •••• 0 •• 00.0000.0000.0.000.00.00.00000.0 ••••••••••• 6 1.60 Thesis outline 00 ••••••••••••••••••••• 000.0.00000.0 •• 00.00 ••• 0 •••••••••••••• 0 ••••••• 0 ••••• 0 ••• 00 •• 0 ••••••••••••••••••• 7 1.7. Research goals .. ~ ........................ oo ••••••••••••• oo ••••••••••• 0 •••••••••• 0 ••••• 0 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 8 CHAPTER 2: SCIENCE COMMUNICATION AND THE SOCIAL PRODUCTION OF NEWS: A LITERATURE REVIEW ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 9 2.1. The public understanding of science ................................................................. 9 2.1.1. Why is the public understanding of science important? ............................................. 9 2.1.1.1. The deficiency model: Benefits for science and the state .. ...................... 9 2.1.1.2. The rational choice model and a scientifically literate public .............. 11 2.1.1.3. The context model: An audience-centred approach .............................. 12 2.1.2. The role of the mass media in science communication ............................................. 13 2.2. A brief history of science journalism ........... o •••••••••••••• o •• o ............ o .................... 16 2.3. The science ...... journalism divide .................................. 0 •••••••••• 0 ••• 0 •••••••••••• 0 •••••••• 19 2.4. Media theory: The social production of news ................................................. 22 2.4.1. The theory of 'gatelceeping' ...................................................................................... 22 2.4.2. A hierarchical model ofthe forces shaping media content ....................................... 24 2.4.2.1. Individual-level forces ........................................................................... 25 2.4.2.2. Routine forces ........................................................................................ 26 2.4.2.3. Organisational forces ............................................................................ 32 2.4.2.4. External forces ...................................................................................... 35 2.4.2.5. Ideological forces .................................................................................. 37 2.4.2.6. Comparing factors at different levels .................................................... 37 2.5. Forces shaping science content in the mass media ......................................... 39 2.5.1. Individual level ......................................................................................................... 39 2.5.2. Routine level ............................................................................................................. 40 2.5.3. Organisationallevel .................................................................................................. 42 2.5.4. Institutionallevel. ...................................................................................................... 43 2.5.5. Ideological level ........................................................................................................ 44 CHAPTER 3: CORNGATE: A CASE STUDY IN VERIFICATION AND BALANCE 00.0. Q Q 0 0 GOO GO 1& It 0 0 It 000 0 0 Q 11) 00 (9 0 (II 0 0 00 III 00 (;) ell It 0 0.10 III G €I 0 e 0 0 0 0 0 0 (II 0 0 O. 0 .. 0 0 o. Ii) 0 0 0 ell 0 o. e. oo.e III 0 00 O. 00 iii. 0 0 0 •• 0 eo 0 It eo. 0 e o. e ••• 045 3,1. Introduction ... 000.00 •••••••• 000 ••• 00 •• 00.0 •••• 000 •••••• 000.00 •• 000000101 ••••• 00.00.00 •••• 0000 ••• 000 •• 0 •• 000000000 ••• 45 302. Defining objectivity ....... o ••••••• o ••••••••••••••••• o •••• o ••• e •• o •••• oo.o00.000.410 •••••••••••••• 0 ••••••••••• 0.46 3.2.l. A comprehensive conceptual framework .................................................................. 47 3.2.2. The ritual of objectivity ............................................................................................. 50 3.3. A brief history of journalistic objectivity 00 ................... 00 ................ 00 •• 00 ........... 52 3.4. Criticisms of the objectivity norm ............................................. 00 .................... 56 3.5. Verification ........................................................................................................ 57 3.5.l. Verification in science news ..................................................................................... 59 3.5.2. Consequences of not verifying scientific claims ....................................................... 61 3.6. Balance ............................................................................................................... 63 3.6.1. Problems with balance in science reporting .............................................................. 65 3.6.2. An alternative strategy: the weight of evidence ........................................................ 68 3.7. Corngate: An example of verification and balance gone bad ....................... 69 3.7.1. Background ............................................................................................................... 69 3.7.2. Media coverage of Corngate ..................................................................................... 72 3.7.2.1. Before the book release ... ...................................................................... 72 3.7.2.2. Day 1, July 10: The official book release ............................................. 73 3.7.2.3. Day 2, July 11: Scientists come forward ............................................... 74 3.7.2.4. Day 3, July 12: And still no independent ver~fication ... ....................... 77 3.7.2.5. July 13-15: The balancing act ............................................................... 80 3.7.3. Verification in Comgate ............................................................................................ 82 3.7.4. Balance in C0111gate .................................................................................................. 87 3.7.5. Results of these practices .......................................................................................... 89 3.8. Conclusions ....................... fII ••••• 0 •••• 0'0 ••• 0.0 •••••••••••••• o ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 0.0 o •• 00.93 CHAPTER 4: A SURVEY OF NEW ZEALAND JOURNALISTS WHO REPORT S CIEN CE G. e 0 0 •• G Cit o. Ii) Ii) 00 •• 0 III. ell 1& 0 •• OG o. G.!II. 1& o. e •• It e •• o 0 II) G e 1& It. 00 0 e 1&". e I&.,.G 0 •• o. e. 0 e e 1&. e. II." III e e e •• 1& 0 It eo •• e e •• l 00 4.1. Introduction 00.00.000 •••• 000 ••• 00 •• 00 •••••••• 0000.00 ••••• 0.00 •• 00 •• 0 •••• 0000000 •••••• 000 •••••••••• 00.00 •••••••• 00100 4.2. Methods ......................... 0.0 •••••••••••••••••••••••••• 0 ••••• 00 •• 0 •••••• 000.0 ••••••• 000.00." •••• 00 •• &00 •••• 0.101 403. Results ..... 00 ••••• & •• 0 ••• 0 •••••• 0 ••••••••••• 0000 •• 0 •• 0 •••• 0 •••••••• 0.8 •••••••• 0.0 •••• $0 •• 0 ••••••••• 6 •••• 0 ••••••••••• 1 03 4.3.1. Journalist attributes ................................................................................................. 103 4.3.2. Media attitudes toward science ............................................................................... 105 4.3.3. The use of scientific sources .................................................................................... 110 4.3 A. Coverage of maverick science ................................................................................ 112 4.3.5. The weight of evidence approach ........................................................................... 113 4.4. Discussion .. 00 ••••••••• 0 •••••••••••••••••••••• 00.0 •••••••• 0 ••••••••••••••••••••••• 0 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 0.0. 115 404.1. Science reporting without the specialists ................................................................ 115 4.4.2. Time constraints ...................................................................................................... 117 404.3. The effects of scientific training and work experience ........................................... 118 CHAPTER 5: A CONTENT ANALYSIS OF NEW ZEALAND SCIENCE NEWS 122 5.1. Introduction: The New Zealand media environment .................................. 122 5.1.1. News organisations and their audiences ................................................................. 122 5.1.2. Regulatory bodies ................................................................................................... 124 5.1.3. Deregulation and its impacts on the New Zealand media ......................................