Bridget Spicer

Publications (2)4.09 Total impact

• Article: How do Australian news media depict illicit drug issues? An analysis of print media reporting across and between illicit drugs, 2003-2008.

  Caitlin Elizabeth Hughes, Kari Lancaster, Bridget Spicer
  [show abstract] [hide abstract]
  ABSTRACT: Media reporting on illicit issues has been frequently criticised for being sensationalised, biased and narrow. Yet, there have been few broad and systematic analyses of the nature of reporting. Using a large sample and methods commonly adopted in media communications analysis this paper sought to identify the dominant media portrayals used to denote illicit drugs in Australian newspapers and to compare and contrast portrayals across drug types. A retrospective content analysis of Australian print media was carried out over the period 2003-2008 from a sample comprised of 11 newspapers. Articles that contained one or more mention of five different drugs (or derivatives) were identified: cannabis, amphetamines, ecstasy, cocaine and heroin. A sub-sample of 4397 articles was selected for media content analysis (with 2045 selected for full content analysis) and a large number of text elements coded for each. Key elements included topic, explicit or implicit messages about the consequences of drugs/use and three value dimensions: overall tone, whether drugs were portrayed as a crisis issue and moral evaluations of drugs/use. The dominant media portrayals depicted law enforcement or criminal justice action (55%), but most articles were reported in a neutral manner, in the absence of crisis framings. Portrayals differed between drugs, with some containing more narrow frames and more explicit moral evaluations than others. For example, heroin was disproportionately framed as a drug that will lead to legal problems. In contrast, ecstasy and cocaine were much more likely to emphasise health and social problems. Media reporting on illicit drugs is heavily distorted towards crime and deviance framings, but may be less overtly sensationalised, biased and narrowly framed than previously suggested. This is not to suggest there is no sensationalism or imbalance, but this appears more associated with particular drug types and episodes of heightened public concern.
  The International journal on drug policy 06/2011; 22(4):285-91. · 2.54 Impact Factor
• Article: Illicit drugs and the media: models of media effects for use in drug policy research.

  Kari Lancaster, Caitlin E Hughes, Bridget Spicer, Francis Matthew-Simmons, Paul Dillon
  [show abstract] [hide abstract]
  ABSTRACT: Illicit drugs are never far from the media gaze and although identified almost a decade ago as 'a new battleground' for the alcohol and other drug (AOD) field there has been limited research examining the role of the news media and its effects on audiences and policy. This paper draws together media theories from communication literature to examine media functions. We illustrate how each function is relevant for media and drugs research by drawing upon the existing literature examining Australian media coverage during the late 1990s of escalating heroin-related problems and proposed solutions. Media can influence audiences in four key ways: by setting the agenda and defining public interest; framing issues through selection and salience; indirectly shaping individual and community attitudes towards risk; and feeding into political debate and decision making. Each has relevance for the AOD field. For example, media coverage of the escalating heroin-related problems in Australia played a strong role in generating interest in heroin overdoses, framing public discourse in terms of a health and/or criminal issue and affecting political decisions. Implications AND CONCLUSION: Media coverage in relation to illicit drugs can have multifarious effects. Incorporating media communication theories into future research and actions is critical to facilitate understanding of the short- and long-term impacts of media coverage on illicit drugs and the avenues by which the AOD field can mitigate or inform future media debates on illicit drugs.
  Drug and Alcohol Review 09/2010; 30(4):397-402. · 1.55 Impact Factor