Table 4 - uploaded by Mary L. Nucci
Content may be subject to copyright.
Source publication
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...
Citations
... A neutral news story was crafted on the topic of genetically modified (GM) foods. This issue was chosen as it is a topic with vital implications for public policy and consumer awareness but not yet ideologically laden, and thus with a certain level of consumer confusion and ambiguity (Lazard and Atkinson, 2015;Nucci and Kubey, 2007). The issue of GM foods reflects a fair degree of fluidity and receptivity to opinion change (Debate.org, ...
Bandwagon effects explain an individual’s tendency to conform to and follow other people’s opinions. Drawing on bandwagon effects, this study explored the relative influence of two different bandwagon heuristic cues in an online comments section (quantitative vs qualitative) on changes in news readers’ opinion. Study 1 revealed that qualitative cues have a stronger effect than quantitative cues in changing news readers’ opinions. Study 2 replicated the findings of Study 1 and showed that people change opinions in the same direction as perceived public opinion, providing empirical evidence of online bandwagon effects. The findings offer theoretical insights by explicating the process of opinion change via perceived public opinion as well as practical insights into public opinion formation in online environments.
... C. Nisbet & Lewenstein, 2002). In their analysis of TV evening news of GMO reporting over more than two decades, Nucci and Kubey (2007) found US TV (evening news) coverage of GMO was slight and mostly positive. Compared with the national press, US community newspapers included a more comprehensive range of concerns (Crawley, 2007), indicating that the biotechnology-friendly environment in the United States is most likely a result of elite support at the national level. ...
... C. Nisbet & Lewenstein, 2002). In their analysis of TV evening news of GMO reporting over more than two decades, Nucci and Kubey (2007) found US TV (evening news) coverage of GMO was slight and mostly positive. Compared with the national press, US community newspapers included a more comprehensive range of concerns (Crawley, 2007), indicating that the biotechnology-friendly environment in the United States is most likely a result of elite support at the national level. ...
... C. Nisbet & Lewenstein, 2002). In their analysis of TV evening news of GMO reporting over more than two decades, Nucci and Kubey (2007) found US TV (evening news) coverage of GMO was slight and mostly positive. Compared with the national press, US community newspapers included a more comprehensive range of concerns (Crawley, 2007), indicating that the biotechnology-friendly environment in the United States is most likely a result of elite support at the national level. ...
... Genetically modified foods consist of foods that have been altered in some way using "technologies used by seed breeders/scientists to make an intentional change to an organism's DNA in order to promote a desired trait" (Ruth & Rumble, 2019, p. 6). Scientific opinion on the safety of GMF for human consumption is clear: In a 2015 survey of scientist members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 88% of respondents indicated that genetically modified foods were safe to eat (Pew Research Center, 2015). 1 But the message that eating GMFs is safe does not always reach the American public (McInerney et al., 2004;Nucci & Kubey, 2007), with only 37% of those surveyed answering that GMF were safe (Pew Research Center, 2015; the number reported by Hallman et al., 2013, is 45%). Almost half of Americans believe that GMF is worse for one's health than non-GM food, and a majority of respondents also believe that GMF will cause health problems for the population as a whole (Kennedy et al., 2018). ...
We experimentally test whether expert organizations on social media can correct misperceptions of the scientific consensus on the safety of genetically modified (GM) food for human consumption, as well as what role social media cues, in the form of “likes,” play in that process. We find expert organizations highlighting scientific consensus on GM food safety reduces consensus misperceptions among the public, leading to lower GM misperceptions and boosting related consumption behaviors in line with the gateway belief model. Expert organizations’ credibility may increase as a result of correction, but popularity cues do not seem to affect misperceptions or credibility.
... This choice-making process is framing (Entman, 1993), where opinion leaders select or omit information to reinforce certain aspects of GMO discourse. Many of the existing studies on the framing of GMO have focused on the role of news media and the effect of the frames adopted by them (e.g., Carver, Rødland, & Breivik, 2012;Maeseele & Schuurman, 2008;McInerney, Bird, & Nucci, 2004;Nucci & Kubey, 2007;Ten Eyck, 1999;Ten Eyck & Williment, 2003). In the context of traditional news media, framing has been defined as the activity and process in which media selectively choose certain aspects of a reality and leave out the others (Entman, 1993). ...
This study adopted a quantitative content analysis to examine how source attributes of opinion leaders and their message framing influenced user engagement in the public discourse of genetically modified organism (GMO) on Chinese social media. The findings showed that different source attributes and message frames used by opinion leaders varied in their respective influences on three dimensions of user engagement—reposts, comments, and likes. The attribute of account verification only predicted surface-level engagement (i.e., liking), whereas account type significantly influenced in-depth engagement (i.e., reposting and commenting). The fact, opportunity, pro-GMO, and international frames positively predicted user engagement.
... Other work also found a link between GMO coverage and public beliefs about GMO safety (Ceccoli & Hixon 2011; Marques et al 2015, Ten Eyck 2005 Gaskell et al 2003). Several scholars also attempted to focus on the nature of coverage of GMO foods, assuming that coverage influences public attitudes on the topic, finding the coverage mostly negative (Augoustinos et al 2010; Nucci & Kubey 2007). In short, there is a vast body of work suggesting that the media play an important role in shaping beliefs about scientific topics like climate change, GMOs, and vaccinations. ...
Commentators are often perplexed about why American attitudes are polarized on issues where there is a near scientific consensus. To varying degrees, in terms of both attitudes and levels of scientific consensus, three of such issues are climate change, vaccinations and genetically modified food (GMO) safety. Scientific literature shows that climate change is real, man-made, and poses serious threats to human life. Medical research is clear that vaccinations are safe and have been successful in nearly eradicating deadly diseases. Plant scientists show that there is no evidence, despite years of research, of GMOs being harmful to consume. Yet troubling numbers of Americans are skeptical of climate change, believe that vaccinations cause autism and are convinced that GMOs are harmful to consume. As a result, understanding the sources of public opinion dynamics on these issues is very relevant, but to date we know very little about what exactly shapes public attitudes on these issues.
Some commentators have suggested that some of these troubling public opinion trends are due to false equivalency in media coverage that gives undue credence to pseudo-scientific beliefs (see, for example, Follows 2013). In other words, by giving the pseudo-scientific side an equal voice in these debates, for example through spokespeople like Jenny McCarthy, the media increase the prevalence of such beliefs in the general public because people view these arguments as legitimate and equivalent to scientific evidence. We argue that this view is incomplete, and that the media provide only a part of the story behind these problematic, and often harmful, beliefs. We show that it is a combination of balanced media coverage and polarized partisan cues in the information environment that sway public opinion on global warming, vaccinations, and GMOs.
There is a rich literature on the importance of elite cues in the formation of public opinion, dating back to the Columbia Studies and the two-step information flow (Berelson et al. 1954). The logic of this approach is simple: people pick up cues in their environment from trusted opinion leaders and use them to formulate their opinions on relevant issues (Popkin 1991). Public opinion on some issues, especially dealing with foreign affairs, is particularly shaped through partisans following their respective elite cues (Zaller 1992) or reacting against the cues from out-group party elites (Berinsky 2009). We suspect that the complexity of science-based policy, coupled with a lack of strong prior beliefs, allow for potentially powerful party cue effects in these issue domains. This intuition is supported by a survey experiment that showed the potential for party cues to dominate policy considerations on food science policy (Kam 2005). Balanced media coverage only matters insofar as it carries potentially polarized party cues to the public. Carrying pseudo-scientific messages in news coverage does not influence public opinion on its own. In short, Jenny McCarthy and her efforts to discredit science on vaccinations doesn’t matter all that much.
There are two substantive parts to this paper. First, we demonstrate that false equivalence in media coverage, on its own, does not drive public opinion on these issues. We utilize automated content analysis, using Lexicoder, of all articles on climate change and vaccinations from the New York Times, Washington Post and the USA Today from the period 1980-2014 to show that, despite false equivalence in the news on both issues, coverage is correlated with public opinion polls on climate change (where partisan cues are present) but is unrelated to childhood vaccination rates at national, state or county level (where partisan cues are absent). Second, we provide support for the party cue hypothesis by focusing on the GMO safety issue at the national level, where partisan cues are lacking, as well as regional level, where the debates are more partisan. To do that, we analyze recent GMO labeling referenda in Washington, Colorado and California. By examining partisan endorsements and elite cues in news coverage, we show that the false equivalency only affects public opinion on the issue when partisan cues are present and clear.
This article speaks to important debates about the role of news coverage in communicating science and shows that the news media, on their own, do not necessarily shift these issue debates in perilous ways. It is only when the issue becomes sufficiently politicized that public opinion is meaningfully influenced. Therefore, the news media are only partly to blame for scientifically inaccurate public opinion on these issues; the broader political landscape plays a more important role. For example, the politicization of the global warming issue moved public opinion further away from the scientific consensus, but on the issue of GMO safety, the presence of partisan cues shifted public attitudes closer to the scientific consensus view.
... The genetic modification of food is a key example of how information dissemination has impacted public perceptions of the technology. Prior to the 1990s GM food received little attention in US media [113,149,150]. The majority of any news coverage about genetic modification tended to emphasize benefits and downplay ethical, legal, social impact or regulatory issues [105,151]. ...
... An examination of the newspaper coverage of this research over the year after its publication showed that the majority of stories appeared in the first month of coverage in the 19 papers examined, with more than half appearing on the first page of the first section of the newspapers examined. This is in line with observations of a media spike associated with this event [150,154,159]. Over the entire year examined, the newspaper stories tended to use language consistent with the original Losey et al. [158] article or Greenpeace press release, and not of the BIO press release, the industry organization. ...
New food technologies encounter problems with successfully entering the consumer market due to perceived public perceptions and concerns. Communication of new developments in food processing plays a critical role in public perceptions and adoption of new food technologies. The presentation of science by the media can affect the public perception of science and public support for legislation and policy. The genetic modification of food is a key example of how information dissemination has impacted public perceptions of the technology. Nanotechnology is creating a revolution in food packaging. The successful adoption of new food technologies is not guaranteed, regardless of scientific support, economic value, enhanced benefits, and minimum risks. The public demands participation in scientific and technical decisions in a move from an uncritical acceptance of new science and technology to solve social and historical problems to one of social scrutiny linked to the perceptions of risks and benefits of development. © 2015 by The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.
... By extending the findings to a different context, we are better able to validate the effects as more than isolated or singular (Thorson, Wicks, & Leshner, 2012). GMO labeling was chosen as the topic of the second study because it represents an environment-related issue that is gaining traction in terms of public policy implications and consumer awareness, but it remains an issue about which there is considerable confusion and ambiguity (McInerney, Bird, & Nucci, 2004;Nucci & Kubey, 2007). ...
Infographics, which integrate visuals and text, can increase audience engagement with message content. Relying on two experiments, this study demonstrates the role of visuals for decisions to critically evaluate pro-environmental messages. Using the Elaboration Likelihood Model as a theoretical foundation, we demonstrate that individuals engage in greater levels of issue-relevant thinking when shown infographics compared to messages that rely just on text or just on illustration, with learning preferences and visual literacy as moderators. The findings demonstrate that visual content is an important factor for persuasive message processing, and infographic messages hold opportunities for the communication of environmental issues.
... Health is currently the eighth most common news topic overall, and cancer ranks first among disease-specific news coverage (2)(3)(4)(5). News media help to form the boundaries of scientific debates (6,7) and influence both expert and public perceptions of complex issues such as cancer (7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12). ...
... Health is currently the eighth most common news topic overall, and cancer ranks first among disease-specific news coverage (2)(3)(4)(5). News media help to form the boundaries of scientific debates (6,7) and influence both expert and public perceptions of complex issues such as cancer (7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12). ...
Cancer is both highly feared and highly newsworthy, and there is a robust body of research documenting the content and effects of cancer news coverage on health behaviors and policy. Recent years have witnessed ongoing, transformative shifts in American journalism alongside rapid advances in communication technology and the public information environment. These changes create a pressing need to consider a new set of research questions, sampling strategies, measurement techniques, and theories of media effects to ensure continued relevance and adaptation of communication research to address critical cancer control concerns. This paper begins by briefly reviewing what we know about the role of cancer news in shaping cancer-related beliefs, attitudes, behaviors, and policies. We then outline challenges and opportunities, both theoretical and methodological, posed by the rapidly changing news media environment and the nature of audience engagement. We organize our discussion around three major shifts associated with the emerging news media environment as it relates to health communication: 1) speed and dynamism of news diffusion, 2) increased narrowcasting of media content for specialized audiences, and 3) broadened participation in shaping media content. In so doing, we articulate a set of questions for future theory and research, in an effort to catalyze innovative communication scholarship to improve cancer prevention and control.