Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Words of mass destruction: British newpaper cov...
View graph of relations

Words of mass destruction: British newpaper coverage of the genetically modified food debate, expert and non-expert reactions.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

Words of mass destruction: British newpaper coverage of the genetically modified food debate, expert and non-expert reactions. / Cook, Guy; Robbins, Peter T.; Pieri, Elisa.
In: Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 15, No. 1, 01.2006, p. 5-29.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Cook G, Robbins PT, Pieri E. Words of mass destruction: British newpaper coverage of the genetically modified food debate, expert and non-expert reactions. Public Understanding of Science. 2006 Jan;15(1):5-29. doi: 10.1177/0963662506058756

Author

Cook, Guy ; Robbins, Peter T. ; Pieri, Elisa. / Words of mass destruction: British newpaper coverage of the genetically modified food debate, expert and non-expert reactions. In: Public Understanding of Science. 2006 ; Vol. 15, No. 1. pp. 5-29.

Bibtex

@article{021607a803bd4ada8aaa053f3a5cf222,
title = "Words of mass destruction: British newpaper coverage of the genetically modified food debate, expert and non-expert reactions.",
abstract = "This article reports the findings of a one-year project examining British press coverage of the genetically modified (GM) food debate during the first half of 2003, and both expert and non-expert reactions to that coverage. Two pro-GM newspapers and two anti-GM newspapers were selected for analysis, and all articles mentioning GM during the period in question were stored in a machine readable database. This was then analyzed using corpus linguistic and discourse analytic techniques to reveal recurrent wording, themes and content. This text analysis was complemented by 12 interviews with experts involved in the communication of GM issues, and 12 focus-group sessions in which members of the public reacted to selected newspaper texts and other GM material. Both in the press and in public reaction, the issue of GM was found to be intimately associated with other political events of the time, notably the invasion of Iraq. Except among experts, there was little awareness of the official national debate and issues were approached in more general terms. Pro-GM characterization of the issues as primarily scientific, both by newspapers and experts, was rejected by the anti-GM press and campaigners, and by the focus-group participants. They assessed the issues in a more global frame, rejecting scientists and companies as unreliable. In addition, they linked both US and British GM policy to the invasion of Iraq, and, by analogy, rejected pro-GM arguments as untrustworthy.",
author = "Guy Cook and Robbins, {Peter T.} and Elisa Pieri",
year = "2006",
month = jan,
doi = "10.1177/0963662506058756",
language = "English",
volume = "15",
pages = "5--29",
journal = "Public Understanding of Science",
issn = "1361-6609",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Ltd",
number = "1",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Words of mass destruction: British newpaper coverage of the genetically modified food debate, expert and non-expert reactions.

AU - Cook, Guy

AU - Robbins, Peter T.

AU - Pieri, Elisa

PY - 2006/1

Y1 - 2006/1

N2 - This article reports the findings of a one-year project examining British press coverage of the genetically modified (GM) food debate during the first half of 2003, and both expert and non-expert reactions to that coverage. Two pro-GM newspapers and two anti-GM newspapers were selected for analysis, and all articles mentioning GM during the period in question were stored in a machine readable database. This was then analyzed using corpus linguistic and discourse analytic techniques to reveal recurrent wording, themes and content. This text analysis was complemented by 12 interviews with experts involved in the communication of GM issues, and 12 focus-group sessions in which members of the public reacted to selected newspaper texts and other GM material. Both in the press and in public reaction, the issue of GM was found to be intimately associated with other political events of the time, notably the invasion of Iraq. Except among experts, there was little awareness of the official national debate and issues were approached in more general terms. Pro-GM characterization of the issues as primarily scientific, both by newspapers and experts, was rejected by the anti-GM press and campaigners, and by the focus-group participants. They assessed the issues in a more global frame, rejecting scientists and companies as unreliable. In addition, they linked both US and British GM policy to the invasion of Iraq, and, by analogy, rejected pro-GM arguments as untrustworthy.

AB - This article reports the findings of a one-year project examining British press coverage of the genetically modified (GM) food debate during the first half of 2003, and both expert and non-expert reactions to that coverage. Two pro-GM newspapers and two anti-GM newspapers were selected for analysis, and all articles mentioning GM during the period in question were stored in a machine readable database. This was then analyzed using corpus linguistic and discourse analytic techniques to reveal recurrent wording, themes and content. This text analysis was complemented by 12 interviews with experts involved in the communication of GM issues, and 12 focus-group sessions in which members of the public reacted to selected newspaper texts and other GM material. Both in the press and in public reaction, the issue of GM was found to be intimately associated with other political events of the time, notably the invasion of Iraq. Except among experts, there was little awareness of the official national debate and issues were approached in more general terms. Pro-GM characterization of the issues as primarily scientific, both by newspapers and experts, was rejected by the anti-GM press and campaigners, and by the focus-group participants. They assessed the issues in a more global frame, rejecting scientists and companies as unreliable. In addition, they linked both US and British GM policy to the invasion of Iraq, and, by analogy, rejected pro-GM arguments as untrustworthy.

U2 - 10.1177/0963662506058756

DO - 10.1177/0963662506058756

M3 - Journal article

VL - 15

SP - 5

EP - 29

JO - Public Understanding of Science

JF - Public Understanding of Science

SN - 1361-6609

IS - 1

ER -