Stories about villains, mad scientists and failure: patterns of evidence criticism in media coverage of genomic research

  • Journalism is expected to cover science objectively as well as critically. New findings and limitations of studies should be part of science news. Since journalists discuss the limitations of studies as well as problematic results for non-expert audiences, they are constrained to transform criticism of scientific evidence according to media logics and the common sense of a public at large. The presentation of an understandable and convincing narrative is one way to question the findings of studies and to present problematic research. A hermeneutic analysis of press articles on genomic research shows how critical articles make intensive use of storytelling, a strategy well-established in journalism. To unmask problematic research, the articles use personalization, stereotyping and narrativization: The long process of research is condensed to actions of single persons; conflict is accentuated; common negative stereotypes (the “mad scientist”, the “sinister manager” or the “corrupt andJournalism is expected to cover science objectively as well as critically. New findings and limitations of studies should be part of science news. Since journalists discuss the limitations of studies as well as problematic results for non-expert audiences, they are constrained to transform criticism of scientific evidence according to media logics and the common sense of a public at large. The presentation of an understandable and convincing narrative is one way to question the findings of studies and to present problematic research. A hermeneutic analysis of press articles on genomic research shows how critical articles make intensive use of storytelling, a strategy well-established in journalism. To unmask problematic research, the articles use personalization, stereotyping and narrativization: The long process of research is condensed to actions of single persons; conflict is accentuated; common negative stereotypes (the “mad scientist”, the “sinister manager” or the “corrupt and greedy company”) are applied; and variations of mythological stories are presented (e.g. the punishment of human hubris, the interference with divine creation, the revenge of nature). References to the seven deadly sins and biblical language are a recurring theme. In sum, these rhetorical strategies question and distract from the scientific evidence and underline ethical positions against genomic research.show moreshow less

Export metadata

Statistics

Number of document requests

Additional Services

Share in Twitter Search Google Scholar
Metadaten
Author:Susanne KinnebrockORCiDGND, Helena BilandzicORCiDGND
URN:urn:nbn:de:bvb:384-opus4-1153044
Frontdoor URLhttps://opus.bibliothek.uni-augsburg.de/opus4/115304
ISBN:9781003273509OPAC
Parent Title (English):Evidence contestation: dealing with dissent in knowledge societies
Publisher:Routledge
Place of publication:New York, NY
Editor:Karin Zachmann, Mariacarla Gadebusch Bondio, Saana Jukola, Olga Sparschuh
Type:Part of a Book
Language:English
Year of first Publication:2023
Publishing Institution:Universität Augsburg
Release Date:2024/09/11
First Page:303
Last Page:325
DOI:https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003273509-17
Institutes:Philosophisch-Sozialwissenschaftliche Fakultät
Philosophisch-Sozialwissenschaftliche Fakultät / imwk - Institut für Medien, Wissen und Kommunikation
Philosophisch-Sozialwissenschaftliche Fakultät / imwk - Institut für Medien, Wissen und Kommunikation / Lehrstuhl für Kommunikationswissenschaft mit Schwerpunkt Rezeption und Wirkung
Philosophisch-Sozialwissenschaftliche Fakultät / imwk - Institut für Medien, Wissen und Kommunikation / Professur für Kommunikationswissenschaft mit Schwerpunkt Öffentliche Kommunikation
Dewey Decimal Classification:3 Sozialwissenschaften / 38 Handel, Kommunikation, Verkehr / 380 Handel, Kommunikation, Verkehr
Licence (German):CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0: Creative Commons: Namensnennung - Nicht kommerziell - Keine Bearbeitung (mit Print on Demand)