100 likes | 175 Views
This research explores how media coverage of the GMO debate in New Zealand from 1998 to 2002 affected social responsibility, public policy, and public understanding. It delves into editorial decisions, news sources cited, and the marginalization of interest groups in shaping the discourse.
E N D
The Media and Genetic Modification Interest groups, Social Responsibility and the Diversity of Views Doug Ashwell, Massey University
Media, Science and the Public • Social responsibility • Science and the Public • Agenda Setting • Public Policy • Primary Definers
The research • GM debate 1998 – February 2002 • Newspapers – Dominion, New Zealand Herald, The Press, Otago Daily Times, Waikato Times and Manawatu Standard • 738 ‘hard’ news stories
The Marginalisation of Interest Groups • Editorial Decisions • “papers very early got wary of the protests and they were generally played down. For instance our newspaper which I worked on made a conscious decision not to show pictures, generally of the protest and the signs and the mock pictures and all this kind of thing” (personal communication, 2001).
The Marginalisation of Interest Groups • Journalistic practices • The Royal Commission
Resulting themes • Event-led • Source driven • Tone of reportage • Science regulation, GM economics
Socially Responsible or Biased? • Social responsibility • Public policy • Public understanding • Where to?