Words of mass destruction: British newpaper coverage of the genetically modified food debate, expert and non-expert reactions
This article reports the findings of a one-year project examining British press coverage of the genetically modified 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.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Rachel Carson's Toxic Discourse: Conjectures on Counterpublics, Stakeholders and the “Occupy Movement”.Mark N. Wexler - 2013 - Business and Society Review 118 (2):171-192.
Similar books and articles
The Scientists Think and the Public Feels.Guy Cook, Elisa Pieri & Peter Robbins - 2004 - Discourse Society 15 (4):433-49.
Novel, Natural, Nutritious: Towards a Philosophy of Food.Ruth Chadwick - 2000 - Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 100 (2):193–208.
Whom to Trust? Public Concerns, Late Modern Risks, and Expert Trustworthiness.Geert Munnichs - 2004 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 17 (2):113-130.
Labeling Genetically Modified Food: The Philosophical and Legal Debate.Paul Weirich (ed.) - 2008 - Oup Usa.
A Study of How Experts and Non-Experts Make Decisions on Releasing Genetically Modified Plants.Glenda Braña, Ana Miranda-Vilela & Cesar Grisolia - 2012 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 25 (5):675-685.
Problems with Electoral Evaluations of Expert Opinions.Roy A. Sorensen - 1984 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 35 (1):47-53.
Social Responsibility in Covering Community: A Narrative Case Analysis.Kristie Bunton - 1998 - Journal of Mass Media Ethics 13 (4):232 – 246.
The Journalism Educator as Expert Witness.Roy L. Moore - 1997 - Journal of Mass Media Ethics 12 (2):82 – 95.
Why Arguments From Expert Opinion Are Weak Arguments.Moti Mizrahi - 2013 - Informal Logic 33 (1):57-79.
Guest Editorial: Reclaiming the Integrity of Science in Expert Witnessing.Bruce D. Sales & Daniel W. Shuman - 1993 - Ethics and Behavior 3 (3 & 4):223 – 229.
Experts in Uncertainty: Opinion and Subjective Probability in Science.M. Cooke Roger - 1991 - Oxford University Press.
Legal Implications in Development and Use of Expert Systems in Agriculture.Willard Downs & Kelley Ann Newton - 1989 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 2 (1):53-58.
Added to index2011-01-29
Total downloads15 ( #316,215 of 2,172,876 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #324,901 of 2,172,876 )
How can I increase my downloads?