Genetically modified crops 2.0: The decline of media controversy in digital journalism


Abstract


The controversy over the effects of GM crops on nature and health was one of the most intense media debates of the late twentieth century. Despite the existence of Web 2.0 tools for the transmission of information, the controversy is now declining in digital media, with the exception of France and the United Kingdom, where the debate is still ongoing among citizens and environmental action is constant.


Keywords


digital journalism; environment; GM crops; biotechnology; blogs

Full Text:

PDF

References


  • Allan, S. (2009). The future of science journalism. Journalism, 10, 280. doi: 10.1177/ 1464884909102570

  • Ansell, C., Maxwell, R., & Sicurelli, D. (2006). Protesting food: NGOs and political mobilization in Europe. In C. Ansell, & D. Vogel (Eds.), What’s the beef? The contested governance of European food service. Massachusetts: MIT Press.

  • Arntzen, C. H., Coghlan, A., Johnson, B., Peacock, J., & Rodemeyer, M. (2003). GM crops: Science, politics and communication. Nature Reviews Genetics, 4, 839–843. doi: 10.1038/nrg1185

  • Barbagallo, F., & Nelson, J. (2005). UK GM dialogue: Separating social and scientific ­issues. Science Communication, 26, 318. doi: 10.1177/1075547004273091

  • Brossard, D., & Scheufele, D. A. (2013). New media, and the public. Science, 339, 40. doi: 10.1126/science.1232329

  • Carpenter, J. E. (2010). Peer-reviewed surveys indicate positive impact of commercialized GM crops. Nature Biotechnology, 28, 319–321. doi: 10.1038/nbt0410-319

  • Colson, V. (2011). Science blogs as competing channels for the dissemination of science news. Journalism, 12, 889. doi: 10.1177/1464884911412834

  • Cox, R. (2006). Environmental communication and the public sphere. California: Sage Publications.

  • Eurobarometer. (2010). Biotechnology. Special eurobarometer 341. Wave 73.1. TNS Opinion & Social. Brussels: European Commission.

  • Gaskell, G., Bauer, M., Allum, N. C., & Durant, J. (1999). Worlds apart? The reception of genetically modified foods in Europe and the United States. Science, 285(5426), 384–386. doi: 10.1126/science.285.5426.384

  • Gilbert, N. (2013). Case studies: A hard look at GM crops. Nature, 497, 24–26. doi: 10.1038/497024a

  • Howarth, A. (2006). Participatory politics, environmental journalism and newspaper campaigns. Journalism Studies, 13(2), 210–225. doi: 10.1080/1461670X.2011.646398

  • Mielby, H., Sandøe, P., & Lassen, J. (2013). The role of scientific knowledge in shaping public attitudes to GM technologies. Public Understanding of Science, 22(2), 155–168. doi: 10.1177/0963662511430577

  • Qaim, M., & Zilberman, D. (2003). Yield effects of genetically modified crops in developing countries. Science, 299(5608), 900–902. doi: 10.1126/science.1080609

  • Shaw, A., (2002). It just goes against the grain: Public understandings of genetically modified (GM) food in the UK. Public Understanding of Science, 11(3), 273–291. doi: 10.1088/0963-6625/11/3/305







Creative Commons License
Texts in the journal are –unless otherwise indicated– published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________