Quantitative Frame Analysis of How the Gene Concept Is Presented in Tabloid and Elite Newspapers

Tabloid and elite newspapers differ in journalistic style and address different socioeconomic segments of society. Few studies have systematically investigated how these differences influence science communication, and the issue of genetics is particularly relevant. In this study, we performed a quantitative frame analysis of genetic discourse in 12 national newspapers that address different audiences. We found that tabloid and elite newspapers use different frames when communicating the gene concept. The differences were related to the use of expert writers and choice of topics, and we discuss how framing of the gene concept is related to the newspapers’ editorial profiles.

[1]  P. Conrad.  Genetic Optimism: Framing Genes and MentalIllness in the News , 2001, Culture, medicine and psychiatry.

[2]  C. Condit.  How geneticists can help reporters to get their story right , 2007, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[3]  Biotechnology and the Popular Press in Northern Belgium , 2008 .

[4]  Jenny Kitzinger,et al.  Framing and frame analysis , 2007 .

[5]  Robert M. Entman,et al.  Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm , 1993 .

[6]  Patricia Goodson,et al.  The DNA Mystique: The Gene as a Cultural Icon , 1997 .

[7]  C. Condit,et al.  Determinism and mass-media portrayals of genetics. , 1998, American journal of human genetics.

[8]  News coverage of biotechnology debates , 2003 .

[9]  T. Eyck,et al.  The National Media and Things Genetic , 2003 .

[10]  Matthias Kohring,et al.  The Content Analysis of Media Frames: Toward Improving Reliability and Validity. Journal of Communication , 2008 .

[11]  D. Mark,et al.  Selling Science: How the Press Covers Science and Technology , 1995 .

[12]  Ann C. H. Kindfield,et al.  The dna mystique: the gene as a cultural icon , 1997 .

[13]  A. Motulsky.  Exploding the Gene Myth: How Genetic Information Is Produced and Manipulated by Scientists, Physicians, Employers, Insurance Companies, Educators, and Law Enforcers , 1995 .

[14]  M. Bauer.  Public Perceptions and Mass Media in the Biotechnology Controversy , 2005 .

[15]  Dorothy Nelkin,et al.  Promotional metaphors and their popular appeal , 1994 .

[16]  M. Gerstein,et al.  What is a gene, post-ENCODE? History and updated definition. , 2007, Genome research.

[17]  N. Roll-Hansen.  The crucial experiment of Wilhelm Johannsen , 1989 .

[18]  S. Priest.  Structuring Public Debate on Biotechnology , 1994 .

[19]  E. Goffman.  Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience , 1974 .

[20]  Catherine E. Crawley,et al.  Localized Debates of Agricultural Biotechnology in Community Newspapers: A Quantitative Content Analysis of Media Frames and Sources , 2007 .

[21]  A. Petersen,et al.  Biofantasies: genetics and medicine in the print news media. , 2001, Social science & medicine.

[22]  John H. Goldthorpe,et al.  Social Status and Newspaper Readership1 , 2007, American Journal of Sociology.

[23]  J. Breivik,et al.  Frame that gene , 2008, EMBO reports.

[24]  Matthias Kohring,et al.  The Content Analysis of Media Frames: Toward Improving Reliability and Validity , 2008 .

[25]  Bruce V. Lewenstein,et al.  Biotechnology and the American Media , 2002 .