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

Authors

  • Maria Josep Picó Garcés University of Valencia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.7203/metode.6.3899

Keywords:

digital journalism, environment, GM crops, biotechnology, blogs

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.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Maria Josep Picó Garcés, University of Valencia

Journalist. Chair for Scientific Dissemination of the University of Valencia and professor of the Master in Scientific, Medical and Environmental Communication of the Pompeu Fabra University (Barcelona, Spain). She is a science communicator and author of several essays. She won the National Environmental Journalism Award.

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

Downloads

Published

2016-04-15

How to Cite

Picó Garcés, M. J. (2016). Genetically modified crops 2.0: The decline of media controversy in digital journalism. Metode Science Studies Journal, (6), 28–34. https://doi.org/10.7203/metode.6.3899
Metrics
Views/Downloads
  • Abstract
    1173
  • PDF
    321

Metrics

Similar Articles

> >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.