Science Explanations in News Coverage of the First Stem Cell Controversy

Science writing curricula often stress the importance of using explanations to make a story understandable to readers. This study examines the use of explanation in news coverage of the first stem cell controversy in the U.S., through a content analysis of 343 news stories appearing in three major newspapers, three national newsweekly magazines, and three national network television news websites from 1994 to 2001. Two-thirds of the explanations were simple definitions. Consistent with previous research, the use of explanation was highest in specialized science sections and did not vary according to story length. However, online sources had the highest proportion of stories with in-text explanation (excluding links to related materials), challenging the idea that science explanation usage is deadline dependent. Stem-cell stories that reflected more play, in terms of length and placement, did not include more scientific explanations. However, more scientific explanations did appear in science or health section stories about stem-cell research, regardless of story play. Traditional print newspapers and newsmagazines did not provide more scientific explanations in stem-cell stories than web sites for broadcast and cable networks. This examines the use of explanation in both coverage of stem cell


Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies
Volume: 5 -Issue: 3 July -2015 tend to emerge when a controversy involves environmental or health risks (Kaufman & Smith, 1997). Similarly, a complexity frame can lead stakeholders either to treat information with undue respect or to unduly discount it. For instance, a "science-as-truth" frame places faith in data and analyses, and implies that a conflict could be resolved if only sufficient scientific information were available. On the other hand, a "science-as-deception" frame labels scientific information as non-conclusive and untrustworthy because scientists, politicians, and consumers can manipulate it. This frame may lead the public facing complex science information to evaluate arguments in terms of their proponents and motives attributed to them, rather than the merits of the technical information (Gray & Donnellon, 1989).
When people try to make sense of complex information, they often use frames to organize knowledge (Tannen, 1979), lighten the information-processing burden (Tversky & Kahneman, 1991), and reduce the need to gather information and examine details. However, as the level of complexity rises, it becomes increasingly difficult to scrutinize how well frames match the specifics of a situation. The more complex the information is, the more likely an individual will make choices based on a sketchy interpretation of reality. According to Bartlett (1932), this often happens because an individual tends "simply to get a general impression of the whole and, on the basis of this, he constructs the probable detail" (p. 206).
Journalists and other individuals tend to seek confirmatory evidence for what they believe to be true, neglecting any contradictory information (Tversky, 1996). They often reach for frames when trying to understand new and complicated events (Tannen, 1979, Sheppard et al., 1994).
An issue requiring extensive explanation, or a frame-less issue, usually does not elicit public opposition, whereas frames carrying a shared or collective meaning --a widely held "package" of views --often do (Kaufman & Smith, 1999). On the other hand, media coverage implying that only experts are able to understand the issues can discourage public dialogue (Kaufman & Smith, 1999).
In the interest of educating the public about complex topics, most seasoned journalists are sensitive to the need for good explanations (Rowan, 1990) and will even help one another Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies Volume: 5 -Issue: 3 July -2015 develop clear explanations (Nelkin, 1995). Indeed, many journalists argue that the contemporary role of print is to offer analysis and explanation (Princeton Survey Research Associates, 1997).
Yet, previous studies have found that the amount of explanation in science stories is generally quite low (Long et al., 1991;Long, 1995;Rowan, 1988). Rowan (1988) observed, "Despite the importance of explanatory writing in the mass media and in education, good explanations for lay readers are often hard to find." Long (1995) observed that most science stories contain less than 10% of explanatory material.
Similarly, another study found that explanatory frames --revealing how something works, how it fits into a larger trend, or how it evolved to this point --accounted for only 12% of 2,269 newspaper articles (Princeton Survey Research Associates, 1997). Even newspaper science section stories include relatively little explanation associated with scientific concepts. Long et al. (1991) found that 62% of these stories explained two or fewer concepts.
To explain the inclusion of explanations in some stories but not others, these researchers considered the impact of writer-based variables. The significance of individual author characteristics was suggested Rowan's (1990) study, in which composition students with more knowledge of a topic wrote better explanations of related scientific concepts than students with less knowledge did. This finding suggests a relationship between explanation quality and the author's level of knowledge and understanding. However, Long et al. (1991Long et al. ( , 1995 found that differences in author knowledge did not affect whether an explanation was more or less likely to appear in the story (Long et al., 1991(Long et al., , 1995. Specifically, reporters with expertise in science writing included no more explanation in their stories than general news reporters with less expertise (Long et al., 1995).
In addition to these writer-based variables, researchers have also looked at production-based factors. For example, science articles that appear in special feature sections contain more explanation than science stories that appear in news sections (Long et al., 1995). This does not seem to be a function of feature sections' tendency toward longer stories, however, because the same study found that lengthy stories did not include more explanation than shorter stories.