Criterios de búsqueda Criterios de inclusión:

The views of scientists on the reporting of GM were reported in Chapter 4, section 4.3.1. Two scientists believed that on the whole New Zealand newspapers did not report science well arguing that unless science was reported in a feature article the public would not really understand much from reading about science in the hard news stories that are the focus of this thesis. This view seems to support researchers that have found scientists critical of the media’s reporting of science (Dunwoody, 1999; Goodell, 1985; Reed & Walker, 2002; Rowan, 1999). However, it was acknowledged by another Massey University scientist that some stories were well researched (Jameson, personal communication, July 2, 2002).

In terms of the GM debate most of the scientists felt that the news media’s reporting of the issue had improved over time, with journalists asking, in the scientists’ view, more correct questions (Conner, personal communication, July 25, 2002). In so doing, it was felt that the media had been explaining the GM debate well in terms of the technical issues (Warrington, personal communication, November 25, 2002). These perceptions indicate that most of the scientists interviewed had specific views on how the issue should be reported and on the whole felt that newspapers had begun to improve their reporting of GM, yet, the reporting still required improvement before the scientists interviewed would be satisfied with its quality.

Most of the scientists believed that a lot of the reporting was concerned with GM food and, as already discussed, the content analysis supports this belief. The scientists also argued that in general the public had a negative perception of GM food and that there were a number of factors operating that produced this perception. The first of these, in the view of one scientist, was because, in general, the public did not understand how their food was produced and while they wanted cheap, organic and environmentally friendly food they did not understand how this could be achieved. In terms of GM food it was believed that the public’s concerns over the possibilities of other biotechnological techniques such as cloning and stem-

164

cell research had exacerbated their fear of such food, to the extent that they would rather not accept better tasting fruits and vegetables if it came at the expense of scientists being able to clone human beings.

Another scientist believed the reason that the public had a negative view of GM food was due to the manner in which this food had been foisted upon the public with no information being given. Such moves had led to a negative attitude towards big business, especially towards companies like Monsanto that marketed GM crops.

Given that for most of the wider public the news media become their primary source of science information after leaving school (Einsiedel & Thorne, 1999; Malone et al., 2000; Nelkin, 1995), it is conceivable that these demands and perceptions concerning food, cloning and stem-cell research are based, at least partially, on news media reports. Through their selection and presentation of news, the media make some issues and events more salient than others and thereby set the agenda of public opinion as to which issues are considered important (McCombs, 2004). Cronholm and Sandell (1981) also argue that the news media set the agenda of public opinion on what are to be considered important scientific issues. With the media playing such an important role in informing the public about science, the concerns over genetic modification amongst the public suggest that the media have successfully set this issue on the agenda of public opinion. Further, the public concerns were about particular aspects or techniques of genetic modification, for example, GM food, cloning and stem-cell research, with other medical applications being more readily accepted. This situation suggests that not only were the media successful in setting the primary level agenda on genetic modification, but that they were also successful in setting the second level agenda by suggesting which attributes or aspects of the technology the public should consider important. Therefore, through their agenda setting function, the news media may in fact be partially responsible for generating the negative views amongst the public of GM food, stem- cell research and cloning. One scientist interviewed agreed with this by suggesting that the pictures and cartoons used by some media outlets may have caused further fear amongst the public.

The fear and confusion among the public may have been strengthened due to the news media’s misrepresentation of the possibility of GM crops being grown commercially in New Zealand. As noted in the previous chapter, it was felt by Jameson that the newspapers’

165

confusion of contained field trials and full commercial release only served to add to public confusion and fear of GM crops.

According to Hornig-Priest (1999) the reporting of GM can either be framed in terms of the latest in a long series of benign applications of scientific knowledge or, “as the ultimate Frankenstein threat to life as we know it” (p. 96). When it came to agricultural uses of GM the news media could frame the interest in such technology as “springing less from a desire to eliminate human hunger than from corporate profiteering and an irresponsible impulse to tinker” (Hornig-Priest, 1999, p. 96).

It appears, in reviewing the scientists’ interviews, they felt the news media’s portrayal of GM food fell more into the Frankenstein and corporate greed frames than into the frame of GM simply being the continuation of benign scientific experimentation. These frames had led to a very one-faceted reporting of GM, in the scientists’ opinion, and left, in the view of one scientist, other important issues unreported for example, recombinant vaccines (Scott, personal communication, July 26, 2002). As Turney (1998) argues, such frames polarise debate and do not allow other possibilities to be considered.

In the view of journalists the issue was very complicated and this had made the issue more difficult to report because of its many facets. Moreover, one journalist felt that people on both sides of the argument had a case and this added to the complexity and interest in the issue. However, this was not a view shared by all journalists, or at least their editors, because as one journalist noted, his newspaper made an editorial decision to ignore the anti-GM protests (Samson, personal communication, October 17, 2002). As indicated by the content analysis this decision appeared to limit the ability of those involved in such protests to become news sources.

Wallace (personal communication, November 7, 2002) also raised another interesting point. In her view the GM debate was also accompanied by an anti-science attitude, scientists were treated badly and, in the view of some, science had become almost evil. Wallace seemed to imply that part of her job as a journalist was to try to dispel that notion (personal communication, November 7, 2002). The anti-science attitude noticed by Wallace is also discussed by Broks (2006) who argues that since the 1980s science had come under increasing scrutiny and criticism, scientists felt they were under attack, and an anti-science movement was beginning to form.

166