http://nms.sagepub.com/New Media & Society

http://nms.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/03/20/1461444812439061The online version of this article can be found at:

 DOI: 10.1177/1461444812439061

published online 21 March 2012New Media SocietyA. Scheufele, Xuan Liang, Peter J. Ladwig, Michael Xenos and Anthony Dudo

Michael A. Cacciatore, Ashley A. Anderson, Doo-Hun Choi, Dominique Brossard, Dietrammedia

Coverage of emerging technologies: A comparison between print and online  

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:New Media & SocietyAdditional services and information for     

  http://nms.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

 

http://nms.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:  

What is This? 

- Mar 21, 2012OnlineFirst Version of Record >>

at UNIV OF TEXAS AUSTIN on April 10, 2012nms.sagepub.comDownloaded from

new media & society0(0) 1 –21

© The Author(s) 2012Reprints and permission:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/1461444812439061

nms.sagepub.com

Coverage of emerging technologies: A comparison between print and online media

Michael A. Cacciatore, Ashley A. Anderson, Doo-Hun Choi, Dominique Brossard, Dietram A. Scheufele, Xuan Liang, Peter J. Ladwig and Michael XenosUniversity of Wisconsin–Madison, USA

Anthony DudoUniversity of Texas–Austin, USA

AbstractThis study explores differences in volume of coverage and thematic content between US print news and online media coverage for an emerging technology – nanotechnology. We found that while American print news media and Google News coverage of this emerging technology has peaked and started to decline, Google Blog Search coverage of nanotechnology is still growing. Additionally, our data show discrepancies in thematic content of online and print news coverage. Specifically, online users are more likely to encounter environmentally themed content relating to nanotechnology than are users of American print newspapers. Differences in the amount of coverage of nanotechnology in print news and online media as well as thematic content suggest that public discourse on related issues will be shaped, in part, by media consumers’ preferred information platform.

Keywordsblogs, Google, internet, nanotechnology, newspapers

Corresponding author:Michael A. Cacciatore, Department of Life Sciences Communication, University of Wisconsin–Madison, 1545 Observatory Drive, Madison, WI 53706, USAEmail: mike.a.cacciatore@gmail.com

439061 NMS0010.1177/1461444812439061Cacciatore et al.New Media & Society2012

Article

at UNIV OF TEXAS AUSTIN on April 10, 2012nms.sagepub.comDownloaded from

2 new media & society 0(0)

Introduction

The importance of the online environment is growing for social issues, particularly for emerging technoscientific ones. The increasing prevalence of online media consumption in the USA has several implications for society as well as public discourse and opinion formation for topical news items. First, science coverage in traditional US news media, such as newspapers, is decreasing (Mooney, 2008). Specialty beats such as science and arts sections in newsrooms are disappearing through newsroom staff cuts, with 11% of the newsroom workforce cut in 2008 (Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism, 2010). These cuts are taking place despite the fact that American audiences consistently report some of the highest levels of interest in science and technology news items in the world (National Science Board, 2010).

Second, the internet is becoming an increasingly important destination for not only current events news, but news specific to science and technology. While just over 20% of all Americans turn primarily to the internet for information about ‘current news events’, nearly 30% do so for information specific to science and technology (National Science Board, 2010). Research also highlights the growing propensity of American news media audiences to engage in ‘grazing’ by relying on news across multiple platforms, including websites, television, and newspapers (Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism, 2010). Furthermore, people in the USA tend to use multiple websites for their news, with more than half of Americans viewing between 2 and 5 websites on a given day. Only about 2 in 10 Americans rely on a single online destination, and 35% have a favorite news website (Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism, 2010). These findings suggest people in the USA are not necessarily loyal to any particular news outlet, but peruse many outlets. Furthermore, research shows online news aggregators such as Google are becoming increasingly important for younger news audiences who tend to use online searching to begin their news consumption (Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism, 2010).

Traditional journalism has originally presented blogs as not especially beneficial to society at large, but blogs have become important sources for coverage of scientific issues (Jones and Himelboim, 2010). Many traditional journalists have begun engaging in user-generated online content, and a survey of science journalists in 2009 showed that 63% of science journalists get story ideas from scientists’ blogs, an increase from 18% a mere 5 years earlier (Brumfiel, 2009; Usher, 2010). Furthermore, whereas only 4% reported that their work appeared in blog format in 2005, nearly 32% reported that to be the case in 2009 (Brumfiel, 2009). Scientific issues are gaining traction online in terms of coverage and audience.

The increased prevalence of online media sources such as blogs and news aggregating sites is changing the nature of news by allowing audiences to actively engage with media sources in new ways. This new convergent media culture is more participatory, with opportunities for individual members of the public to shape content. Content now appears in multiple media platforms and audiences engage with and access content in multiple ways (Jenkins, 2006). However, while lay audiences have opportunities to create and reshape media, participatory online outlets, such as blogs, may be merely reiterating an agenda that is set by the mainstream news media (Kenix, 2009). This raises the empirical question of whether online media sources merely amplify how issues are portrayed in traditional news media, or if they significantly alter the framing of these issues. In this study, we use content analysis to explore how traditional and online media portray an

at UNIV OF TEXAS AUSTIN on April 10, 2012nms.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Cacciatore et al. 3

emerging technology over time. We compare volume and thematic coverage in US print news media and online sources for the issue of nanotechnology.

By the end of 2011, US government funding for nanotechnology amounted to nearly $14 billion (National Nanotechnology Initiative, 2010). Awareness of nanotechnology is low among lay audiences (Satterfield et al., 2009), meaning people will likely turn to media sources to learn more. Therefore, a closer look at past research on how agendas are built for traditional and new media, particularly for scientific issues, and how these portrayals impact attitudes toward scientific issues, is warranted before exploring nano-technology coverage in US news media.

Traditional and online media agendas

Traditional media

For lay publics attempting to makes sense of scientific issues, the mass media is often the most accessible source for information and opinions. The media act as cues for how lay audiences think about emerging scientific issues. Therefore, several traits of scientific media coverage are important to mention here. First, according to the ‘issue-attention cycle’ initially proposed by Downs (1972), the nature of American news media coverage for scientific issues follows a cyclical pattern. An issue begins in a pre-problem stage where it remains until a problem is discovered and latched onto by the media (Nisbet and Huge, 2006). Realization of the problem prompts public concern and efforts to bring forth a solution (Shih et al., 2008). Over time, interest in the issue wanes and a new issue emerges to take its place in the media spotlight (Nisbet and Huge, 2006). This cycle of events helps explain when issues will emerge in media discourse as well as when they will fade in prominence.

While the issue-attention cycle is useful in explaining levels of media attention sur-rounding various issues, the cues that the general public receives will most likely be based on the types of frames employed around a particular issue. According to Scheufele and Tewksbury (2007), framing refers to ‘modes of presentation that journalists and other communicators use to present information in a way that resonates with existing underlying schema among their audience’ (p. 12). Media frames act as organizing storylines for news issues, suggesting to audiences what is relevant about an issue and what can be ignored (Nisbet and Huge, 2006). By giving greater weight to one dimension of a controversy over another, media frames help direct citizens’ evaluations of an issue (Ferree et al., 2002).

Importantly, the types of frames that follow an issue are heavily influenced by the issue’s place in the issue-attention cycle (Shih et al., 2008). For example, frames focusing on new research and novel discoveries dominated early news media discourse of biotech-nology and stem cell research (Nisbet and Huge, 2006). However, as media attention increased, policy frames, and frames highlighting the ethical or moral components of these issues were more likely to occur. Finally, strategy and conflict frames were most common when news media coverage reached its peak. This implies that traditional news media coverage of scientific issues follows a pattern whereby coverage is largely positive in the early stages and grows increasingly more negative and conflict-driven over time. This cyclical pattern of media coverage, characterized by ebbs and flows in coverage and

at UNIV OF TEXAS AUSTIN on April 10, 2012nms.sagepub.comDownloaded from

4 new media & society 0(0)

diverse frames, can shape how members of the public view scientific issues, as well as their levels of support (Ferber, 1999; Gaskell et al., 2004a; Sjoberg, 2004).

Past research has explored the effects on opinion of issue-attention cycles and framing of controversial scientific issues in traditional news media (e.g., Brossard et al., 2004; Nisbet and Huge, 2006), but how will these effects evolve as individuals increasingly seek out news and science information online? In order to assess online media and its effects on lay publics, this study focused on one of the largest information portals on the web, Google. Although this study does not investigate media frames in the traditional sense, our analyses shed light on the potential framing effects of emerging technologies by comparing thematic content between print and online media.

Online media

As described above, there are several factors that influence mass media coverage of issues – including issue-attention cycles and framing – that ultimately influence how members of the public perceive an issue. However, online media agendas may be different than their traditional news media counterparts. Past research has emphasized the participatory nature of online media, noting that the internet is a communication space where multiple actors can contribute ideas and opinions. Despite the fact that some scholars have suggested that the internet provides a public space but does not yet create a public sphere (e.g., Goldberg, 2011; Papacharissi, 2002), it has been argued that the internet increasingly allows diverse citizens to participate in interactive communication in order to realize the interactive and pluralized aspects of public spheres (Dahlgren, 2005). As Cammaerts and Van Audenhove (2005) argue, the internet can facilitate a new interactive engagement through, for example, active online participation in discussion boards. Moreover, the blogosphere enables diverse citizens to produce content and share it with their peers, offering new opportunities to engage freely and openly in online public spheres (Cammaerts, 2008).

The democratic inclusion of multiple actors means that agenda-building in online spaces may be quite different from that of traditional mass media. It has been argued that online public spheres have the potential to promote diversity and extend citizens’ demo-cratic activity (e.g., Gerhards and Schafer, 2010; Papacharissi, 2004) in ways that are not possible through traditional mass media. This is due in large part to the limited nature of who contributes directly to the discourse of traditional media (Jankowski and Van Os, 2004; Rucht et al., 2008; Van De Donk et al., 2004; Van Os et al., 2007).

Blogs are one type of online media that are thought to serve as a forum for alternative evaluations and interpretations of relevant issues. Scholarship examining blogs regularly cites prominent instances, primarily in politics, that exemplify the important role blogs have played in shaping mainstream news media coverage. For instance, the resignation of Senator Trent Lott followed widespread blog coverage and subsequent mainstream media coverage of a racist comment he made in 2002 (Drezner and Farrell, 2004). This case highlights the fact that blogs can be important sources for sustaining attention to issues even after members of the mainstream media have dropped the story. In this way, blogs may serve a watchdog role of public authority similar to that of traditional journal-ism. In fact, much attention has been paid to the bidirectional relationship between main-stream media and blogs (Wallsten, 2007), noting that blogs can make issues relevant until

at UNIV OF TEXAS AUSTIN on April 10, 2012nms.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Cacciatore et al. 5

mainstream media take over and blog posts tend to rely heavily on traditional mass media outlets as sources (Meraz, 2009).

Alternatively, other research casts doubt on the democratizing potential of the internet. Specifically, Hindman et al. (2003) suggest that ease of retrievability of websites and information online does not beget visibility of that information. In other words, just because a person can search for multiple viewpoints about an issue, he or she may only realisti-cally run across certain themes, due in part to editorial bias imposed on search engine results (Goldman, 2008). Additionally, it has been argued that while blogging gives voice to the average internet user, very few blogs actually reach members of the public, and most are partisan in nature (Hindman, 2009). This means that popular blog content may not represent the diversity of opinions surrounding an issue. To compound this issue, traditional science journalists have been increasingly turning to blogs for ideas and have been blogging themselves (Brumfiel, 2009; Usher, 2010). This may indicate that traditional and offline media landscapes share many common journalistic aspects. Thus, it is important to compare the two landscapes. To accomplish this, we examine online search engines as disseminators of information online.

The search engine has undoubtedly asserted itself as the most useful and easily acces-sible information source for internet users when they go online. As content portals, search engines allow users access to traditional mass media content, as well as content specific to online media sources. They have the potential to reach large audiences and to help audiences understand news content by providing diverse functions, such as hyperlinks, pictures, audio and video content, dictionaries, and crowd-sourced encyclopedias. Therefore, one purpose of our study is to extend our examination of online media cover-age of nanotechnology beyond blog content, and to include search engine results in our comparison with print news media. Search engine platforms differ from traditional media sources in that they offer audiences a form of interactive communication (Gillespie, 2010), where media producers and content consumers can interact. In the current study, we compare the communication of nanotechnology in US print news media to content organ-ized by online search engines to garner a better understanding of the similarities and differences between the two.

Web search

As news consumers move to an online environment for news and information, search engines and news and blog aggregate sites have become increasingly important. In 2006, about 90% of Pew survey respondents said they would first turn to the internet and use search engines when finding more information about science topics (Horrigan, 2006). Specifically, the majority of online information seekers are turning to Google to satisfy their media consumption. As of May 2010, Google was the top US search provider, claim-ing around 65% of all internet searches; Yahoo came in second with around 14% of searches (Nielsen Wire, 2010). Although Google users are bombarded with an onslaught of information when searching specific topics (a Google search for ‘nanotechnology’ returns millions of results), most individuals rely on mental shortcuts or heuristics when making information-seeking decisions and rarely move past the first page of search results (Pan et al., 2007; Wirth et al., 2007). The shift to online information-seeking, Google’s

at UNIV OF TEXAS AUSTIN on April 10, 2012nms.sagepub.comDownloaded from

6 new media & society 0(0)

prominence in this realm, and internet users’ search habits all suggest that website content presented in initial Google search results may affect knowledge and attitudes about emerg-ing science topics such as nanotechnology. We are interested in exploring if this content is different than the one presented in traditional news media sources like newspapers. Google users who search for nanotechnology-related issues beyond the basic web search by utilizing Google News and Google Blogs (or, as it is more formally known, ‘Google Blog Search’) will encounter even more coverage that may depart from traditional media perspectives on the technology. For example, a recent report shows that Google is the most popular entry site for news sites, accounting for 30% of the news sites’ incoming traffic, and Google News is the primary driver of traffic to top news sites, such as the New York Times, ABC News, or CNN (Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism, 2011). Although less than 1% of US internet users relied on Google Blogs in 2007, this number continues to increase (Prakoso, 2011).

Nanotechnology coverage in the media

Nanotechnology in print news media

Past research has explored nanotechnology-related media coverage, particularly looking at the volume of news stories, framing, and thematic emphasis (Dudo et al., 2011; Friedman and Egolf, 2005; Gaskell et al., 2004b; Stephens, 2005; Weaver et al., 2009). Content analysis of nanotechnology news coverage has given us an overall idea of how news media have presented nanotechnology issues over time.

Media coverage of nanotechnology has increased over time – excluding a small decrease within the past 5 years – despite its relatively low levels of public visibility compared to other emerging technologies (Dudo et al., 2011; Scheufele and Lewenstein, 2005). Framing of nanotechnology in news coverage has also been examined. Research in this area has generally found the technology to be portrayed in a positive light, with stories focused on benefit-oriented perspectives (Dudo et al., 2011; Gaskell et al., 2004b; Stephens, 2005). Furthermore, scholars have analyzed thematic dimensions of nanotechnology news stories and found that themes of ‘progress’ and ‘business’ dominate the discourse (Dudo et al., 2011; Weaver et al., 2009). This indicates that news stories have largely covered the development of research as well as commercial applications of the technology. However, some thematic changes have been observed in recent years, most notably the inclusion of ‘regulation’ and ‘health’ themes in this news coverage (Dudo et al., 2011). This reflects a growing concern for nanotechnology-related health risks and subsequent policy changes pertaining to its regulation.

Nanotechnology in the online environment

Online media departs from traditional news outlets in that it allows users to actively seek out specific topics relating to an issue. Therefore, research has explored not only online nanotechnology content, but also how online users seek out that information. Indeed, online users ‘Google’ a variety of topics regarding nanotechnology. For example, in 2008 the most searched nanotechnology terms were related to ‘nanobots’, along with other prominent categories of health, applications, definitions, and research (Anderson et al., 2010). These

at UNIV OF TEXAS AUSTIN on April 10, 2012nms.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Cacciatore et al. 7

popular Google searches may indicate that online users are more interested in nanotechnol-ogy’s applications and development rather than its regulation.

An analysis of Google search results content with respect to nanotechnology has shown similar trends. In 2008, health themes related to nanotechnology dominated Google search results content (Anderson et al., 2010). Other prominent themes included technology, research, and business (Anderson et al., 2010). Interestingly, the proportion of regulation and risk content online was higher than benefit content (Anderson et al., 2010), which contrasts with the positive framing of nanotechnology in traditional news media.

Taken together, the analyses of nanotechnology in traditional news media and on the internet provide unique findings. As previously mentioned, there are discrepancies in the framing of nanotechnology issues between print and online media. In an effort to more fully understand the differences between print and online media coverage of emerging technologies, this study proposes the following research questions:

RQ1: How does the volume of nanotechnology content compare among print news media, Google News, and Google Blogs over time?

RQ2: How does thematic content of nanotechnology vary between print news and online media?

Methods

Volume of coverage

Print news media. In order to gauge the volume of nanotechnology in print news media, we relied on the LexisNexis database and searched for nanotechnology news stories in 21 American newspapers by using a simple keyword search list.1 To assess the relative volume of nanotechnology news stories compared to another scientific topic, we also searched nuclear-related news stories using a simple keyword search list. For the nano-technology searches, the keyword string consisted of (nanotechnology OR nanotech AND NOT ipod AND NOT tata AND NOT mp3).2 For nuclear energy3 story searches, the search string was (nuclear energy OR nuclear power). The search period was between January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2009. This search period was chosen to be consistent with the online media (Google News and Google Blogs) search period, which gave reli-able nanotechnology-related search results after 2004.

Online media. Similar to the print volume collection methods, we searched Google News and Google Blogs for nuclear energy and nanotechnology content from 2004 to 2009. The search strings consisted of (nanotechnology OR nanotech -ipod -tata -mp3) for nano-technology content and (‘nuclear energy’ OR ‘nuclear power’) for nuclear energy-related content. Finally, we collected results using a custom date range in Google on a yearly basis (e.g., 1/1/2004 through 12/31/2004; 1/1/2005 through 12/31/2005, etc.).

Content analysis

Print news thematic content. Our sample included nanotechnology news stories published in 21 newspapers from April 1, 2009 to August 31, 2010, which mirrors the time frame of

at UNIV OF TEXAS AUSTIN on April 10, 2012nms.sagepub.comDownloaded from

8 new media & society 0(0)

data collection for the online sample (see next section). The final sample included 155 print news stories about nanotechnology.

To examine thematic content, we used a database software program to enumerate particular thematic keywords in each news story. We explored 9 themes: business, national security, health, environment, research, risk, benefit, and uncertainty. Each theme consisted of a set of 6 root words. For example, in terms of the risk thematic dimension, our software searched news stories for the following 6 words: risk, hazard, danger, threat, harm, and exposure (see Table 1). We did not estimate intercoder reliability because computer-aided analysis provides perfect reliability.

Online thematic content. In order to analyze content in nanotechnology-related Google searches, we used a program called Result Tracker that automatically collected informa-tion on the top 32 Google results in a given search (Google restricts automatic collection after 32 results), from April 1, 2009 to August 31, 2010. We searched Google for 11 separate nanotechnology-related topics, which included ‘general nanotechnology’, ‘economy’, ‘environment’, ‘regulation’, ‘national security’, ‘health’, ‘energy’, ‘ethics’, ‘privacy’, ‘risk’ and ‘benefit’. Result Tracker performed Google inquiries that searched for ‘nano-technology OR nanotech’ as well as phrases that pertained to each of the 11 nanotechnology-related topics (see Table 2).

The website content for each search result was then analyzed by Result Tracker for the same thematic keywords that we searched for in print news media (Table 1). Because some of the thematic keywords are the same as our Google searches (e.g., a Google search for (‘nanotechnology OR nanotech’ AND health) may return content dominated by health

Table 1. Thematic content analyzed in print and online media.

Thematic category

Thematic subcategory

Root words

Societal implications

Risk Risk*, hazard*, danger*, threat*, harm*, exposure*

Benefit Benefit*, breakthrough*, promise*, advantage*, revolution*, innovation*

Uncertainty Uncertain*, unclear, unknown, inconclusive, unintended, controversy*

Policy Research Research*, findings, analysis*, study*, journal, published Regulation Regulate*, guideline*, oversight*, policy*, standard*, law* Business Business*, economy*, market*, industry*, product*,

consumer*Applications Health Health, medicine*, brain, cancer*, toxin*, asbestos Environment Environment*, pollution, pesticide*, silver, goo**, cleanup National Security Security, military, surveillance, war*, defense, terrorism*

Notes: * Denotes that multiple forms of the root word were coded. For example, data was collected for ‘hazard’, ‘hazards’, and ‘hazardous’, then summed to represent the data for the word ‘hazard*’.** This term was used to capture mentions of ‘grey goo’, the doomsday scenario whereby small self-replicating nano robots multiply exponentially and become harmful.

at UNIV OF TEXAS AUSTIN on April 10, 2012nms.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Cacciatore et al. 9

themes), we refer to all Google searches in quotations (‘’). This analysis gave us an idea of the type of content individuals are likely to encounter when they ‘Google’ nanotech-nology-related topics. We performed Google searches for each of the 11 nanotechnology-related topics once every other month from April 2009 to August 2010, excluding August and October 2009 because of missing data. We then combined results from our separate Google searches to obtain an overall picture of nanotechnology content on the Web. This left us with a total of 7 data points over the course of 18 months.

Results

Volume of coverage

Table 3 shows the amount of print news, Google News, and Google Blogs results content about nanotechnology and nuclear energy over the past six years. The amount of nuclear energy content in print news, Google News, and Google Blogs results was greater than the nanotechnology content during this period. In particular, the volume of coverage about nuclear energy in Google News results was about three times greater than its volume of coverage about nanotechnology.

Table 2. Google search queries.

Topic domain Topic subcategory

Environment PollutionCleanupGreenContamination

Health MedicineEnhancementCancerToxin

National security TerrorismMilitarySurveillance

Economy Job marketFunding

General nanotechnology Regulation Ethics Energy Privacy Risk Benefit

Note: Each topic domain and subcategory was searched in conjunction with ‘nanotechnology OR nanotech’. The sample was collected from April 2009 – August 2010.

at UNIV OF TEXAS AUSTIN on April 10, 2012nms.sagepub.comDownloaded from

10 new media & society 0(0)

Figure 1 depicts the proportional trends in news coverage of nuclear energy in print newspapers, Google News, and Google Blogs over time. In general, the volume of nuclear energy content in Google Blogs has continuously increased over time, while coverage in print newspapers and Google News peaked in 2008 and has since declined. This decline of coverage is steeper in print media than in Google News. Interestingly, the volume of content in Google Blogs has grown more than 20% per year over the sampling period. Nuclear energy content in Google News reflects the Google Blogs trend on a smaller scale until 2008, when, like print media, content starts to decline.

Figure 2 describes the change in proportions in nanotechnology coverage among print, Google News, and Google Blogs over the past six years. Similar to nuclear energy cover-age, nanotechnology coverage in Google Blogs has consistently increased during the sampling period. On the other hand, nanotechnology coverage in Google News peaked in 2007 and has since declined. Moreover, in the case of the print news media, coverage of nanotechnology experienced a steady decline from 2006 to 2009. Again, the proportion of this decline was steeper in print news media than in Google News.

0102030405060708090

100

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Rel

ativ

e Pe

rcen

tage

Cha

nge

in C

over

age

Vol

ume

Year

Google News search

Google Blog search

Print newspapers

Figure 1. A comparison of coverage volume trends of nuclear energy stories in print and online media from 2004–2009.

Table 3. Amount of coverage about nuclear energy and nanotechnology in online and print media.

Google News Google Blogs Print newspapers

Nuclear Nanotech Nuclear Nanotech Nuclear Nanotech

2004 15,500 6700 4750 3570 7738 19252005 23,700 8390 32,800 22,600 9032 19732006 357,00 10,800 99,400 61,200 10,267 21752007 40,000 12,100 169,000 110,000 9508 19112008 40,500 11,200 260,000 165,000 10,941 15582009 34,600 10,200 314,000 195,000 8137 1294Total 190,000 59,390 879,950 557,370 55,623 10,836

Note: Each medium has three different units of analysis: Print newspapers (the number of news stories), Google Blogs (the number of posts), and Google News (the number of news links).

at UNIV OF TEXAS AUSTIN on April 10, 2012nms.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Cacciatore et al. 11

Thematic content

Figures 3 and 4 depict overall thematic content in nanotechnology coverage in print news and basic Google searches, respectively. Research themes dominated print coverage of nanotechnology during the sampling period with around 6.3 research-related words per story. Health (3.8 words per story) and business (3.7 words per story) were also predomi-nant themes (Figure 3).

After aggregating all nanotechnology-related Google searches, we found that research themes are also most popular in Google search result content with about 39.7 research-related words per link. Health (32.7 words per link) and business (36.5 words per link) were also main themes found in Google search results. Interestingly, the second most common theme in online nanotechnology content was environment-related with 38.4 words

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Rel

ativ

e Pe

rcen

tage

Cha

nge

in C

over

age

Vol

ume

Year

Google News search

Google Blog search

Print newspapers

Figure 2. A comparison of coverage volume trends of nanotechnology stories in print and online media from 2004–2009.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Words/Story

Theme

Figure 3. All thematic content in print media from April 2009–August 2010.

at UNIV OF TEXAS AUSTIN on April 10, 2012nms.sagepub.comDownloaded from

12 new media & society 0(0)

per link (Figure 4). On the contrary, environment-related thematic content in print media was third least common with around 0.5 words per story.

There are both similarities and differences when looking at percentage changes in the-matic content between print and online coverage of nanotechnology over time. From April 2009 to August 2010, both print news and online media show decreases in health, research, and regulation thematic content. Environment-related thematic content also decreased in print news media by nearly 100% from April 2009 to August 2010, whereas national security, risk, benefit, and business themes vary over time. In online media, environment-related content has stayed relatively consistent over time, whereas national security, research, regulation, and business themes have all decreased. Risk-related thematic content in nano-technology Google search results increased by 80% from April to June 2009 and has since remained relatively constant. Figures 5 and 6 show relative percent changes in environ-ment- and health-related thematic content over time between print and online media.

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

Apr-09 Jun-09 Aug-09 Oct-09 Dec-09 Feb-10 Apr-10 Jun-10 Aug-10

Rel

ativ

e Pe

rcen

tage

Cha

nge

in T

hem

atic

C

onte

nt

Month

Online

Print

Figure 5. Percentage change in health thematic content in online vs. print news media.

051015202530354045

Words/Story

Theme

Figure 4. All thematic content in online media from April 2009–August 2010.

at UNIV OF TEXAS AUSTIN on April 10, 2012nms.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Cacciatore et al. 13

Discussion

The purpose of this study was two-fold. First, we wanted to compare volume of coverage of nanotechnology between traditional news media and the internet. We accomplished this by searching for nanotechnology stories in US print news media, the news-aggregating site Google News, and the blog-aggregating site Google Blogs. We contextualized our findings by comparing the volume of nanotechnology coverage to another technology with clear social implications – nuclear energy. Second, we wanted to compare thematic trends in nanotechnology coverage between traditional news and online media. We searched separate US print news media and Google search result samples for the same thematic keywords across 9 nanotechnology-related categories over a time period of 18 months. Our findings show clear differences between traditional news and online media coverage of emerging technologies, indicating that online media are providing different and new portrayals of issues rather than merely amplifying traditional US news media portrayals. These findings also provide insight into how online media may differently shape public perceptions and awareness of nanotechnology.

Before elaborating on the implications of our findings, however, it is important to discuss several limitations of our analyses. First, our trend data comparing thematic content in print and online coverage of nanotechnology consists of only 7 data points over a course of 18 months. This is because a software bug hindered data collection of some of the online nanotechnology content. Although more data points over our sampling period would have been ideal, our study still provided a comprehensive overview of nanotech-nology coverage in print news and online media over the course of more than one year. Second, a direct comparison of words per story and words per link was not possible because of length discrepancies between print and online media. The length of print journalism articles is restricted by space constraints, whereas web pages about nanotech-nology may be considerably longer and therefore contain more thematic keywords. We accounted for these two different metrics by comparing relative percentage changes in thematic content between print and online media.4

A third limitation of our study is the existence of spam blogs, which are created to drive up a site’s presence in search engine rankings. These may artificially inflate results regarding

-120

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

Apr-09 Jun-09 Aug-09 Oct-09 Dec-09 Feb-10 Apr-10 Jun-10 Aug-10

Rel

ativ

e Pe

rcen

tage

Cha

nge

in T

hem

atic

C

onte

nt

Month

Online

Print

Figure 6. Percentage change in environment thematic content in online vs. print news media.

at UNIV OF TEXAS AUSTIN on April 10, 2012nms.sagepub.comDownloaded from

14 new media & society 0(0)

the amount of online content. Nevertheless, spam blogs tend to copy content that appears on other sites. If spam blogs did appear during our analyses, it only means that the original content and accompanying portrayals of the issue under study were amplified. Importantly, some scholars have suggested that – in spite of these concerns – search engines, such as Google, are superior to traditional information databases, such as LexisNexis, in tapping the full depth of public discourse on issues (Weaver and Bimber, 2008).

Additionally, our study is somewhat limited in that we focused solely on newspapers for our analysis of traditional media coverage. Despite the fact that our study showed the obvious differences in treatments of nanotechnology between ‘traditional’ news media (newspapers) and ‘new’ media (Google News and Google Blogs), it is important to under-stand that audiences still rely on television, radio, interpersonal discussion, and other sources to learn about science and technology (Horrigan, 2006). It may prove helpful to examine media representations of nanotechnology in these other areas, as well as social networking and micro-blogging sites, such as Facebook and Twitter.

Lastly, we acknowledge that, unlike our sample of traditional print media, Google, Google News, and Google Blogs are not exclusively American-based sources. Thus, our analysis compares print media in the USA to a range of online sources that are potentially from outside of the USA. Nevertheless, our study only analyzes www.google.com, and not other variations – such as www.google.co.uk – based on English-language results. Furthermore, a recent study found that for keyword searches for nanotechnology, Google searches in the USA were proportionally higher to searches for other scientific issues, such as biofuels, than in the UK (Anderson et al., 2010). Google.com also has the largest traffic volume of any website, including Google.uk or Google.co.kr (Alexa, 2011). Together, this suggests that searches for nanotechnology are more popular in the US than in the UK. Additionally, our examination of new media includes a wide range of sources outside of traditional news media, including everything from English-language blogs authored outside of the USA to entertainment sites to news articles from, for example, the Times of India. In fact, a key difference between traditional media and new media is the existence of these alternative sources, and their potential exposure to new media audiences. Our study takes a user-based approach to the way people encounter new media information by analyzing sources that people would encounter if they searched for terms related to nanotechnology. It would be interesting for future studies to examine the differences in thematic content between elite news media and other news media on the internet.

Keeping these limitations in mind, there are a number of conclusions we can draw from our analyses. Most importantly, overall thematic content of nanotechnology coverage significantly differs between print news and online media. Specifically, individuals are much more likely to encounter environment-related thematic content when searching Google for nanotechnology than when reading US print news stories about the technology. Again, this may have impacts on perceptions of nanotechnology among online users as compared to individuals who get their science information primarily from newspapers. Furthermore, thematic content is more evenly distributed in online nanotechnology cover-age than in American newspapers. This implies that Google users are more likely to encounter different thematic dimensions of the nanotechnology discourse, which means they may gain a broader understanding of the technology. US newspaper consumers are less likely to come across nanotechnology stories (our print sample consisted of only 155 stories over

at UNIV OF TEXAS AUSTIN on April 10, 2012nms.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Cacciatore et al. 15

a course of 18 months), and these stories offer a more limited perspective since they largely focus on health, business, and research themes. This also has implications for media ‘graz-ers’ who rely on content from both online and offline platforms. In particular, the credibility and/or competence of traditional news media journalists may be questioned as ‘grazers’ continue to be met with more diverse thematic content in the online realm.

Although search engines may limit the visibility of different opinions on the internet (Hindman et al., 2003), our study found that the diversity of content for nanotechnology, a niche topic, is indeed greater online than in traditional US newspapers. Specifically, there is the possibility that the more evenly distributed thematic content in online media sources arose due to a more diverse population of content producers. Thus, future studies should explore the question of who produces online content, not only for nanotechnology, but for a host of other scientific and political topics. Moreover, it is important to garner a more nuanced understanding of the role that opinion leaders (for example, politicians and advocacy groups) can play in influencing the trajectory of nanotechnology news both online and in traditional print news formats.

Despite the greater diversity of nanotechnology content in online media, exposure to various sources does not always lead to heterogeneous perceptions among online users. While internet users have the option of exposing themselves to diverse content, research suggests that people tend to selectively expose themselves to content that is congruent with their own point of view (Iyengar and Hahn, 2009; Sunstein, 2001). Additionally, partisan blogs tend to link to other blogs that share similar stances on issues (Adamic and Glance, 2005), suggesting yet another opportunity for individuals to miss out on the diversity of opinions offered online. Moreover, online media feeds, such as Facebook and Google, are becoming more personalized, and information is administered based on users’ previous online searches and their geographical location (Pariser, 2011). There is also the possibility that search results can be manipulated, thereby threatening the diversity of sources and information found online (Vogl and Barrett, 2010).

In spite of these pessimistic views, our data show that thematic content over time varies between nanotechnology coverage in US newspapers and online media. If attention to a specific aspect of an issue wanes in traditional news media, online media coverage will not necessarily follow suit. To cite a specific nanotechnology-related example, the deaths of Chinese factory workers caused by inhalation of silver nanoparticles received more attention for a longer period of time in the online environment than in print media (Anderson et al., 2010). Online users were more likely to encounter this news story and certainly other nanotechnology-related news stories that traditional news media ignored. These unique encounters may contribute to online users’ perceptions as well as their subsequent discourse about the technology. Again, among members of the public who rely on multiple platforms, the absence of such topics in one platform relative to another may influence perceptions of credibility.

Focusing on volume of coverage trends, we found that there was considerably more coverage of nuclear energy than nanotechnology in US print news, Google News, and Google Blogs. Moreover, this difference was consistent throughout every year of our sampling period. Nuclear energy has been closely associated with a variety of social, sci-entific, and political issues, from nuclear accidents such as Chernobyl (De Boer and Catsburg, 1988) to sustainable energy production (Bickerstaff et al., 2008). It is likely that the social

at UNIV OF TEXAS AUSTIN on April 10, 2012nms.sagepub.comDownloaded from

16 new media & society 0(0)

implications of nuclear energy continually attract media and journalistic attention over time. Future research should more deeply explore comparisons between the two issues.

We also found a steady decrease of nanotechnology coverage in US print news after 2006. It is possible that this decrease in nanotechnology news can be attributed to event-driven news reporting. Between 2006 and 2009, for example, there were less nanotech-nology-related newsworthy events that drew media interests than in past years, such as the Nobel Prize for the discovery of buckyballs in 1997 (Dudo et al., 2011). It is also possible that the decrease in print nanotechnology coverage is related to the general decline of scientific coverage in American news media. The number of print science writers and reporters has decreased over the past few years (Mooney, 2008), and according to the Pew Research Center (2008), print news media tend to allot a smaller percentage of their coverage to science issues compared to other areas.

Our findings show that although Google News covers more nuclear energy and nano-technology stories than American print news media, its volume percentage change for both issues mirrors print news coverage. This suggests that print news media and Google News share similar issue-attention cycles for emerging technologies, perhaps because Google News aggregates online news articles from print news outlets. Interestingly, nuclear energy and nanotechnology coverage in Google Blogs has consistently increased over the last four years. This underscores blogs’ growing importance for audiences interested in science and science journalists who get story ideas from reading blogs. If blog content does not follow the same issue-attention cycles as traditional media, blog users may develop a different understanding of emerging technologies as compared to print news users. It suggests that news topics have a greater likelihood of maintaining coverage in blogs, even after a different issue may have taken its place in traditional news media. Moreover, it suggests that the cyclical pattern of news in traditional media formats may not be a necessity online.

While this study supports the idea that the internet can provide more diverse discourse on nanotechnology, some argue that online media do not always lead to the establishment of a new and more comprehensive public sphere. For example, Gerhards and Schafer (2010) analyzed how the internet and traditional news media presented biotechnology issues dif-ferently in terms of actors, evaluations, and frames. They found that internet coverage was more biased and less comprehensive than print media and they concluded that online communication does not make for better public spheres than more traditional news media.

These contradictory findings imply that it is not the type of media – either the internet or traditional news media – that matters for the establishment of a public sphere. Rather, it seems that well-developed public spheres are constituted based on a variety of factors, including the topic area and the actors involved. Therefore, future research should empiri-cally examine the factors that lead to the establishment of participatory public spheres. First, future research should conduct similar analyses with diverse scientific and political issues. Second, future research should pay greater attention to understanding how individu-als perceive emerging technologies on the internet and in traditional media, respectively. Survey research and experimental studies can help explain how people form opinions based on different online and offline information channels. Finally, future research should explore how online media and traditional news media influence each other in shaping public per-ceptions and discourse for nanotechnology and other scientific and political issues.

at UNIV OF TEXAS AUSTIN on April 10, 2012nms.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Cacciatore et al. 17

Conclusion

As the internet enables interactive engagement, including collaboration and sharing, it has paved the way for a new participatory culture. Online media such as blogs and social networking sites allow individuals to participate in communicating and creating content. This participatory environment has facilitated the emergence of a convergence culture (Jenkins, 2006). As individuals become involved in media content production and con-sumption, the convergence culture provides spaces for new types of media organization, product development, and relationships among users (Deuze, 2007). The convergence culture, where online media enable participation and collaboration, may help establish a new online public sphere for the expression of citizen voices.

From this perspective, the internet extends and pluralizes discourses about nanotech-nology in public spheres, and it may shape lay publics’ awareness and perceptions of the technology differently than do traditional news media. Our findings show that Google users employing basic web searches for nanotechnology-related issues are more likely to encounter a variety of thematic content related to the technology. This suggests that dis-course on emerging technologies based on an understanding of content gleaned from the internet will be richer and more balanced than discourse based solely on print news media.

Our study also found that issue-attention cycles differ between print and online media. Thematic content differed over time in newspaper coverage and Google search results of nanotechnology. The amount of news coverage for emerging technologies also differed between print news media (and by extension, Google News) and Google Blogs. Again, this suggests that media audiences will develop different perspectives of emerging tech-nologies based on their preferred media source.

Online media paint a broader picture of emerging technologies by incorporating more thematic content related to applications, policy, and social implications. Considering that individuals are becoming media ‘grazers’ and turning to multiple offline and online sources, we can expect richer public discourse of emerging technologies based on the multitude of perspectives to which individuals are now privy. As audiences gain fuller understand-ings of issues through online media, this can have impacts on education, regulatory policy and the economic growth of emerging technologies.

Funding

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation (Grants No. SES-DMR-0832760 and SES-0937591). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Notes

1. These 21 newspapers were selected to represent variation in circulation size, ownership structure, and geographic area. Based on circulation size, we divided the sample into three categories: seven large circulation newspapers (>500,000), seven medium circulation newspapers (100,000–499,999), and seven small circulation newspapers (<99,999) to represent American daily newspapers.

2. Our search strings for print and online media coverage of nanotechnology excluded the terms ‘ipod’, ‘tata’, and ‘mp3’ to avoid false positive news stories about the iPod Nano, mp3 player, and Tata Nano car.

at UNIV OF TEXAS AUSTIN on April 10, 2012nms.sagepub.comDownloaded from

18 new media & society 0(0)

3. We make our comparisons to nuclear energy because nuclear energy is a scientific issue that has been part of American media coverage for decades. Further, the debates over nuclear energy overlap with many of the social, scientific, and political issues facing nanotechnology.

4. In order to get relative percent changes in thematic content, we divided all data points by the largest data point. For example, if three print thematic data points were (June 2009 – 2 words/story), (August 2009 – 4 words/story), and (October 2009 – 8 words/story), we divided all data points by eight. This shows us that there was a 25% increase in certain thematic content from June to August 2009 and then a 50% increase from August to October 2009. By showing the thematic increases and decreases as percentages, we could then directly compare print and online media.

References

Adamic L and Glance N (2005) The political blogosphere and the 2004 US election: Divided they blog. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Link Discovery, Chicago, IL, 21–25 August 2005. New York: Communications of the ACM, 36–43.

Alexa (2011). Top Sites. Available at: http://www.alexa.com/topsites (accessed 3 December 2011).Anderson AA, Brossard D and Scheufele DA (2010) The changing information environment

for nanotechnology: Online audiences and content. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 12(4): 1083–1094.

Bickerstaff K, Lorenzoni I, Pidgeon NF, et al. (2008) Reframing nuclear power in the UK energy debate: Nuclear power, climate change mitigation and radioactive waste. Public Understanding of Science 17: 145–169.

Brossard D, Shanahan J and McComas K (2004) Are issue-cycles culturally constructed? A com-parison of French and American coverage of global climate change. Mass Communication and Society 7(3): 359–377.

Brumfiel G (2009) Supplanting the old media? Nature 458: 274–277.Cammaerts B (2008) Critiques on the participatory potentials of Web 2.0. Communication, Culture

& Critique 1: 358–377.Cammaerts B and Van Audenhove L (2005) Online political debate, unbounded citizenship, and

the problematic nature of a transnational public sphere. Political Communication 22: 179–196.Dahlgren P (2005) The Internet, public spheres, and political communication: Dispersion and

deliberation. Political Communication 22: 147–162.De Boer C and Catsburg I (1988) The impact of nuclear accidents on attitudes toward nuclear

energy. Public Opinion Quarterly 52: 254–261.Deuze M (2007) Convergence culture in the creative industries. International Journal of Cultural

Studies 10(2): 243–263.Downs A (1972) Up and down with ecology: The issue attention cycle. Public Interest 28: 38–50.Drezner D and Farrell H (2004) Web of influence. Foreign Policy 145: 32–41.Dudo A, Dunwoody A and Scheufele DA (2011) The emergence of nano news: Tracking thematic

trends and changes in US newspaper coverage of nanotechnology. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 88(1): 55–75.

Ferber D (1999) Risks and benefits – GM crops in the cross hairs. Science 286: 1662–1666.Ferree MM, Gamson WA, Gerhards J, et al. (2002) Shaping Abortion Discourse: Democracy and

the Public Sphere in Germany and the United States. New York: Cambridge University Press.Friedman SM and Egolf BP (2005) Nanotechnology risks and the media. IEEE Technology and

Society Magazine 24: 5–11.Gaskell G, Allum N, Wagner W, et al. (2004a) GM foods and the misperception of risk perception.

Risk Analysis 24: 185–194.Gaskell G, Ten Eyck T, Jackson J, et al. (2004b) From our readers: Public attitudes to nanotech in

Europe and the United States. Nature Materials 3: 496.

at UNIV OF TEXAS AUSTIN on April 10, 2012nms.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Cacciatore et al. 19

Gerhards J and Schafer MS (2010) Is the internet a better public sphere? Comparing old and new media in the USA and Germany. New Media & Society 12: 143–160.

Gillespie T (2010) The politics of ‘platforms’. New Media & Society 12: 347–364.Goldberg G (2011) Rethinking the public/virtual sphere: The problem with participation. New Media

& Society 13(5): 739–754.Goldman E (2008) Search engine bias and the demise of search engine utopianism. In: Spink A and

Zimmer M (eds) Web Search. Berlin: Springer, 121–133.Hindman M (2009) The Myth of Digital Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Hindman M, Tsioutsiouliklis K and Johnson JA (2003) Googlearchy: How a few heavily-linked

sites dominate politics on the web. Paper presented to the Midwest Political Science Association. Available at: http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~kt/mpsa03.pdf (accessed 16 August 2011).

Horrigan JB (2006) The Internet as a resource for news and information about science. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project.

Iyengar S and Hahn K (2009) Red media, blue media: Evidence of ideological selectivity in media use. Journal of Communication 59: 19–39.

Jankowski NW and Van Os R (2004) Internet-based political discourse: A case study of electronic democracy in Hoogeveen. In: Shane P (ed.) Democracy Online: The Prospects for Political Renewal through the Internet. London: Routledge, 181–194.

Jenkins H (2006) Convergence Culture. New York: New York University Press.Jones J and Himelboim I (2010) Just a guy in pajamas? Framing the blogs in mainstream US news-

paper coverage (1999–2005). New Media & Society 12: 271–288.Kenix LJ (2009) Blogs as alternative. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication 14(4): 790–822.Meraz S (2009) Is there an elite hold? Traditional media to social media agenda setting influence

in blog networks. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication 14: 682–707.Mooney C (2008) The science writer’s lament. Available at: http://scienceprogress.org/2008/10/

the-science-writers-lament/ (accessed 29 October 2008).National Nanotechnology Initiative (2010) Research and development leading to a revolution in

technology and industry: Supplement to the President’s FY 2011 budget. Available at: https://engineering.purdue.edu/nanotrees/files/NNI_2011_budget_supplement.pdf (accessed 10 February 2010).

National Science Board (2010) Science and engineering indicators. Available at: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind10/ (accessed 31 January 2010).

Nielsen Wire (2010) Top U.S. search sites for May 2010. Available at: http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/top-u-s-search-sites-for-may-2010/ (accessed 17 June 2010).

Nisbet MC and Huge M (2006) Attention cycles and frames in the plant biotechnology debate – managing power and participation through the press/policy connection. Harvard International Journal of Press-politics 11: 3–40.

Pan B, Hembrooke H, Joachims T, et al. (2007) In Google we trust: Users’ decisions on rank, posi-tion, and relevance. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication 12: 801–823.

Papacharissi Z (2002) The virtual sphere: The Internet as a public sphere. New Media & Society 4(1): 9–27.

Papacharissi Z (2004) Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New Media & Society 6(2): 259–283.

Pariser E (2011) The Filter Bubble: What the Internet Is Hiding from You. New York: The Penguin Press.

Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism (2010) The state of the news media: An annual report on American journalism. Available at: http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2010/index.php (accessed 15 March 2010).

Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism (2011) Google drives most users. Available at: http://www.journalism.org/analysis_report/google_drives_most_users (accessed 19 May 2010).

at UNIV OF TEXAS AUSTIN on April 10, 2012nms.sagepub.comDownloaded from

20 new media & society 0(0)

Pew Research Center (2008) Audience segments in a changing news environment: Key news audi-ences now blend traditional and online sources. Available at: http://www.people-press.org/2008/08/17/key-news-audiences-now-blend-online-and-traditional-sources/ (accessed 17 August 2008).

Prakoso A (2011) Google blog search – how your blog can be found by more than 21,000 people at once. Available at: http://www.makemoneyblogguide.com/google-blog-search-how-your-blog-can-be-found-by-more-than-21000-people-at-once/ (accessed 16 August 2011).

Rucht D, Yang M and Zimmermann A (2008) Politische Diskurse im Internet und in Zeitungen [Political discourse online and in newspapers]. Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag.

Satterfield T, Kandlikarm M, Beaudrie CEH, et al. (2009) Anticipating the perceived risk of nano-technologies. Nature Nanotechnology 4: 752–758.

Scheufele DA and Lewenstein BV (2005) The public and nanotechnology: How citizens make sense of emerging technologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 7(6): 659–667.

Scheufele DA and Tewksbury D (2007) Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The evolution of three media effects models. Journal of Communication 57(1): 9–20.

Shih TJ, Wijaya R and Brossard D (2008) Media coverage of public health epidemics: Linking framing and issue attention cycle toward an integrated theory of print news coverage of epidem-ics. Mass Communication and Society 11(2): 141–160.

Sjoberg L (2004) Principles of risk perception applied to gene technology. EMBO Reports 5: S47–S51.Stephens LF (2005) News narratives about nano S&T in major US and non-US newspapers. Science

Communication 27: 175–199.Sunstein C (2001) Republic.com. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Usher N (2010) Goodbye to the news: How out-of-work journalists assess enduring news values

and the new media landscape. New Media & Society 12: 911–928.Van De Donk W, Loader BD, Nixon PG, et al. (2004) Cyberprotest: New Media, Citizens, and

Social Movements. London: Routledge.Van Os R, Jankowski N and Vergeer M (2007) Political communication about Europe on the Internet

during the 2004 European Parliament election campaign in nine EU member states. European Societies 9: 755–775.

Vogl P and Barrett M (2010) Regulating the information gatekeepers. Communications of the ACM 53(11): 67–72.

Wallsten K (2007) Agenda setting and the blogosphere: An analysis of the relationship between mainstream media and political blogs. Review of Policy Research 24: 567–587.

Weaver DA and Bimber B (2008) Finding news stories: A comparison of searches using LexisNexis and Google News. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 85(3): 515–530.

Weaver DA, Lively E and Bimber B (2009) Searching for a frame: News media tell the story of technological progress, risk, and regulation. Science Communication 31: 139–166.

Wirth W, Bocking T, Karnowski V, et al. (2007) Heuristic and systematic use of search engines. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication 12: 778–800.

Michael A. Cacciatore is a PhD candidate in the Department of Life Sciences Communi-cation at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. His research interests include risk communication and attitudes toward new technologies, including nanotechnology and alternative energies.

Ashley A. Anderson is a PhD candidate in the Department of Life Sciences Communi-cation at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. Her research focuses on public opinion and public deliberation about emerging science and technology issues.

at UNIV OF TEXAS AUSTIN on April 10, 2012nms.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Cacciatore et al. 21

Doo-Hun Choi is a PhD candidate in the Department of Life Sciences Communication at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. His research focuses on the interplay of sci-ence, media, and society.

Dominique Brossard is an associate professor and Director of Undergraduate Studies in the Department of Life Sciences Communication at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. She is also a faculty affiliate of the UW–Madison Robert and Jean Holtz Center for Science and Technology Studies. Her research broadly focuses on the intersection between science, media and the public and on the understanding of public opinion dynamics in the context of controversial science.

Dietram A. Scheufele is the John E. Ross Chaired Professor in Science Communication and Director of Graduate Studies in the Department of Life Sciences Communication at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. His work focuses on public opinion, political communication, and public attitudes toward new technologies, including nanotechnol-ogy, stem cell research, and genetically modified organisms.

Xuan Liang is a Ph.D candidate in the Department of Life Sciences Communication at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. Her research focuses on the communication dynam-ics surrounding emerging technologies, especially how online media influence public understanding and public attitudes toward nanotechnology.

Peter J. Ladwig is a recent graduate from the University of Wisconsin–Madison. He researches the role that blogs and comment postings play in shaping attitudes about emerging technologies.

Michael Xenos is an associate professor in the department of Communication Arts and Director of the Center for Communication Research at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. He has research interests in political communication, science communication, democratic deliberation, public opinion, and civic engagement.

Anthony Dudo is an assistant professor in the department of Advertising at the University of Texas–Austin. His research examines the intersection of science, media, and society. He is particularly interested in media representations of science and environmental issues, scientists’ public communication activities and interactions with journalists and strategic communicators, and the effects of informational and entertainment media on public understanding of science

at UNIV OF TEXAS AUSTIN on April 10, 2012nms.sagepub.comDownloaded from