Interdisciplinary Health Research Group, University of Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Public Underst Sci. 2010 Jan;19(1):34-51. doi: 10.1177/0963662508088668.
While the media are a significant source of information for the public on science and technology, journalists are often accused of providing only a partial picture by neglecting the points of view of vulnerable stakeholders. This paper analyzes the press coverage of four controversial health interventions in order to uncover what voices are treated marginally in the media and what the relative contributions of these voices are to the stories being told. Our empirical study shows that: 1) patterns of source utilization vary depending on the health intervention and less dominant stakeholders are in fact represented; and 2) the use of marginal voices fills certain information gaps but the overall contribution of such voices to the controversies remains limited. In order to strengthen the media coverage of science and technology issues, we suggest that further research on journalistic practices: 1) move beyond the dichotomy between journalists and scientists, and 2) explore how different categories of readers appraise the meaning and relevance of media content.
虽然媒体是公众获取科学技术信息的重要来源，但新闻记者经常因忽视弱势利益相关者的观点而被指责只提供片面的信息。本文分析了媒体对四项有争议的健康干预措施的报道，以揭示媒体对哪些声音边缘化处理，以及这些声音对所讲述的故事有何相对贡献。我们的实证研究表明：1）信息来源的使用模式因健康干预措施而异，实际上确实存在弱势利益相关者的声音；2）边缘化声音的使用填补了某些信息空白，但这些声音对争议的总体贡献仍然有限。为了加强对科学技术问题的媒体报道，我们建议进一步研究新闻实践：1）超越记者和科学家之间的二分法；2）探索不同类别的读者如何评估媒体内容的意义和相关性。
