Uses of expertise: sources, quotes, and voice in the reporting of genetics in the news
Uses of expertise: sources, quotes, and voice in the reporting of genetics in the news
复制标题
DOI：
10.1088/0963-6625/8/4/302
复制
发表时间：
1999-10-01
影响因子：
4.1
通讯作者：
Conrad, P
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Conrad, P
科学记者呼吁专家提供背景资料，并对科学结局进行澄清和评论。本文探讨了科学作家如何选择和使用专家，并重点介绍了几个关于遗传学和行为的报道案例。我们的研究包括两个数据来源：对15名科学记者的采访和三个关于遗传和行为的印刷媒体样本-酗酒（1980-1995年），同性恋（1993 - 1995年）和精神疾病（1970-1995年）。科学记者几乎为每个故事寻找相关和具体的专家。好的消息来源知识渊博，与著名机构有联系，直接而清晰，不会夸大陈述，他们会回电话。平均每个故事引用的专家数量为2.8，不同的是酗酒（3.5），同性恋（2.8）和精神疾病（2.6）。研究人员和科学家在引用的专家中占主导地位。引用被用来提供背景，给予合法性，作为解释，提供一种平衡，并概述含义。对于同性恋样本，引用活动家和倡导者的比例明显更高（21%，而其他样本中为5%和1%，X-2 < 0.0001）。关于酗酒和精神疾病的“外行”引用很少。除了同性恋，其倡导者是有组织的，那些“受影响”的人在遗传学新闻报道中没有发言权。
Science journalists call upon experts for background and for clarification and comment on scientific Endings. This paper examines how science writers choose and use experts, and it focuses on several cases of reporting about genetics and behavior. Our research included two sources of data: interviews with 15 science reporters and three print media samples of coverage of genetics and behavior-alcoholism (between 1980-1995), homosexuality (in 1993 and 1995), and mental illness (between 1970-1995). Science reporters seek relevant and specific experts for nearly every story. Good sources are knowledgeable, are connected to prestigious institutions, are direct and articulate and don't overqualify statements, and they return phone calls. The mean number of experts quoted was 2.8 per story, differing for alcoholism (3.5), homosexuality (2.8), and mental illness (2.6). Researchers and scientists predominated among experts quoted. Quotes were used to provide context, give legitimization, as explication, to provide a kind of balance, and to outline implications. For the homosexuality sample, a significantly greater percentage of activists and advocates were quoted (21 percent compared with 5 percent and 1 percent in other samples, X-2 < 0.0001). "Lay" quotes for alcoholism and mental illness were minimal. Except for homosexuality, whose advocates are organized, those "affected" do not have a voice in genetics news stories.