Stories about villains, mad scientists and failure: patterns of evidence criticism in media coverage of genomic research

Journalism is expected to cover science objectively as well as critically. New findings and limitations of studies should be part of science news. Since journalists discuss the limitations of studies as well as problematic results for non-expert audiences, they are constrained to transform criticism of scientific evidence according to media logics and the common sense of a public at large. The presentation of an understandable and convincing narrative is one way to question the findings of studies and to present problematic research. A hermeneutic analysis of press articles on genomic research shows how critical articles make intensive use of storytelling, a strategy well-established in journalism. To unmask problematic research, the articles use personalization, stereotyping and narrativization: The long process of research is condensed to actions of single persons; conflict is accentuated; common negative stereotypes (the “mad scientist”, the “sinister manager” or the “corrupt and greedy company”) are applied; and variations of mythological stories are presented (e.g. the punishment of human hubris, the interference with divine creation, the revenge of nature). References to the seven deadly sins and biblical language are a recurring theme. In sum, these rhetorical strategies question and distract from the scientific evidence and underline ethical positions against genomic research

Health communication through media narratives: factors, processes, and effects - introduction

Narrative health communication is a form of persuasive communication in which a health message is presented in the form of a fictional or nonfictional story, as opposed to being presented as statistical evidence or arguments to promote health-related behaviors. Recently, meta-analyses have been conducted on the effectiveness of narrative health communication; however, systematic research is still needed to further the understanding of the mechanics underlying the effects of health narratives. Addressing this gap, this Special Section provides a synthesis of knowledge and direction in the field of narrative health communication, bringing together 10 original research articles. The reported studies investigate experiences mediating the effect of narratives on health outcomes, as well as the role of moderating factors, such as cultural background, form, content, and context-related features. All 10 studies reported here have important implications for the theory of narrative processing and effects, and they are instrumental to the practice of designing effective health communication messages

The Emotional Effects of Science Narratives: A Theoretical Framework

Stories have long been discussed as a tool to make science accessible to the public. The potential of stories to stimulate emotions in their audiences makes them an emotional communication strategy par excellence. While studies exist that test the effects of stories in science communication on the one hand and the effects of emotions on the other hand, there is no systematic elaboration of the mechanisms through which stories in science communication evoke emotions and how these emotions influence outcomes such as knowledge gain and attitude change. In this article, we develop a theoretical framework of the “Emotional Effects of Science Narratives” (EESN-Model), which includes a typology of emotions likely to arise from reading science communication as well as mechanisms for each of the emotions to evoke the (desired) outcomes. The model serves as a heuristic to delineate the emotional effects of narratives in science coverage and will help guide research in this domain to provide a deeper understanding of the role of emotion in science news

Covid-19 Research in Alternative News Media: Evidencing and Counterevidencing Practices

The Covid-19 pandemic has been accompanied by an excess of accurate and inaccurate information (infodemic) that has prevented people from finding reliable guidance in decision-making. Non-professional but popular science communicators—some with a political agenda—supply the public with scientific knowledge regarding Covid-19. This kind of communication represents a worrisome force in societal discourses on science-related political issues. This article explores online content (N = 108 articles) of two popular German “alternative news” media (NachDenkSeiten and PI News) that present and evaluate biomedical research concerning Covid-19. Using thematic analysis, we investigated how scientific evidence was presented and questioned. Regarding the theoretical background, we drew on the concept of “evidencing practices” and ideas from argumentation theory. More specifically, we studied the use of the following three evidencing and counterevidencing practices: references to Data/Methods, references to Experts/Authorities, and Narratives. The results indicate that the studied alternative news media generally purport to report on science using the same argumentation mechanisms as those employed in science journalism in legacy media. However, a deeper analysis reveals that argumentation directions mostly follow preexisting ideologies and political agendas against Covid-19 policies, which leads to science coverage that contradicts common epistemic authorities and evidence. Finally, we discuss the possible implications of our findings for audience views and consider strategies for countering the rejection of scientific evidence

Evidence-based health information about pulmonary embolism: assessing the quality, usability and readability of online and offline patient information

Objective Pulmonary embolism (PE) is the third most common cardiovascular disease worldwide. However, public awareness is considerably lower than for myocardial infarction or stroke. Patients suffering from PE complain about the lack of (understandable) information and express high informational needs. To uncover if reliable information is indeed scarce, this study evaluates the quantity and quality of existing patient information for tertiary prevention using an evidence-based health information paradigm. Methods We conducted a quantitative content analysis (n = 21 patient information brochures; n = 67 websites) evaluating content categories addressed, methodical quality, usability, and readability. Results Results show that there is not enough patient information material focusing on PE as a main topic. Existing patient information material is mostly incomplete, difficult to understand, and low in actionability as well as readability. Conclusion Our systematic analysis reveals the need for more high-quality patient information on PE as part of effective tertiary prevention. Innovation This is the first review analyzing content, methodical quality, readability, and usability of patient information on PE. The findings of this analysis are guiding the development of an innovative, evidence-based patient information on PE aiming to support patients’ informational needs and their self-care behavior

Discursive resilience – countering polarization and fragmentation in (social) media discourse

In contemporary digitalized media environments, the interaction between technologies and user practices can lead to polarization, fragmentation, and radicalization of the media discourse. We argue that these issues require efforts to strengthen ‘discursive resilience’, which we define as the capacity of the discourse on digital platforms or (social) media and its participants to cope with polarization, fragmentation, and radicalization, and to adapt and transform its capacities, procedures, and structures in anticipation of these issues. In this contribution, we propose three strategies to counter such threats and build discursive resilience: diagnosis of risks and vulnerabilities, user literacy in digital media environments, and platform regulation and self-management

Introduction

UID/SOC/04647/2013publishersversionpublishe