MESSENGER was a 12-month project funded by the European Union under the 'Science and Society' section of the Sixth Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development. It is being undertaken by the Oxford-based Social Issues Research Centre(SIRC) in partnership with theAmsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR).
The SIRC team:
Dr Peter Marsh (project coordinator), Simon Bradley (project
coordinator), Francesca Kenny (senior research associate), Carole
Love, Elanor Taylor, Zoe Khor, Patrick Alexander, Kate Kingsbury,
Jeanne Feaux Croix, Natalia Lorenzoni, Gurval Durand, Ivan
Costantino, Emilie Fergusson, Mauro Sarrica, Patrizia Bassini,
Nadine Beckman.
The ASCoR team:
Dr. Otto Scholten (supervision & research), Dr. Peter Vasterman
(supervision & research), Dr. Nel Ruigrok (content analysis),
Christine Pawlata (content analysis), Annemiek Verbeek
(interviews key-persons), Sacha Wamsteker (interviews
key-persons).
Copies of this report and all associated materials can be viewed and downloaded from the project website at:
http://www.sirc.org/messenger
The SIRC team:
Dr Peter Marsh (project coordinator), Simon Bradley (project
coordinator), Francesca Kenny (senior research associate), Carole
Love, Elanor Taylor, Zoe Khor, Patrick Alexander, Kate Kingsbury,
Jeanne Feaux Croix, Natalia Lorenzoni, Gurval Durand, Ivan
Costantino, Emilie Fergusson, Mauro Sarrica, Patrizia Bassini,
Nadine Beckman.
The ASCoR team:
Dr. Otto Scholten (supervision & research), Dr. Peter Vasterman
(supervision & research), Dr. Nel Ruigrok (content analysis),
Christine Pawlata (content analysis), Annemiek Verbeek
(interviews key-persons), Sacha Wamsteker (interviews
key-persons).
Copies of this report and all associated materials can be viewed and downloaded from the project website at:
http://www.sirc.org/messenger
Output of the Messenger project:
The ASCoR project:
3.9 The ASCoR media analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
3.9.1 Evaluating the news media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
3.9.1.1 Media criticised . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
3.9.1.2 Criticism criticized . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
Operational modes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
Social amplification of risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .128
Risk perception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .129
Framing risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
3.9.2 Evaluation criteria for risk coverage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
3.9.3 Content analysis to explore evaluation criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . .131
3.9.4 A typical example? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
3.9.5 Introduction to UMTS and FP pollution as risk issues . . . . . . 133
3.9.5.1 UMTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
3.9.5.2 Fine particle pollution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .134
3.9.6 Hypothesis content analysis UMTS and FPP . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
3.9.7 Methodology of content analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
UMTS sample. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .137
FPP sample. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
3.9.8 Results of the quantitative content analysis of newspapers . . 141
3.9.8.1 Sources in the news on UMTS and FPP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
Quotes and paraphrases. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .141
3.9.8.2 Subject or object position. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 143
3.9.8.3 Defining power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
Summary actors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .148
3.9.8.4 Issues in the news . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
Actors and issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
Conclusions – actors and issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .153
3.9.8.5 How do the media evaluate the different actors? . . . . . . . . 154
3.9.9 Frames in the coverage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
3.9.9.1 Operational questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 157
3.9.9.2 Results of the analysis of frames in the coverage. . . . . . . . . 158
3.9.9.3 Summary: framing UMTS and FPP . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 161
3.9.10 Whose language is being used?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
3.9.11 The TNO study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
3.9.12 Content analysis conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
3.9.12.1 Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
3.9.12.2 Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
3.9.12.3 Media and actors . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
3.9.12.4 Frames. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
3.9.12.5 Language and scientific information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 165
Second Part ASCoR
4.3 Course materials for journalists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
4.3.1 Self-instruction course in Risk Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
4.3.2 Reporting on Risk Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 184
4.3.2.1 Risk Communication Basics . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
4.3.2.2 Risk Assessment Basics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
4.3.2.3 Reporting Health Risk Stories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
4.3.2.4 Some fragments from Risk Communication Basics. . . . . . . 185
Outrage Factors.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . 185
Risk Communication Guidelines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
Helping the Audience Evaluate Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 186
Risk Comparisons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
4.3.3 Power lines as health issue . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
4.3.3.1 Excerpt from the simulation Power lines as health issue . . 187
4.3.4 Risk Communication Literature Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
