Public Understanding of Science

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to register today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Friedman, S M
Right arrow Articles by Egolf, B P
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 1, No. 3, 305-323 (1992)
DOI: 10.1088/0963-6625/1/3/005
© 1992 SAGE Publications

Chernobyl coverage: How the US media treated the nuclear industry

S M Friedman

Lehigh University, USA

C M Gorney

Lehigh University, USA

B P Egolf

Lehigh University, USA

This study attempted to uncover whether enough background information about nuclear power and the nuclear industries in the USA, USSR and Eastern and Western Europe had been included during the first two weeks of US coverage of the Chernobyl accident so that Americans would not be misled in their understanding of and attitudes toward nuclear power in general. It also sought to determine if reporters took advantage of the Chernobyl accident to attack nucleartechnology or the nuclear industry in general. Coverage was analysed in five US newspapers and on the evening newscasts of thethree major US television networks. Despite heavy coverage of the accident, no more than 25% of the coverage was devoted to information on safety records, history of accidents and current status of nuclear industries. Not enough information was providedto help the public's level of understanding of nuclear power or to put the Chernobyl accident in context. However, articles and newscasts generally balanced use of pro- and anti-nuclear statements, and did not include excessive amounts of fear-inducing and negative information.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Science CommunicationHome page
R. A. LOGAN
Science Mass Communication: Its Conceptual History
Science Communication, December 1, 2001; 23(2): 135 - 163.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Science CommunicationHome page
R. A. LOGAN, P. ZENGJUN, and N. F. WILSON
Science and Medical Coverage in the Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post: A Six-Year Perspective
Science Communication, September 1, 2000; 22(1): 5 - 26.
[Abstract] [PDF]