Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Public Understanding of Science
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
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 arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Goodman, J. R.
Right arrow Articles by Goodman, B. P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Beneficial or biohazard? How the media frame biosolids

J. Robyn Goodman

University of Florida; USA,rgoodman{at}jou.ufl.edu

Brett P. Goodman

Environmental group for Gainesville Regional Utilities’ water/wastewater engineering department, USA

This study looked at how the media framed biosolids, or treated sewage sludge, from 1994 to 2004 by analyzing the 13 media frames found in 286 biosolid-related articles from newspapers in Florida, Virginia, and California. The researchers found the articles framed biosolids as a regulatory or legal issue most often, and most of the frames’ tones were neutral (1,958). However, negative tone (507) happened three times more often than positive tone (149), and environmental, management, and public nuisance framing tended to be more negative than any of the other frames. Neither the frames themselves nor the tones had statistically significant changes over the past decade. Regarding the sources used in the stories, the most frequent source was local government officials, which were used twice as frequently as any other source, followed by corporations (16 percent) and citizens (14 percent). These findings should help biosolid producers and officials in developing a media strategy that is proactive toward shaping public opinion rather than reactive to an issue that makes its way to the media and spurs public concern.

Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 15, No. 3, 359-375 (2006)
DOI: 10.1177/0963662506062468
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?