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
Right arrow Citation Map
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 HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Long, M.
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?

Scientific explanation in US newspaper science stories

Marilee Long

Department of Technical Journalism, C-225 Clark Building, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA

Mass media are important sources of science information for many adults. However, this study, which reports a content analysis of science stories in 100 US newspapers, found that while 70 newspapers carried science stories, the majority of these stories contained little scientific explanation. Ten percent or less of content was comprised of elucidating (definitions of terms) and/or quasi-scientific explanations (explications of relationships among scientific concepts). The study also investigated the effect of production-based variables on scientific explanation. Stories in feature and science sections contained more explanation than did stories in news sections, perhaps indicating that science stories in feature and science sections have more of an explanatory mission. Additionally, the more time a writer had to compose a story, the more explanation in the story. This result suggests that writing explanations is cognitively demanding. Interestingly, longer stories did not contain significantly more scientific explanation than shorter stories.

Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 4, No. 2, 119-130 (1995)
DOI: 10.1088/0963-6625/4/2/002
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?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Public Understanding of ScienceHome page
B. Leon
Science related information in European television: a study of prime-time news
Public Understanding of Science, October 1, 2008; 17(4): 443 - 460.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Communication ResearchHome page
R. A. Yaros
Is It the Medium or the Message? Structuring Complex News to Enhance Engagement and Situational Understanding by Nonexperts
Communication Research, August 1, 2006; 33(4): 285 - 309.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Public Understanding of ScienceHome page
R. Dingwall and M. Aldridge
Television wildlife programming as a source of popular scientific information: a case study of evolution
Public Understanding of Science, April 1, 2006; 15(2): 131 - 152.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Public Understanding of ScienceHome page
S. P. Norris, L. M. Phillips, and C. A. Korpan
University Students' Interpretation of Media Reports of Science and its Relationship to Background Knowledge, Interest, and Reading Difficulty
Public Understanding of Science, April 1, 2003; 12(2): 123 - 145.
[PDF]

Home page
 Public Understanding of ScienceHome page
M. G. Pellechia
Trends in science coverage: a content analysis of three US newspapers
Public Understanding of Science, January 1, 1997; 6(1): 49 - 68.
[Abstract] [PDF]