I just skimmed through, at the urging of USA Today‘s Dan Vergano (hat tip to him), a long analysis of how UK and US media handled nanotechnology and its potential environmental and health hazards, based on a look at stories in popular, general interest news outlets from 2000 to 2009. It is in the current issue of the journal Risk Analysis, by longtime and respected science journalism dissector Sharon Friedman at Lehigh University and a colleague there, Brenda P. Egolf. The conclusion, broadly speaking, is that in both countries coverage has been sparse on the risk side of the nano-revolution, with most stories more boosterish. They also complain that the news stories were discrete – that is, focussed on separate news developments, not overall themes. Hmm. That’s news for you. But more important is its observation that should something go seriously wrong and be blamed on nanotechnology, a public caught unaware that it has been at risk the whole time will not be forgiving.
It has, Vergano noticed, a melancholy fact toward the very end, in a footnote, to a remark that the UK media are more likely to report deeply on nanotech perils than are US outlets. The reason is a sidelong indicator of the changes that have overwhelmed US media in that period. It is worth sharing that footnote in its entirety:
5Almost all of the U.S. science writers who wrote the nanotechnology
articles in this study were no longer with their newspapers or
wire services in 2009.
‘Nuff said. The entire article, again, I did not read with great care. It does merit a closer look by anyone wanting to see how media looks when given the once-over by thorough academic minds.
– Charlie Petit
Leave a Reply