Are Experts (News)Worthy? Balance, Conflict, and Mass Media Coverage of Expert Consensus

References

• Albæk, E. (2011). The interaction between experts and journalists in news journalism. Journalism, 12(3), 335–348. doi:10.1177/1464884910392851
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Albæk, E., Christiansen, P. M., & Togeby, L. (2003). Experts in the mass media: Researchers as sources in Danish Daily Newspapers, 1961–2001. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 80(4), 937–948. doi:10.1177/107769900308000412
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allgaier, J. (2011). Who is having a voice? Journalists’ selection of sources in a creationism controversy in the UK press. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 6, 445–467. doi:10.1007/s11422-011-9319-5
   Google Scholar
• Altman, D. G. (1991). Practical statistics for medical research. London, UK: Chapman & Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Anderegg, W. R., Prall, J. W., Harold, J., & Schneider, S. H. (2010). Expert credibility in climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(27), 12107–12109. doi:10.1073/pnas.1003187107
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bagdikian, B. (2004). The new media monopoly. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bennett, W. L. (1990). Toward a theory of press-state relations. Journal of Communication, 40(2), 103–125. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1990.tb02265.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bennett, W. L. (2007). News: The politics of illusion (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Pearson Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Boykoff, M. T., & Boykoff, J. M. (2004). Balance as bias: Global warming and the US prestige press. Global Environmental Change, 14(2), 125–136. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2003.10.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boykoff, M. T., & Boykoff, J. M. (2007). Climate change and journalistic norms: A case-study of US mass-media coverage. Geoforum, 38(6), 1190–1204. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2007.01.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clarke, C. E., Dixon, G. N., Holton, A., & McKeever, B. W. (2015). Including ‘evidentiary balance’ in news media coverage of vaccine risk. Health Communication, 30(5), 461–472. doi:10.1080/10410236.2013.867006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, G. L. (2003). Party over policy: The dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(5), 808–822. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.808
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conrad, P. (1999). Uses of expertise: Sources, quotes, and voice in reporting of genetics in the news. Public Understanding of Science, 8, 285–302. doi:10.1088/0963-6625/8/4/302
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dearing, J. W. (1995). Newspaper coverage of maverick science: Creating controversy through balancing. Public Understanding of Science, 4(4), 341–361. doi:10.1088/0963-6625/4/4/002
   Google Scholar
• Dunwoody, S. (1999). Scientists, journalists, and the meaning of uncertainty. In S. M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, & C. L. Rogers (Eds.), Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science (pp. 59–80). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Feldman, L., Maibach, E. W., Roser-Renouf, C., & Leiserowitz, A. (2012). Climate on cable: The nature and impact of global warming coverage on Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 17(1), 3–31. doi:10.1177/1940161211425410
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fuller, D., & Geide-Stevenson, D. (2003). Consensus among economists: Revisited. The Journal of Economic Education, 34(4), 369–387. doi:10.1080/00220480309595230
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giannoulis, C., Botetzagias, I., & Skanavis, C. (2010). Newspaper reporters’ priorities and beliefs about environmental journalism: An application of Q-methodology. Science Communication, 32(4), 425–466. doi:10.1177/1075547010364927
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grimmer, J., & Stewart, B. (2013). Text as data: The promise and pitfalls of automatic content analysis methods for political texts. Political Analysis, 21(3), 267–297. doi:10.1093/pan/mps028
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gwet, K. L. (2014). Handbook of inter-rater reliability: The definitive guide to measuring the extent of agreement among raters (4th ed.). Gaithersburg, MD: Advanced Analytics.
   Google Scholar
• Hilgartner, S., & Bosk, C. L. (1988). The rise and fall of social problems: A public arenas model. American Journal of Sociology, 94(1), 53–78. doi:10.1086/228951
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iyengar, S. (1991). Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Johnston, C. D., & Ballard, A. O. (2016). Economists and public opinion: Expert consensus and economic policy judgments. The Journal of Politics, 78(2), 443–456. doi:10.1086/684629
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahan, D. M., Jenkins-Smith, H., & Braman, D. (2012). Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. Journal of Risk Research, 14, 147–174. doi:10.1080/13669877.2010.511246
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koehler, D. J. (2016). Can journalistic ‘false balance’ distort public perception of consensus in expert opinion? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 22(1), 24–38. doi:10.1037/xap0000073
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lacy, S., Watson, B. R., Riffe, D., & Lovejoy, J. (2015). Issues and best practices in content analysis. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 92(4), 791–811. doi:10.1177/1077699015607338
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levendusky, M. (2013). How partisan media polarize America. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lewandowsky, S., Gilles, E. G., & Vaughan, S. (2012). The pivotal role of perceived scientific consensus in acceptance of science. Nature Climate Change, 3, 399–404. doi:10.1038/nclimate1720
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewandowsky, S., & Oberauer, K. (2016). Motivated rejection of science. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25(4), 217–222. doi:10.1177/0963721416654436
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lupia, A. (1994). Shortcuts versus encyclopedias: Information and voting behavior in California insurance reform elections. American Political Science Review, 88, 63–76. doi:10.2307/2944882
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merkley, E., & Stecula, D. A. (2018). Party elites or manufactured doubt? The informational context of climate change polarization. Science Communication, 40(2), 258–274. doi:10.1177/1075547018760334
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mondak, J. J. (1993). Public opinion and heuristic processing of source cues. Political Behavior, 15(2), 167–192. doi:10.1007/BF00993852
   Google Scholar
• Nicolia, A., Manzo, A., Veronesi, F., & Rosellini, D. (2014). An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research. Critical Reviews in Biotechnology, 34(1), 77–88. doi:10.3109/07388551.2013.823595
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peters, H. P. (2008). Scientists as public experts. In M. Bucchi & B. Trench (Eds.), Handbook of public communication of science and technology (pp. 131–146). London, UK: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Pew Research Center. (2015). Public and scientists’ views on science and society. Retrieved from http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2015/01/PI_ScienceandSociety_Report_012915.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Prior, M. (2013). Media and political polarization. Annual Review of Political Science, 16(1), 101–127. doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-100711-135242
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rödder, S., & Schäfer, M. S. (2010). Repercussion and resistance: An empirical study on the interrelation between science and the mass media. Communications, 35, 249–267. doi:10.1515/comm.2010.014
   Google Scholar
• Sapienza, P., & Zingales, L. (2013). Economic experts versus average Americans. American Economic Review, 103(3), 636–642. doi:10.1257/aer.103.3.636
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schudson, M. (1978). Discovering the news. New York, NY: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Shoemaker, P. J., & Reese, S. D. (2014). Mediating the message in the 21st century: A media sociology perspective. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Stecula, D. A., & Merkley, E. (2019). Framing climate change: Economics, ideology, and uncertainty in American news media content from 1988 to 2014. Frontiers in Communication, 4. doi:10.3389/fcomm.2019.00006
   Google Scholar
• Stocking, S. H. (1999). How journalists deal with scientific uncertainty. In S. M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, & C. L. Rogers (Eds.), Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science (pp. 23–42). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Trumbo, C. (1996). Constructing climate change: Claims and frames in U.S. news coverage of an environmental issue. Public Understanding of Science, 5(3), 269–283. doi:10.1088/0963-6625/5/3/006
   Google Scholar
• Van der Linden, S. L., Leiserowitz, A. A., Feinberg, G. D., & Maibach, E. W. (2015). The scientific consensus on climate change as a gateway belief: Experimental evidence. PLoS One, 10(2), e0118489. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0118489
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whaples, R. (2009). The policy views of American Economic Association members: The results of a new survey. Economic Journal Watch, 6(3), 337–348.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilkins, L., & Patterson, P. (1991). Risky business: Communicating issues of science, risk, and public policy. New York, NY: Greenwood Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson, K. M. (1995). Mass media as sources of global warming knowledge. Mass Communications Review, 22(1–2), 75–89.
   Google Scholar
• Young, L., & Soroka, S. N. (2012). Affective news: The automated coding of sentiment in political texts. Political Communication, 29(2), 205–231. doi:10.1080/10584609.2012.671234
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zehr, S. C. (2000). Public representations of scientific uncertainty about global climate change. Public Understanding of Science, 9(2), 85–103. doi:10.1088/0963-6625/9/2/301
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar