References
- Augoustinos, M., S. Crabb, and R. Shepherd. 2010. “Genetically Modified Food in the News: Media Representations of the GM Debate in the UK.” Public Understanding of Science (Bristol, England) 19 (1): 98–114. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662508088669.
- Bonfadelli, H., U. Dahinden, and M. Leonarz. 2002. “Biotechnology in Switzerland: High on the Public Agenda, but Only Moderate Support.” Public Understanding of Science (Bristol, England) 11 (2): 113–130. doi:https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/11/2/302.
- Brossard, D., and D. A. Scheufele. 2013. “ Social science. Science, New Media, and the Public.” Science (New York, N.Y.) 339 (6115): 40–41. doi:https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1232329.
- Büchi, M. 2017. “Microblogging as an Extension of Science Reporting.” Public Understanding of Science (Bristol, England) 26 (8): 953–968. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662516657794.
- Cacciatore, M. A., D. A. Scheufele, S. Iyengar. 2016. “The End of Framing as we Know It… and the Future of Media Effects.” Mass Communication and Society 19 (1): 7–23. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2015.1068811.
- Crawley, C. E. 2007. “Localized Debates of Agricultural Biotechnology in Community Newspapers: A Quantitative Content Analysis of Media Frames and Sources.” Science Communication 28 (3): 314–346. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547006298253.
- Crimson Hexagon. 2014. "Content Source: Advanced." https://help.crimsonhexagon.com/hc/en-us/articles/203511215?flash_digest=1e82480f3341d90aa3516e7993164f6f87cbf65d.
- David, C. C., J. C. Ong, and E. F. T. Legara. 2016. “Tweeting Supertyphoon Haiyan: Evolving Functions of Twitter during and after a Disaster Event.” PLoS ONE 11 (3): e0150190doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0150190.
- De Swert, K. 2012. "Calculating Inter-Coder Reliability in Media Content Analysis using Krippendorff’s Alpha." https://www.polcomm.org/wp-content/uploads/ICR01022012.pdf.
- Downs, A. 1972. “Up and down with Ecology – The “Issue-Attention Cycle.” Public Interest 28: 38–50.
- Entman, R. M. 1993. “Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm.” Journal of Communication 43 (4): 51–58. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x.
- Evensen, C., T. Hoban, and E. Woodrum. 2000. “Technology and Morality: Influences on Public Attitudes toward Biotechnology.” Knowledge, Technology & Policy 13 (1): 43–57. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s12130-000-1003-0.
- Gamson, W. A. 1992. Talking Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
- Goffman, E. 1974. Frame Analysis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Grzywińska, I., and J. Borden. 2012. “The Impact of Social Media on Traditional Media Agenda Setting Theory. The Case Study of Occupy Wall Street Movement in USA.” In Agenda Setting: Old and New Problems in Old and New Media, edited by B. Dobek-Ostrowska, B. Lodzki and W. Wanta, 133–155. Wroclaw, Poland: University of Wroclaw Press.
- Hopke, J. E., and M. Simis. 2017. “Discourse over a Contested Technology on Twitter: A Case Study of Hydraulic fracturing.” Public Underst Sci 26 (1): 105–120. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515607725.
- Jang, S. M., Y. J. Park, and H. Lee. 2017. “Round-Trip Agenda Setting: Tracking the Intermedia Process over Time in the Ice Bucket Challenge.” Journalism: Theory, Practice & Criticism 18 (10): 1292–1308. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884916665405.
- Maeseele, P. 2011. “On News Media and Democratic Debate: Framing Agricultural Biotechnology in Northern Belgium.” International Communication Gazette 73 (1-2): 83–105. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1748048510386743.
- Marques, M. D., C. R. Critchley, and J. Walshe. 2015. “Attitudes to Genetically Modified Food over Time: How Trust in Organizations and the Media Cycle Predict Support.” Public Understanding of Science (Bristol, England) 24 (5): 601–618. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662514542372.
- Newman, T. P. 2017. “Tracking the Release of IPCC AR5 on Twitter: Users, Comments, and Sources following the Release of the Working Group I Summary for Policymakers.” Public Understanding of Science (Bristol, England) 26 (7): 815–825. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662516628477.
- Nisbet, M. C., and M. Huge. 2006. “Attention Cycles and Frames in the Plant Biotechnology Debate: managing Power and Participation through the Press/Policy Connection.” Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics 11 (2): 3–40. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1081180X06286701.
- Nisbet, M. C., and B. V. Lewenstein. 2002. “Biotechnology and the American Media: The Policy Process and the Elite Press, 1970 to 1999.” Science Communication 23 (4): 359–391. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/107554700202300401.
- Pan, Z., and G. M. Kosicki. 2001. “Framing as Strategic Action in Public Deliberation.” In Framing Public Life: Perspectives on Media and Our Understanding of the Social World, edited by S. D. Reese, O. H. Gandy and A. E. Grant, 33–66. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
- Pew Research Center. 2015. "State of the news media 2015." http://www.journalism.org/2015/04/29/state-of-the-news-media-2015/pj_15-04-27_stateofthenewsmedia_summarygraphics_640x320-09/.
- Pew Research Center. 2016. "The New Food Fights: US Public Divides over Food Science." http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/12/01/public-opinion-about-genetically-modified-foods-and-trust-in-scientists-connected-with-these-foods/.
- Pew Research Center. 2017. "Science News and Information Today." http://www.journalism.org/2017/09/20/science-news-and-information-today/.
- Reese, S. D. 2001. “Prologue: Framing Public Life: A Bridging Model for Media Research.” In Framing Public Life: Perspectives on Media and Our Understanding of the Social World, edited by S. D. Reese, O. H. Gandy and A. E. Grant, 7–31. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
- Reese, S. D., O. H. Gandy, and A. E. Grant. 2001. Framing Public Life: Perspectives on Media and Our Understanding of the Social World. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
- Shan, L., A. Regan, A. De Brún, J. Barnett, M. C. van der Sanden, P. Wall, and A. McConnon. 2014. “Food Crisis Coverage by Social and Traditional Media: A Case Study of the 2008 Irish Dioxin Crisis.” Public Understanding of Science (Bristol, England) 23 (8): 911–928. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662512472315.
- Shih, T., R. Wijaya, and D. Brossard. 2008. “Media Coverage of Public Health Epidemics: Linking Framing and Issue Attention Cycle toward an Integrated Theory of Print News Coverage of Epidemics.” Mass Communication and Society 11 (2): 141–160. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/15205430701668121.
- Shwed, U., and P. S. Bearman. 2010. “The Temporal Structure of Scientific Consensus Formation.” American Sociological Review 75 (6): 817–840. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122410388488.
- Veltri, G. A. 2013. “Microblogging and Nanotweets: Nanotechnology on Twitter.” Public Understanding of Science (Bristol, England) 22 (7): 832–849. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662512463510.
- Ventura, V., D. G. Frisio, G. Ferrazzi, and E. Siletti. 2017. “How Scary! An Analysis of Visual Communication concerning Genetically Modified Organisms in Italy.” Public Understanding of Science (Bristol, England) 26 (5): 547–563. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662516638634.
- Yu, N., and Q. Xu. 2016. “Public Discourse on Genetically Modified Foods in the Mobile Sphere: Framing Risks, Opportunities, and Responsibilities in Mobile Social Media in China.” In: Mobile Media, Political Participation, and Civic Activism in Asia, edited by Wei Ran, 81–102. Berlin, Germany: Springer.
- Wang, W., and L. Guo. 2018. “Framing Genetically Modified Mosquitoes in the Online News and Twitter: Intermedia Frame Setting in the Issue-Attention Cycle.” Public Understanding of Science (Bristol, England) 27 (8): 937–951. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662518799564.