Il rischio alimentare in prima pagina

Journal title PRISMA Economia - Società - Lavoro
Author/s Andrea Rubin
Publishing Year 2018 Issue 2017/3
Language Italian Pages 20 P. 25-44 File size 278 KB
DOI 10.3280/PRI2017-003003
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

In 1981, Allan Mazur formulated his famous hypothesis: there is a direct relation between media coverage and public reaction against technological issues. Mazur’s hypothesis is exclusively and simply quantitative: the more the media cover a technoscientific issue, the more the public is brought to take a position against them. Few contributions that have tested Mazur’s hypothesis, directly or indirectly, have found a rather weak relationship between media exposure and public opinion. In this paper, I conducted an analysis on media coverage of food in Italy in the period 2010-2016. I calculated a risk index in the corpus of newspaper articles. This measure is used to compare it with longitudinal public opinion surveys to test this presumed "direct effect" of media.

Keywords: Mass media coverage, public opinion, food safety, media effect, Mazur’s hypothesis

  1. Bauer M.W., (2012) “Science culture and its indicators”, in B. Schiele, M. Claessens e S. Shi (eds.), Science Communication in the World: Practices, Theories and Trends, Springer, New York, pp. 295-312.
  2. Bauer M.W., et al., (2001) “The dramatization of biotechnology in elite massmedia”, in G. Gaskell, e M.W. Bauer, (eds) Biotechnology 1996-2000: The Years of the Controversy, Science Museum, London, pp. 35-52.
  3. Beck U., (1986) Risikogesellschaft. Auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne. Suhrkamp Verlag, Frankfurt am Main.
  4. Bucchi M., (1998) Science and the Media: Alternative Routes in Scientific Communication, Routledge, London-New York.
  5. Bucchi M., (1999) Vino, alghe e mucche pazze. La rappresentazione televisiva delle situazioni di rischio, RAI/ERI, Ro Bucchi M., (2004), “Can Genetics Help us Rethink Communication? Public Communication of Science as a «double helix»”, New Genetics and Society, vol. 23, pp. 269-283.
  6. Bucchi M. e Neresini F., (2002) “Biotech remains unloved by the more informed”, Nature, vol. 416, p. 261.
  7. Bucchi M. e Neresini F., (2012) “Monitoring science in the public sphere: The case of Italy”, in M.W. Bauer, R. Shukla and N. Allum (eds) The Culture of Science: How the Public Relates to Science across the Globe, Routledge, London, pp. 449-462.
  8. Bucchi M. e Trench B., (2014) “Science Communication Research: Themes and Challenges”, in M. Bucchi e B. Trench (eds.) Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology, Routledge, New York.
  9. DeFleur M.L. e Ball-Rokeach S.J., (1989) Theories of Mass Communication, Longman, New York.
  10. Di Buccio E. et al., (2016) “Unveiling latent states behind social indicators”, Proceedings of the First Workshop on Data Science for Social Good co-located with European Conference on Machine Learning and Principles and Practice of Knowledge Dicovery in Databases, -- reperibile all’indirizzo web: [ultimo accesso: 31 luglio 2017].
  11. Dimopoulos K. e Koulaidis V., (2002) “The socio-epistemic constitution of science and technology in the Greek press: an analysis of its presentation”, Public Understanding of Science, 11, pp. 225-241. DOI: 10.1088/0963-6625/11/3/302
  12. Evensen D., Stedman R. e Brown-Steiner B., (2017) “Resilient but not sustainable? Public perceptions of shale gas development via hydraulic fracturing”, Ecology and Society, Vol. 22, n. 8. DOI: 10.5751/ES-09022-220108
  13. Gamson W.A. e Modigliani A., (1989) “Media Discourse and Public Opinion on Nuclear Power: A Constructionist Approach”, The American Journal of Sociolog », vol. 95, pp. 1-37.
  14. Gaskell G., et al., (2001) “In the public eye: Representations of biotechnology in Europe”, in G. Gaskell, and W. Bauer, (eds.) Biotechnology 1996-2000: the Years of Controversy, Science Museum Press, London, pp. 53-79.
  15. Gerbner G., (1973) “Cultural Indicators. The Third Voice in Communication Technology and Social Policy”, in G. Gerbner, L. Gross e W. Melody (eds.) Communication Technology and Social Policy, Wiley, New York, pp. 555-573.
  16. Gerbner G. e Gross L., (1976) “Living with Television: The Violence Profile”, Journal of Communication, vol. 26, pp. 172-194.
  17. Giardullo P. e Lorenzet A., (2016) “Techno-scientific Issues in the Public Sphere (TIPS)”, EASST Review, vol. 35, -- reperibile all’indirizzo web: [ultimo accesso: 7 agosto 2017].
  18. Gutterling J.M., (2005) “Mazur’s Hypothesis on Technology Controversy and Media”, International Journal of Public Opinion Research, vol. 17, pp. 23-41.
  19. Laswell H.D., (1927) Propaganda Technique in the World War, Smith, New York. Lazarsfeld P.F. e Merton R.K., (1948) “Mass communication, popular taste, and organized social action”, in L. Bryson (eds), The communication of ideas, New York.
  20. Lazarsfeld P.F. et al., (1944), The people’s choice, Duel, Sloan & Pearce, New York.
  21. Lippmann W., (1922) Public Opinion, Harcourt, Brace and Company, New York.
  22. Mazur A., (1981) “Media coverage and public opinion on scientific controversies”, Journal of Communication, Vol. 31, n. 2, pp. 106-115.
  23. Mazur A., (1987) “Putting radon on the public’s risk agenda”, Science, Technology & Human Values, vol. 12, pp. 86-93.
  24. Mazur A., (1990) “Nuclear power, chemical hazards, and the quantity of reporting”, Minerva, vol. 28, pp. 294-323.
  25. Mazur A., (1998) “Global Environmental Change in the News – 1987-90 vs, 1992-6”, International Sociology, vol. 13, pp. 457-472.
  26. Mazur A., (2005) “Risk Perception and News Coverage Across Nations”, Risk Management, vol. 8, pp. 149-174.
  27. Mazur A., (2014) “How did the fracking controversy emerge in the period 2010-2012?”, Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 25, n. 2. DOI: 10.1177/0963662514545311
  28. McCluskey J.J.; Kalaitzandonakes N. e Swinnen J., (2016), “Media Coverage, Public Perceptions, and Consumer Behavior: Insights from New Food Technologies”, Annual Review of Resource Economics, Vol. 8, n. 1, pp. 467-486.
  29. McLuhan M., (1964) Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man, McGraw-Hill, New York.
  30. McQuail D., (1994) Mass communication theory: An introduction (3th edition), Sage, Thousand Oaks.
  31. Meyrowitz J., (1985) No Sense of Place. The Impact of Electronic Media on Social Behavior, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  32. Neresini F., (2010) “La scienza fa notizia. Primo rapporto su scienza e tecnologia nei quotidiani italiani”, in M. Bucchi e F. Neresini (a cura di) Annuario Scienza e Società 2010, il Mulino, Bologna, pp. 37-51.
  33. Neresini F. e Lorenzet A., (2014) “Can media monitoring be a proxy for public opinion about technoscientific controversies? The case of the Italian public debate on nuclear power”, Public Understanding of Science.
  34. Noelle-Neumann E., (1980) Die Schweiggespirale: Őffentliche Meinung unsere soziale Haut, München, Piper Verlag.
  35. Pasqualini C. e Introini F., (2013) “Sfera mediale e consumo di informazioni”, in Istituto Toniolo, La condizione giovanile in Italia. Rapporto Giovani 2013, il Mulino, Bologna, pp. 133-156.
  36. Pellegrini G. e Saracino B., (a cura di) (2016) Annuario Scienza Tecnologia e Società 2016, il Mulino, Bologna. Peters H.P., (2000) “The committed are hard to persuade. Recipients' thoughts during exposure to newspaper and TV stories on genetic engineering and their effect on attitudes”, New Genetics and Society, Vol. 19, n. 3, pp. 365-381. DOI: 10.1080/713687608
  37. Reuters Institute, (2017) Digital News Report 2017. -- Reperibile all’indirizzo web: [ultimo accesso 25.06.2017].
  38. Robertson S. e Zaragoza H., (2009) “The Probabilistic Relevance Framework: BM25 and Beyond”, Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval, 3, 4, pp. 333-389. DOI: 10.1561/1500000019
  39. Scheufele D.A., (1999) “Framing as a Theory of Media Effects”, Journal of Communication, Vol. 49, n. 1, pp. 103-122.
  40. Singhal A., Buckley C e Mitra M., (1996) “Pivoted document length normalization”, Proceedings of the 19th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval, pp. 21-29.
  41. Wåhlberg A. e Sjöberg L., (2000) “Risk perception and the media”, Journal of Risk Research, Vol. 3, n. 1, pp. 31-50.
  42. Wiegman O., et al., (1989) “Newspaper coverage of hazards and the reactions of readers”, Journalism Quarterly, n. 66, pp. 844-852.
  43. Wolf M., (1992) Gli effetti sociali dei media, Bompiani, Milano.
  44. Wynne B., (1991) “Knowledges in Context”, Science, Technology & Human Values, Vol. 16, n. 1, pp. 111-121.
  45. Wynne B., (1995) “Public Understanding of Science”, in S. Jasanoff, G.E. Markle,
  46. J. C. Petersen e T. Pinch, (a cura di), Handbook of Science Technology Studies, Sage, London, pp. 361-389.

Andrea Rubin, Il rischio alimentare in prima pagina in "PRISMA Economia - Società - Lavoro" 3/2017, pp 25-44, DOI: 10.3280/PRI2017-003003