[-] Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorCameron, Glen T.eng
dc.contributor.authorKruvand, Marjorieeng
dc.date.issued2008
dc.date.submitted2008 Springen
dc.descriptionTitle from PDF of title page (University of Missouri--Columbia, viewed on Feb. 23, 2010).en_US
dc.descriptionThe entire thesis text is included in the research.pdf file; the official abstract appears in the short.pdf file; a non-technical public abstract appears in the public.pdf file.en_US
dc.descriptionDr. Glen T. Cameron, Dissertation Supervisor.en_US
dc.descriptionVita.en_US
dc.descriptionIncludes bibliographical references.en_US
dc.descriptionPh. D. University of Missouri--Columbia 2008.en_US
dc.descriptionDissertations, Academic -- University of Missouri--Columbia -- Journalism.en_US
dc.description.abstractJournalists have increasingly used bioethicists as expert sources in stories on science, medicine, and technology with strong ethical ramifications. Yet little is known about how and why journalists select bioethicists as expert sources, which bioethicists are used most often, the perspectives they offer, and the roles they fill. This research uses news routines, news values, agenda-building theory and framing theory to examine the use of bioethicists as expert sources in six newspapers between 1992 and 2006. A quantitative content analysis of 456 stories, a qualitative framing analysis on a subset of that coverage, and interviews with a science or medical reporter at each newspaper provided converging lines of inquiry. This study finds that one bioethicist is quoted in the vast majority of stories although bioethicists have a wide range of backgrounds, credentials, religions, biases, and viewpoints. In addition, a small handful of media-savvy bioethicists have become habitual sources. A bioethicist who is directly quoted is apt to provide opinion rather than fact and is much more likely to serve as a critic or skeptic on a bioethical issue than an advocate. Moreover, the findings show that bioethicists are most often used as expert sources in stories on end-of-life issues; conflict of interest, fraud, and unethical behavior; human stem cell research and cloning; and healthcare allocation than on other topics. But this research shows that in being more reactive than proactive, biothicists and the public relations practitioners who represent them tend to respond to the media agenda on bioethical issues rather than vigorously help to build it.eng
dc.format.extentvii, 151 pagesen_US
dc.identifier.oclc608552739en_US
dc.identifier.otherKruvandM-110509-D9589en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10355/7114
dc.publisherUniversity of Missouri--Columbiaen_US
dc.relation.ispartof2008 Freely available dissertations (MU)en_US
dc.relation.ispartofcommunityUniversity of Missouri-Columbia. Graduate School. Theses and Dissertations. Dissertations. 2008 Dissertations
dc.subject.lcshScience in mass mediaen_US
dc.subject.lcshBioethicsen_US
dc.subject.lcshMass mediaen_US
dc.subject.lcshEvidence, Experten_US
dc.titleBioethicists in the news: the evolving role of bioethicists as expert sources in science and medical storiesen_US
dc.typeThesisen_US
thesis.degree.disciplineJournalismen_US
thesis.degree.disciplineJournalismeng
thesis.degree.grantorUniversity of Missouri--Columbiaen_US
thesis.degree.levelDoctoralen_US
thesis.degree.namePh. D.en_US


Files in this item

[PDF]
[PDF]
[PDF]

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

[-] Show simple item record