FACTORS THAT PROVIDE EVIDENCE FOR MEDIALIZATION

Weingart (2001, pp.244 ff.) recognizes phenomenon that have indicated the increased importance of the media to science, namely: the instrumentalization of the media by science to conquer priority conflicts and the mobilization of public support. Empirical evidence of the strategy of gaining attention through mass media has been provided by Phillips et al. (Phillips et al., 1991). In their study they find that even the perception of scientific knowledge within the scientific community is influenced by the mass media.

However, the instrumentalization of the media by science is a difficult (if not generally impossible) task. And so, to make use of the media for their own purposes, science needs to call on the selection criteria of the media. In this section, these selection criteria and their instrumentalization by scientists are portrayed.

1. In order to transfer the scientific knowledge to the media –and also to the political elites- currents of policy research have identified as important certain rhetorical structures. Metaphors are one of these rhetorical structures that gain importance in the success of the politization of knowledge and the transfer of it to a mass media public sphere (Nelkin, 1987: p.10 ff.; Weingart, 2001: pp.251 ff.). Nelkin emphasizes that metaphors are used to define experience and to evoke shared meanings; through analogy and imagery explaining and popularizing complex material can be done most effectively and can affect how people perceive, think and act. Thus by using metaphors, scientists can help shape the public‟s understanding of the transmitted scientific knowledge. Description of concepts, information and argumentation, photographs and other condensing symbols are as well other strategies used by scientists (and other actors) in forming discourse (Ferree et al., 2002).

2. Research in climate change has shown that scientists themselves transform research objects into fields of political action by assigning responsibility, options of actions and references to societal context (Weingart et al., 2000) in other words, by politicizing the issue. However, these results have emphasized that a politization of an issue by scientists might occur, depending on whether the issue is potentially concerned with the safety and well-being of the population at large, and are thus of immediate political relevance and have high news value for the media (Weingart et al., 2000: p.280). In

Theoretical Background

43

order to study how actors assign blame, or for that matter position themselves in a favorable light in front of others, interest positions will be examined. Volker von Prittwitz characterizes actors, who interact with the environment, according to the interest positions¹⁸ they represent. Three interest positions can be identified in environmental politics (von Prittwitz, 1990: p.116): 1) the interest of the causer of an environmental difficulty is to maximize his/her utility by maintaining or encouraging activities taking place or using resources which produce damage, this while keeping their costs at a minimum; 2) the interest of the victim of the environmental problem is the rapid and complete solution to the problem affecting them and the prevention of new environmental damage; and 3) the interest of helpers or addressees who wish to conquer the environmental problem because of the utility they obtain when the problem is solved. Scientists, as political actors, are focused on identifying the environmental (forest) problems that society must deal with and when possible present, through their scientific knowledge, possible solutions, they might be particularly focused in identifying causers of these problems. The occurrence of naming causers can be taken as a sign of medialization. If blame is assigned, then a story becomes more interesting to report on and the points of view of the scientists and the science he/she is representing will have more chance to be integrated into the discourse.

Mike Schäfer (2007) has further contributed to operationalization the concept of medialization for empirical purposes. He sees that medialization can be either verified or denied in the degree that three basic assumptions are present. These assumptions are:

extensiveness, pluralization, and controversy (Schäfer, 2007: pp.28 ff.). Each of these assumptions helps to identify the standing, positioning, and framing of the issues.

3. As the linkage between science and society becomes narrower, the attention the media gives to science increases. On the one hand, science becomes the object of permanent observation by the media: the inner structure of science, its‟ processes concerning conflict solution and quality safeguard, amongst other processes become public.

Science is then constructed by and in the public sphere. On the other hand, the permanent observation by the media may as well change science: reacting and adapting to the expectations of the public sphere (Weingart, 2005: p.28). This can be seen through the change in time of the number of articles on scientific topics. For any given issue, through time, an increase in the number of reports both in the media and in science discourse can be expected if the issue is to be labeled medialized. Under the concept of extensiveness, Schäfer (2007, pp.28, 31) understands, for the mass media discourse, an increment of the medial presence of science as well as a strengthening of the discussion of science by the media. The more science issues are dealt with in the press, the more important that issue may be perceived by the public sphere. This increased perception may as well alter the treatment of the issue by science in that it is forced to address it more thoroughly. Thus, through time, medialization will indicate an increase amount of coverage in both spheres: in the media and in science.

If the importance of the mass media in constructing reality is recognized and recognition is given to the role of the public sphere in the safeguarding of resources for science, then it is to be expected that two dimensions may reflect this change (Schäfer, 2007: p.30):

18 “Interessendreiecks” or triangle of interests.

44

4. It is expected that in the construction of the discourse on science (both in the media and in the science sphere) the dominance of scientists and their arguments has ended.

In other words, the speakers in the discourse have grown to include other actors than scientists and their argumentations. This is understood by Schäfer (2007, p.30) as the pluralization of discourse namely, where those speaking may now not only include experts (scientists) but also experts representing opposing positions, as well as other actors (politicians, lay public, etc). The inclusion of any actors in the discourse and the possibility for them to include their arguments regarding the specific topic is defined as standing (Ferree et al., 2002: p.86). To be given a voice in the discourse and with it having the possibility to create power (in terms of visibility for their arguments) is a valuable good that actors seek. In the media discourse this possibility is given by journalists, in scientific publications by the authors of an article. Standing in both levels reflects and enhances acceptance as an actor on a given (policy/scientific) issue (Ferree et al., 2002: p.87). Following the medialization theory, expectations regarding science discourse in the media are that there should be a variety of actors involved in the discussion of the topic, that the domination of scientists has ended. In the science discourse within the scientific community, evidence of pluralization would signify that scientists incorporate in their articles other sources of information than only scientists.

5. Science is evermore being held accountable for the social implications and benefits of their research. In this context, Schäfer (2007, p.30) expects that the coverage on science issues become more and more disputed or controversial, in other words that the coverage of science issues become less uncritical or affirmative and more controversial. This is what Schäfer (p.31) refers to when explaining the medialization assumption of controversy. Schäfer analyzes this assumption by looking to the interpretations of the topics by the actors participating in discourse. This is done by looking into two dimensions: the judgments and the interpretations the speakers make regarding the issue (Schäfer, 2007: p.110). Regarding the judgment made by speakers, this may influence the way receivers (general public, politicians, or scientists) perceive the issue¹⁹. Judgments may be positive, negative, ambivalent or neutral. When one of these judgments preponderate the discourse, then there can be no controversy regarding how a topic is discussed. On the contrary, if no clear judgment domination can be seen, then the topic delivers evidence of being highly controversially discussed.

It is to be expected that in science discourse, and because of the norms prevailing within the scientific community, that no judgments are made regarding an issue (neutral judgment); if this is true than medialization of science has not occurred within the scientific discourse. In the media discourse, expectations are that the science discourse on forestry is more controversially discussed, and so the judgments made vary between positive, negative and ambivalent. Regarding interpretation of issues, medialization would expect that science incorporates the same interpretation patterns of the media into their own discourse (Weingart, 2001).

6. The propagation of public relation departments in research organizations, universities, museums, etc are indicators of the growing importance given to media by science.

Other indicators for the repercussions of media orientation by science are the

19 Schäfer notes that this has been studied in media analysis under the name of the “persuasion” thesis: this is the assumption that there is a tendency to transfer the mass-media-communicated judgments to the recipients (Schäfer, 2007: p.110).

Theoretical Background

45

increasing amount of public relations activities carried out by institutions and scientific journals. These PR activities are directed at, amongst other, enhancing the image of an institution and supporting a specific research area (Nelkin, 1995).

7. The acceptance that the media play a fundamental role in constructing reality for society on the part of scientists, and accordingly modifying their views/behaviors regarding what communicating through the media might mean to their particular interests, can also be seen as a factor that reveals the existence of medialization of science. In other words, if recognition is given to the direct or indirect effects that media might have on decision makers –regarding allocation of resources-, on the general public –as a window for gaining legitimation, or even on peers –gaining visibility, then this can be seen as further evidence of the medialization phenomenon.

The previous sections have presented the theoretical basis for the research undertaken. It becomes necessary to clearly present the research model, questions and hypothesis that derive from this theoretical discussion.