Shepherd, R.G. (1981). Selectivity of sources: Reporting the marijuana controversy. Journal of Communication, 31(2), 129-134.
Sheperd was interested in the credentials of sources cited by the media in coverage of the marijuana controversy (i.e. whether the drug is harmful or not). Using a sample of newspaper articles (n=275) about marijuana from 1967 to 1982, he
(1) Examined how frequently actual studies on marijuana's effects were mentioned, and
(2) Compared the freqency of expert source mentions with how often these individuals were cited in the Science Citation Index (SCI).
Shepherd found that only 22% of newspaper articles actually cited studies about the health effects the drug. Far more articles featured "experts" commenting on studies. However, 2/3 of these "experts" had no formal citations in the SCI in regard to medical research on marijuana. So, these individuals were not really experts on marijuana, but perhaps other fields.
SOME THINGS TO CONSIDER:
* “Science celebrities” (but perhaps not experts in a specific field) versus specialists with actual research expertise: who should journalists cite in a story?
* Getting experts to serve as sources is important, but should we care about who reporters are talking to? Should scientists themselves care? After all, the public often can’t evaluate the credentials of a source (at least directly).
* The risk of the media creating an “expert” who is not really an expert (at least in the field in question).
* Citations are not always a mark of respect; you can cite a study to dispute it, for example.
* To what extent should journalists be responsible for evaluating the credibility of a source?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment