“转基因”辩论的现状——媒体对农业生物技术的讨论越来越有利,两极分化越来越少?

Sarah Evanega, Joan Conrow, Jordan Adams, Mark Lynas
{"title":"“转基因”辩论的现状——媒体对农业生物技术的讨论越来越有利,两极分化越来越少?","authors":"Sarah Evanega,&nbsp;Joan Conrow,&nbsp;Jordan Adams,&nbsp;Mark Lynas","doi":"10.1080/21645698.2022.2051243","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Although nearly three decades have passed since genetically modified crops (so-called 'GMOs') were widely commercialized, vociferous debate remains about the use of biotechnology in agriculture, despite a worldwide scientific consensus on their safety and utility. This study analyzes the volume and tenor of the GMO conversation as it played out on social and traditional media between 2018 and 2020, looking at 103,084 online and print articles published in English-language media around the world as well as 1,716,071 social media posts. To our knowledge, our analysis is the first comprehensive survey of the shifting traditional and online media discourse on this issue during this time period. While the volume of traditional media coverage of GMOs increased significantly during the period, this was combined with a dramatic drop in the volume of social media posts of over 80%. Traditional media tended to be somewhat more positive in their coverage than social media in 2018 and 2019, but that gap disappeared in 2020. Both traditional and social media saw trends toward increasing favorability, with the positive trend especially robust in social media. The large decline in volume of social media posts, combined with a strong trend toward greater favorability, may indicate a drop in the salience of the GMO debate among the wider population even while the volume of coverage in traditional media increased. Overall, our results suggest that both social and traditional media may be moving toward a more favorable and less polarized conversation on ag-biotech overall.</p>","PeriodicalId":501763,"journal":{"name":"GM Crops & Food","volume":" ","pages":"38-49"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8959534/pdf/","citationCount":"19","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The state of the 'GMO' debate - toward an increasingly favorable and less polarized media conversation on ag-biotech?\",\"authors\":\"Sarah Evanega,&nbsp;Joan Conrow,&nbsp;Jordan Adams,&nbsp;Mark Lynas\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/21645698.2022.2051243\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Although nearly three decades have passed since genetically modified crops (so-called 'GMOs') were widely commercialized, vociferous debate remains about the use of biotechnology in agriculture, despite a worldwide scientific consensus on their safety and utility. This study analyzes the volume and tenor of the GMO conversation as it played out on social and traditional media between 2018 and 2020, looking at 103,084 online and print articles published in English-language media around the world as well as 1,716,071 social media posts. To our knowledge, our analysis is the first comprehensive survey of the shifting traditional and online media discourse on this issue during this time period. While the volume of traditional media coverage of GMOs increased significantly during the period, this was combined with a dramatic drop in the volume of social media posts of over 80%. Traditional media tended to be somewhat more positive in their coverage than social media in 2018 and 2019, but that gap disappeared in 2020. Both traditional and social media saw trends toward increasing favorability, with the positive trend especially robust in social media. The large decline in volume of social media posts, combined with a strong trend toward greater favorability, may indicate a drop in the salience of the GMO debate among the wider population even while the volume of coverage in traditional media increased. Overall, our results suggest that both social and traditional media may be moving toward a more favorable and less polarized conversation on ag-biotech overall.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":501763,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"GM Crops & Food\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"38-49\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8959534/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"19\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"GM Crops & Food\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/21645698.2022.2051243\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"GM Crops & Food","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21645698.2022.2051243","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 19

摘要

尽管转基因作物(所谓的“GMOs”)被广泛商业化已经过去了近30年,但关于在农业中使用生物技术的激烈争论仍然存在,尽管世界范围内对其安全性和实用性达成了科学共识。这项研究分析了2018年至2020年期间在社交和传统媒体上关于转基因生物的对话的数量和基调,研究了全球英语媒体上发表的103084篇在线和印刷文章,以及1716071篇社交媒体帖子。据我们所知,我们的分析是第一次全面调查在这段时间内关于这个问题的传统媒体和网络媒体话语的转变。在此期间,虽然传统媒体对转基因生物的报道数量显著增加,但与此同时,社交媒体帖子的数量却急剧下降了80%以上。在2018年和2019年,传统媒体的报道往往比社交媒体更积极,但这一差距在2020年消失了。传统媒体和社交媒体都呈现出越来越受欢迎的趋势,社交媒体上的积极趋势尤其强劲。社交媒体帖子数量的大幅下降,加上对转基因生物的好感度上升的强劲趋势,可能表明转基因生物辩论在更广泛人群中的突出程度有所下降,尽管传统媒体的报道数量有所增加。总的来说,我们的研究结果表明,社会媒体和传统媒体可能都在朝着更有利、更少两极分化的方向发展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

The state of the 'GMO' debate - toward an increasingly favorable and less polarized media conversation on ag-biotech?

The state of the 'GMO' debate - toward an increasingly favorable and less polarized media conversation on ag-biotech?

The state of the 'GMO' debate - toward an increasingly favorable and less polarized media conversation on ag-biotech?

The state of the 'GMO' debate - toward an increasingly favorable and less polarized media conversation on ag-biotech?

Although nearly three decades have passed since genetically modified crops (so-called 'GMOs') were widely commercialized, vociferous debate remains about the use of biotechnology in agriculture, despite a worldwide scientific consensus on their safety and utility. This study analyzes the volume and tenor of the GMO conversation as it played out on social and traditional media between 2018 and 2020, looking at 103,084 online and print articles published in English-language media around the world as well as 1,716,071 social media posts. To our knowledge, our analysis is the first comprehensive survey of the shifting traditional and online media discourse on this issue during this time period. While the volume of traditional media coverage of GMOs increased significantly during the period, this was combined with a dramatic drop in the volume of social media posts of over 80%. Traditional media tended to be somewhat more positive in their coverage than social media in 2018 and 2019, but that gap disappeared in 2020. Both traditional and social media saw trends toward increasing favorability, with the positive trend especially robust in social media. The large decline in volume of social media posts, combined with a strong trend toward greater favorability, may indicate a drop in the salience of the GMO debate among the wider population even while the volume of coverage in traditional media increased. Overall, our results suggest that both social and traditional media may be moving toward a more favorable and less polarized conversation on ag-biotech overall.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信