Bibtex export

 

@article{ Goodman2006,
 title = {Beneficial or biohazard? How the media frame biosolids},
 author = {Goodman, J. Robyn and Goodman, Brett P.},
 journal = {Public Understanding of Science},
 number = {3},
 pages = {359-375},
 volume = {15},
 year = {2006},
 doi = {https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662506062468},
 urn = {https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-224106},
 abstract = {This study looked at how the media framed biosolids, or treated sewage sludge, from                1994 to 2004 by analyzing the 13 media frames found in 286 biosolid-related articles                from newspapers in Florida, Virginia, and California. The researchers found the                articles framed biosolids as a regulatory or legal issue most often, and most of the                frames’ tones were neutral (1,958). However, negative tone (507) happened                three times more often than positive tone (149), and environmental, management, and                public nuisance framing tended to be more negative than any of the other frames.                Neither the frames themselves nor the tones had statistically significant changes                over the past decade. Regarding the sources used in the stories, the most frequent                source was local government officials, which were used twice as frequently as any                other source, followed by corporations (16 percent) and citizens (14 percent). These                findings should help biosolid producers and officials in developing a media strategy                that is proactive toward shaping public opinion rather than reactive to an issue                that makes its way to the media and spurs public concern.},
}