1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. 學術產出
  3. College of Communication
  4. Theses
  5. Item

學術產出-Theses

Article View/Open

Publication Export

Google ScholarTM

政大圖書館

Citation Infomation

  • No doi shows Citation Infomation
題名 探討捷克與美國對科技新聞報導之異同：以奈米科技為例
A comparative study of how the press covers nanotechnology in Czech Republic and United States
作者 茂瑞德
Materna, Adam
貢獻者 施琮仁
Shih, Tsung Jen
茂瑞德
Materna, Adam
關鍵詞 奈米科技
Nanotechnology
日期 2011
上傳時間 2016-05-11
摘要 奈米科技被認為在不同的領域都能帶來重大好處，例如醫藥發展、水、土壤或土淨化、資訊和通信基礎設施等方面。奈米科技也可用來製造的更強韌、更輕巧的材料，這也是為什麼政府和許多公司行號願意投注大量的資金來發展奈米科技。而這當中，媒體扮演了至關重要的角色，因為媒體對於奈米科技的報導，不僅會影響人們對此科技的印象與知識，更有可能影響政府的決策。因此，瞭解媒體如何報導奈米科技，甚至不同國家的報紙是否反映在地經濟與文化背景，實在是個不可忽略的重要研究問題。藉由分析美國與捷克的三家平面媒體從2000年至2010年共計150則新聞，本研究發現，以整體故事的基調而言，美國和捷克記者對奈米科技大都持肯定態度。此外，他們頻繁地使用「進步框架」，強調此科技未來的潛力，這三個報紙所報導的關於奈米科技的優點也遠遠超過風險，在這些媒體所提到的少數風險當中，較受到注意的是「未知」和「醫療」方面的風險。關於消息來源，大學的教職員和科學家是記者最常訪問的對象。這項研究有助於瞭解科學和社會的互動。藉由分析處於不同社會、政治和文化背景之下的媒體，本研究對於不同的社會環境如何理解一項新興科技，提供了有價值的見解。
Nanotechnologies seem to have potential to bring significant benefits in diverse areas such as pharmaceuticals development, water, soil or earth decontamination, information and communication infrastructures, and the production of stronger, lighter and better nanomaterials. It is also what attracts investment from both governments and private sectors in nanotechnologies. Media play a crucial role in this dynamic. Based on these facts, it will be interesting to examine media coverage of nanotechnology to see if it reflects different economic and cultural context. Analyzing 150 news stories from 2000 to 2010, I found that American and Czech press was largely positive about nanotechnology in terms of overall story tone. Furthermore, not only did they portray the technology as having the potential to bring about progress (the progress frame), the examined newspapers also emphasized a lot more benefits than risks, with a focus on unspecified or yet unknown ones and medical. As far as news sources are concerned, university employees and scientists as well as general sources were consulted most frequently by the journalists in the United States and the Czech Republic.
     This study contributes to the discussions about how science and society interact. By analyzing media content in different social, political, and cultural contexts, this study provides valuable insights into how an emerging technology is understood in different societies. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.
參考文獻 Aldrich, H., & Fiol, M. (1994). Fools rush in? The Institutional context of industry construction. Academy of Management Review, 19 (4), 645670.
     Arias, A. I. (2004). The Media Coverage of Nanotechnology. NNIN REU (The National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network Research Experience for Undergraduates) Accomplishments, 18-19.
     BBC News. (2005). The press in the Czech republic. Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4068647.stm (01.07. 2011)
     Bennett,W. Lance. (2004). Global Media and Politics: Transnational Communication Regimes and Civic Cultures. Annual Review of Political Science, 7,12548.
     Broder, D. S. (2004). The Media Losing Their Way. Washington Post. September 26, p.B07.
     Brown, J. D., Bybee, C. R., Wearden, S., & Straughan, D. (1987). Invisible power: Newspapers sources and the limits of diversity. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 80 (2), 45-54.
     Chong, D., & Druckman, j. N. (2007). Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 103-126.
     Cormick, C. (2010). Improving the relationships between Science and the Media (and the Public?). Submission to the Expert Working Group on Science and the Media.
     Conrad, P. (1999). Use of expertise-sources, quotes, and voice in the reporting of genetics in the news. Public Understanding of Science. 8, 285-302.
     Czechinvest-Investment and Business Development Agency (2008). Nanotechnology in the Czech Republic. Investment opportunities presentation.
     Curran, J., Iyengar, S., Lund, A., B., & Salovaara-Moring, I. (2009). Media System, Public Knowledge and Democracy: A Comparative Study. European Journal of Communication. 24 (1), 5-26.
     Davie,W. R., & J. Lee. 1993. Television news technology: Do more sources mean less diversity. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 37 (3), 45364.
     DeFleur, M.L. and S.J. Ball-Rokeach (1989) Theories of Mass Communication, 5th ed. White Plains, NY: Longman.
     Dholakia, R. R., & Sternthal, B. (1977). Highly credible sources: Persuasive facilitators or persuasive liabilities? Journal of Consumer Research, 3, 223-232.
     Dimock, M. and S. Popkin (1997) Political Knowledge in Comparative Perspective, pp. 21724 in S. Iyengar and R. Reeves (eds) Do The Media Govern? Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
     Dionne, E.J. (1991) Why Americans Hate Politics. New York: Simon and Schuster.
     Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Towards clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 5158.
     Eron, L.D. (1986). The social responsibility of the scientist. IJ. H. Goldstein (Ed.),
     Reporting science: The case of aggression. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
     Gamson, W. A., & Modigliani, A. (1989). Media Discourse and Public Opinion on Nuclear Power A constructionist Approach. The American Journal of Sociology, 95(1), 1-37.
     Gans, H. J. (1979). Deciding whats news: A study of CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, Newsweek and Time. New York: Pantheon Books.
     Gans, H. J. (1980). Deciding whats news: A study of CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, Newsweek and Time. New York, NY: Vintage Books.
     Gaskell, G., Eycl,T. T., Jackson, J. & Veltri, G. (2005). Imagining nanotechnology: cultural support for technological innovation in Europe and the United States. Public Understanding of Science. 14. 81-90.
     Gaziano, C., & McGrath, K. (1986). Measuring the concept of credibility. Journalism Quarterly, 63, 451-462.
     Goffman, E. (1981). A reply to Denzin and Keller. Contemporary Sociology. 10(1), 6068.
     Goldsmith, R. E., Lafferty, B. A., &. Newell, S. J. (2000). The impact of corporate credibility and celebrity credibility on consumer reaction to advertisements and brands. Journal of Advertising, 21 (3), 43-54.
     Graber, A. D. (1997). Mass Media and American Politics. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly.
     Granqvist, N. & Laurila, J. (2011). Rage against Self-replicating Machines: Framing Science and Fiction in the US Nanotechnology Field. Organization Studies. 32 (2), 253-280.
     Hallin, D. C., & Mancini, P. (2004). Comparing Media Systems  Three models of media systems. Cambridge University Press.The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 2RU, UK.
     Hallin, D. C., Manoff, R. K., & Weddle, J. K. (1993). Sourcing patterns of national security reporters. Journalism Quarterly, 70 (4), 753-766.
     Hartz, J., & Chappell, R. (1997). Worlds apart: How the distance between science and
     journalism threatens America's future. Nashville: First Amendment Center.
     Holliman, R. (2008). Sciences in the public eye. (1), 1-7.
     Hornig Priest, S. (2001). A grain of truth: The media, the public, and biotechnology.
     New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
     Hruschka, D. J., Schwartz, D., St.John, D. C., Picone-Decaro, E., Jenkins, R. A., & Carey, J. W. (2004). Reliability in Coding Open-Ended Data: Lessons Learned from HIV Behavioral Research. Field Methods. 16 (3), 307-331.
     Iyengar, S. & McGrady, J. (2007). Media Politics. New York: Norton.
     Kaplan, S., & Murray, F. (2010). Entrepreneurship and the construction of value in biotechnology. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 29, 107147.
     Kerlinger, F. N. (2000). Foundations of behavioural research (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinenhart & Winston.
     Kraus, L., Kub嫢ová, J., Prnka, T., Shrbená, J. & "perlink, K. (2005). Nanotechnologie v eské republice 2005. eská spole
     nost pro nové materi嫮y a technologie, Repronis Ostrava. 1-166.
     Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
     Kua, K., Reder, M., Grossel, M. J. (2004). Science in the news: a study of reporting genomics. Public Understanding of Science. 309-322.
     Kulinowski, K. (2004). Nanotechnology: From Wow to Yuck. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society. 24 (1). 13-20.
     Kurasaki, K. S. (2000). Intercoder Reliability for Validating Conclusions Drawn from Open-Ended Interview Data. Field Methods. 12 (3), 179-194.
     Laing, A. (2005). A report on Canadian and American news media coverage of nanotechnology issues. 88-98.
     Lewenstein. (2003). Models of Public Communication of Science and Technology. Public Understanding of Science. 1-11.
     Lewenstein, B. C. (2005). Introduction-Nanotechnology and the Public. Science Communication. 27 (2). 169-174.
     Liebler, C. M., & J. Bendix. 1996. Old growth forests on network news: News sources and the framing of an environmental controversy. Journalism & Mass Communication
     Quarterly, 73 (1): 5365.
     Lounsbury, M., & Glynn, M. A. (2001). Cultural entrepreneurship: Stories, legitimacy, and the acquisition of resources. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 545564.
     Lounsbury, M., Ventresca, M., & Hirsch, P. M. (2003). Social movements, field frames and industry emergence: A cultural-political perspective on US recycling. Socio-Economic Review, 1, 71104.
     Manning, P. (2001). New and News Sources: A Critical Introduction. London, England: Sage Publications Ltd.
     McChesney, R. W. (2004). The Problem of the Media:U.S.Communication Politics in the Twenty-First Century. New York: Monthly Review Press.
     McGinnies, E., & Ward, C. D. (1989). Better liked than right: Trustworthiness and expertise as factors in credibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6 (3), 467-472.
     Mellor, F. (2003). Between fact and fiction: Demarcating science from non-science in popular physics books. Social Studies of Science, 33 (4), 509538.
     Miles, M. B. & A. M. Huberman. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
     Miller, A. & Kurpius, D. (2010). A Citizen-Eye View of Television News Source Credibility. American Behavioral Scientist. 54 (2), 137-156.
     Mnookin, S. (2004). Hard News: The Scandals at the New York Times and Their Meaning for American Media. New York: Random House.
     Nanotechnologie.cz. (2009). Popularizace nanotechnologií v R. Retrieved from http://www.nanotechnologie.cz/view.php?cisloclanku=2007080003 (05.07. 2011)
     Nanotechnology and Nanoscience. (2003). Press releases and Media Coverage. Retrieved from http://www.nanotec.org.uk/PressMediaMar042.htm (01.07. 2011)
     Nelkin, D. (1990). Science in the Public Eye. Nature. 348. 121.
     Nelkin, D. (1994). Ironies in the public response to information technology. National Forum. 74 (2). 7.
     Nelkin, D. (1995). Selling science: How the press covers science and technology. New York: W. H. Freeman.
     Nelkin, D. (1996). An uneasy relationship: The tensions between medicine and the media. The Lancet. 347. 1600-16003.
     Nelkin, D. (1998). The performance of science. The Lancet. 352. 893.
     Nelkin, D. (1998). Scientific journals and public disputes. The Lancet. 352. 25-28.
     Nisbet, M. C., Brossard, D., & Kroepsch, A. (2003). Framing Science The Stem Cell Controversy in an Age of Press/Politics. The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 8(2), 36-70.
     Nisbet M.C. & Lewenstein, B. V. (2002). Biotechnology and the American media  the policy process and the elite press, 1970 to 1999. Science Communication, 23 (4), 359391.
     Petersen, A., Anderson, A., Allan, S. & Wilkinson, C. (2009). Opening the black box-scientists' views on the role of the news media in the nanotechnology debate. Public Understanding of Science, 18 (5), 512-530.
     Phillips, N., Lawrence, T. B., & Hardy, C. (2004). Discourse and institutions. Academy of Management Review, 29 (4), 635652.
     Plasser, F. (2005). From Hard to Soft News Standards?: How Political Journalists in Different Media Systems Evaluate the Shifting Quality of News. The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics. 10 (2), 47-68.
     Ryan, G. W. 1999. Measuring the typicality of text: Using multiple coders for more than just reliability and validity checks. Human Organization 58:31322.
     Scheufele, D. A. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication, 49, 103-122.
     Scheufele, D. A. & Lewenstein, B. V. (2003). The public and nanotechnology: How citizens make sense of emerging technologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 7, 659-667.
     Scheufele, D. A., & Tewksbury, D. (2007). Framing, Agenda Setting, and Priming The Evolution of Three Media Effects Models. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 9-20.
     ScienceBlogs. (2010). Special Journal Issue Examines Science Communication in Environmental Controversies. Retrieved from http://scienceblogs.com/framing-science/2010/08/special_journal_issue_examines.php#more (20.06. 2011)
     Shoemaker, P. J., & Reese, S. D. (1996). Mediating the message: Theories of influences on mass media content (2nd ed.). London: Longman.
     Sigal, L. V. (1973). Reporters and officials: The organization and politics of newsmaking. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
     Sigal, L. V. (1986). Who? Sources make the news. In R. K. Manoff & M. Schudson (Eds.), Reading the news (pp. 9-37). New York, NY: Pantheon Books.
     Sumpter, R. S. (2007). Telling the Columbia Story: Source Selection in News Accounts of a Shuttle Accident. Science Communication. 28 (4), 455-475.
     Tanner, A. H. (2004). Agenda Building, Source Selection and Health News at Local Television Stations: A Nationwide Survey of Local Television Health Reporters. Science Communication. 25 (4), 350-363.
     Toumey, C. (2005). Apostolic succession: Does nanotechnology descend from Richard Feynmans 1959 talk? Engineering and Science, 68, 1623.
     Toumey, C. (2008). Reading Feynman into nanotechnology: A text for a new science. Techne: Research in Philosophy and Technology, 12 (3), 133168.
     Van Gorp, B. (2007). The constructionist approach to framing Bringing culture back in. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 60-78.
     van Rooyen, C. (2003). A report on science and technology coverage in the SA print media. South African Foundation for Education, Science and Technology. 1-22.
     Walizer, M. H., & Wienir, P. L. (1978). Research methods and analysis: Searching for relationships. New York: Harper & Row.
     Weigold, M. (1998). Science Communications Research: A literature Review. Retrieved from the World Wide Web: http://science.nasa.gov./scicomm/
     Wiedemann, P. M. & Sch慤z, H. (2006). Framing Effects on Risk Perception of Nanotechnolgy. Research Center Jich, Programme Group MUT, 1-14.
     Wimmer, R. D., & Dominick, J. R. (2005). Mass media research: An introduction, 8th ed. Belmont, CA: Thompson Wadsworth.
     Yang, J. (2003). Framing the NATO Air Strikes on Kosovo across Countries  Comparion of Chinese and US Newspaper Coverage. Gazette: The International Journal for Communication Studies. 65 (3), 231-24
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
國際傳播英語碩士學位學程(IMICS)
98461002
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0098461002
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 施琮仁zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisor Shih, Tsung Jenen_US
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 茂瑞德zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) Materna, Adamen_US
dc.creator (作者) 茂瑞德zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Materna, Adamen_US
dc.date (日期) 2011en_US
dc.date.accessioned 2016-05-11-
dc.date.available 2016-05-11-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 2016-05-11-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0098461002en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/96395-
dc.description (描述) 碩士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國際傳播英語碩士學位學程(IMICS)zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 98461002zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 奈米科技被認為在不同的領域都能帶來重大好處，例如醫藥發展、水、土壤或土淨化、資訊和通信基礎設施等方面。奈米科技也可用來製造的更強韌、更輕巧的材料，這也是為什麼政府和許多公司行號願意投注大量的資金來發展奈米科技。而這當中，媒體扮演了至關重要的角色，因為媒體對於奈米科技的報導，不僅會影響人們對此科技的印象與知識，更有可能影響政府的決策。因此，瞭解媒體如何報導奈米科技，甚至不同國家的報紙是否反映在地經濟與文化背景，實在是個不可忽略的重要研究問題。藉由分析美國與捷克的三家平面媒體從2000年至2010年共計150則新聞，本研究發現，以整體故事的基調而言，美國和捷克記者對奈米科技大都持肯定態度。此外，他們頻繁地使用「進步框架」，強調此科技未來的潛力，這三個報紙所報導的關於奈米科技的優點也遠遠超過風險，在這些媒體所提到的少數風險當中，較受到注意的是「未知」和「醫療」方面的風險。關於消息來源，大學的教職員和科學家是記者最常訪問的對象。這項研究有助於瞭解科學和社會的互動。藉由分析處於不同社會、政治和文化背景之下的媒體，本研究對於不同的社會環境如何理解一項新興科技，提供了有價值的見解。zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) Nanotechnologies seem to have potential to bring significant benefits in diverse areas such as pharmaceuticals development, water, soil or earth decontamination, information and communication infrastructures, and the production of stronger, lighter and better nanomaterials. It is also what attracts investment from both governments and private sectors in nanotechnologies. Media play a crucial role in this dynamic. Based on these facts, it will be interesting to examine media coverage of nanotechnology to see if it reflects different economic and cultural context. Analyzing 150 news stories from 2000 to 2010, I found that American and Czech press was largely positive about nanotechnology in terms of overall story tone. Furthermore, not only did they portray the technology as having the potential to bring about progress (the progress frame), the examined newspapers also emphasized a lot more benefits than risks, with a focus on unspecified or yet unknown ones and medical. As far as news sources are concerned, university employees and scientists as well as general sources were consulted most frequently by the journalists in the United States and the Czech Republic.
     This study contributes to the discussions about how science and society interact. By analyzing media content in different social, political, and cultural contexts, this study provides valuable insights into how an emerging technology is understood in different societies. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.		en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents Abstract iv
     1. Introduction 1
     1.1.1 Media as a source of information 1
     1.1.2 Public understanding of science through media 2
     1.1.3 Constructing reality 3
     1.1.4 Significance of the study 4
     1.2 Outline of the paper 6
     1.3 Introduction to nanotechnology 7
     2. Historical and contextual background 8
     2.1.1 Science and Journalism 8
     2.1.2 Historical background of Czech Republic 10
     2.1.3 Media system in Czech Republic 11
     2.1.4 Nanotechnology in Czech Republic 13
     2.1.5 Media system in United States 15
     2.1.6 Nanotechnology in United States 18
     3. Literature review 21
     3.1 Media coverage of emerging technologies 21
     3.2 Nanotechnology in the media 22
     3.3 Framing 25
     3.3.1 Framing in Science Communication 28
     3.3.2 Culture and Framing 30
     3.3.3 Coded frames 31
     3.4 Portrayal of benefits and risks 32
     3.5 News sources 33
     3.6 Research Questions and Hypotheses 37
     4. Methods 38
     4.1 Intercoder reliability 39
     4.2 Newspapers of analysis 40
     5. Findings 42
     6. Discussion 48
     7. Conclusions 55
     8. References 57
     Appendixes I. 66
     Appendixes II. 72		zh_TW
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0098461002en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 奈米科技zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Nanotechnologyen_US
dc.title (題名) 探討捷克與美國對科技新聞報導之異同：以奈米科技為例zh_TW
dc.title (題名) A comparative study of how the press covers nanotechnology in Czech Republic and United Statesen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen_US
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Aldrich, H., & Fiol, M. (1994). Fools rush in? The Institutional context of industry construction. Academy of Management Review, 19 (4), 645670.
     Arias, A. I. (2004). The Media Coverage of Nanotechnology. NNIN REU (The National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network Research Experience for Undergraduates) Accomplishments, 18-19.
     BBC News. (2005). The press in the Czech republic. Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4068647.stm (01.07. 2011)
     Bennett,W. Lance. (2004). Global Media and Politics: Transnational Communication Regimes and Civic Cultures. Annual Review of Political Science, 7,12548.
     Broder, D. S. (2004). The Media Losing Their Way. Washington Post. September 26, p.B07.
     Brown, J. D., Bybee, C. R., Wearden, S., & Straughan, D. (1987). Invisible power: Newspapers sources and the limits of diversity. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 80 (2), 45-54.
     Chong, D., & Druckman, j. N. (2007). Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 103-126.
     Cormick, C. (2010). Improving the relationships between Science and the Media (and the Public?). Submission to the Expert Working Group on Science and the Media.
     Conrad, P. (1999). Use of expertise-sources, quotes, and voice in the reporting of genetics in the news. Public Understanding of Science. 8, 285-302.
     Czechinvest-Investment and Business Development Agency (2008). Nanotechnology in the Czech Republic. Investment opportunities presentation.
     Curran, J., Iyengar, S., Lund, A., B., & Salovaara-Moring, I. (2009). Media System, Public Knowledge and Democracy: A Comparative Study. European Journal of Communication. 24 (1), 5-26.
     Davie,W. R., & J. Lee. 1993. Television news technology: Do more sources mean less diversity. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 37 (3), 45364.
     DeFleur, M.L. and S.J. Ball-Rokeach (1989) Theories of Mass Communication, 5th ed. White Plains, NY: Longman.
     Dholakia, R. R., & Sternthal, B. (1977). Highly credible sources: Persuasive facilitators or persuasive liabilities? Journal of Consumer Research, 3, 223-232.
     Dimock, M. and S. Popkin (1997) Political Knowledge in Comparative Perspective, pp. 21724 in S. Iyengar and R. Reeves (eds) Do The Media Govern? Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
     Dionne, E.J. (1991) Why Americans Hate Politics. New York: Simon and Schuster.
     Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Towards clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 5158.
     Eron, L.D. (1986). The social responsibility of the scientist. IJ. H. Goldstein (Ed.),
     Reporting science: The case of aggression. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
     Gamson, W. A., & Modigliani, A. (1989). Media Discourse and Public Opinion on Nuclear Power A constructionist Approach. The American Journal of Sociology, 95(1), 1-37.
     Gans, H. J. (1979). Deciding whats news: A study of CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, Newsweek and Time. New York: Pantheon Books.
     Gans, H. J. (1980). Deciding whats news: A study of CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, Newsweek and Time. New York, NY: Vintage Books.
     Gaskell, G., Eycl,T. T., Jackson, J. & Veltri, G. (2005). Imagining nanotechnology: cultural support for technological innovation in Europe and the United States. Public Understanding of Science. 14. 81-90.
     Gaziano, C., & McGrath, K. (1986). Measuring the concept of credibility. Journalism Quarterly, 63, 451-462.
     Goffman, E. (1981). A reply to Denzin and Keller. Contemporary Sociology. 10(1), 6068.
     Goldsmith, R. E., Lafferty, B. A., &. Newell, S. J. (2000). The impact of corporate credibility and celebrity credibility on consumer reaction to advertisements and brands. Journal of Advertising, 21 (3), 43-54.
     Graber, A. D. (1997). Mass Media and American Politics. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly.
     Granqvist, N. & Laurila, J. (2011). Rage against Self-replicating Machines: Framing Science and Fiction in the US Nanotechnology Field. Organization Studies. 32 (2), 253-280.
     Hallin, D. C., & Mancini, P. (2004). Comparing Media Systems  Three models of media systems. Cambridge University Press.The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 2RU, UK.
     Hallin, D. C., Manoff, R. K., & Weddle, J. K. (1993). Sourcing patterns of national security reporters. Journalism Quarterly, 70 (4), 753-766.
     Hartz, J., & Chappell, R. (1997). Worlds apart: How the distance between science and
     journalism threatens America's future. Nashville: First Amendment Center.
     Holliman, R. (2008). Sciences in the public eye. (1), 1-7.
     Hornig Priest, S. (2001). A grain of truth: The media, the public, and biotechnology.
     New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
     Hruschka, D. J., Schwartz, D., St.John, D. C., Picone-Decaro, E., Jenkins, R. A., & Carey, J. W. (2004). Reliability in Coding Open-Ended Data: Lessons Learned from HIV Behavioral Research. Field Methods. 16 (3), 307-331.
     Iyengar, S. & McGrady, J. (2007). Media Politics. New York: Norton.
     Kaplan, S., & Murray, F. (2010). Entrepreneurship and the construction of value in biotechnology. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 29, 107147.
     Kerlinger, F. N. (2000). Foundations of behavioural research (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinenhart & Winston.
     Kraus, L., Kub嫢ová, J., Prnka, T., Shrbená, J. & "perlink, K. (2005). Nanotechnologie v eské republice 2005. eská spole
     nost pro nové materi嫮y a technologie, Repronis Ostrava. 1-166.
     Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
     Kua, K., Reder, M., Grossel, M. J. (2004). Science in the news: a study of reporting genomics. Public Understanding of Science. 309-322.
     Kulinowski, K. (2004). Nanotechnology: From Wow to Yuck. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society. 24 (1). 13-20.
     Kurasaki, K. S. (2000). Intercoder Reliability for Validating Conclusions Drawn from Open-Ended Interview Data. Field Methods. 12 (3), 179-194.
     Laing, A. (2005). A report on Canadian and American news media coverage of nanotechnology issues. 88-98.
     Lewenstein. (2003). Models of Public Communication of Science and Technology. Public Understanding of Science. 1-11.
     Lewenstein, B. C. (2005). Introduction-Nanotechnology and the Public. Science Communication. 27 (2). 169-174.
     Liebler, C. M., & J. Bendix. 1996. Old growth forests on network news: News sources and the framing of an environmental controversy. Journalism & Mass Communication
     Quarterly, 73 (1): 5365.
     Lounsbury, M., & Glynn, M. A. (2001). Cultural entrepreneurship: Stories, legitimacy, and the acquisition of resources. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 545564.
     Lounsbury, M., Ventresca, M., & Hirsch, P. M. (2003). Social movements, field frames and industry emergence: A cultural-political perspective on US recycling. Socio-Economic Review, 1, 71104.
     Manning, P. (2001). New and News Sources: A Critical Introduction. London, England: Sage Publications Ltd.
     McChesney, R. W. (2004). The Problem of the Media:U.S.Communication Politics in the Twenty-First Century. New York: Monthly Review Press.
     McGinnies, E., & Ward, C. D. (1989). Better liked than right: Trustworthiness and expertise as factors in credibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6 (3), 467-472.
     Mellor, F. (2003). Between fact and fiction: Demarcating science from non-science in popular physics books. Social Studies of Science, 33 (4), 509538.
     Miles, M. B. & A. M. Huberman. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
     Miller, A. & Kurpius, D. (2010). A Citizen-Eye View of Television News Source Credibility. American Behavioral Scientist. 54 (2), 137-156.
     Mnookin, S. (2004). Hard News: The Scandals at the New York Times and Their Meaning for American Media. New York: Random House.
     Nanotechnologie.cz. (2009). Popularizace nanotechnologií v R. Retrieved from http://www.nanotechnologie.cz/view.php?cisloclanku=2007080003 (05.07. 2011)
     Nanotechnology and Nanoscience. (2003). Press releases and Media Coverage. Retrieved from http://www.nanotec.org.uk/PressMediaMar042.htm (01.07. 2011)
     Nelkin, D. (1990). Science in the Public Eye. Nature. 348. 121.
     Nelkin, D. (1994). Ironies in the public response to information technology. National Forum. 74 (2). 7.
     Nelkin, D. (1995). Selling science: How the press covers science and technology. New York: W. H. Freeman.
     Nelkin, D. (1996). An uneasy relationship: The tensions between medicine and the media. The Lancet. 347. 1600-16003.
     Nelkin, D. (1998). The performance of science. The Lancet. 352. 893.
     Nelkin, D. (1998). Scientific journals and public disputes. The Lancet. 352. 25-28.
     Nisbet, M. C., Brossard, D., & Kroepsch, A. (2003). Framing Science The Stem Cell Controversy in an Age of Press/Politics. The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 8(2), 36-70.
     Nisbet M.C. & Lewenstein, B. V. (2002). Biotechnology and the American media  the policy process and the elite press, 1970 to 1999. Science Communication, 23 (4), 359391.
     Petersen, A., Anderson, A., Allan, S. & Wilkinson, C. (2009). Opening the black box-scientists' views on the role of the news media in the nanotechnology debate. Public Understanding of Science, 18 (5), 512-530.
     Phillips, N., Lawrence, T. B., & Hardy, C. (2004). Discourse and institutions. Academy of Management Review, 29 (4), 635652.
     Plasser, F. (2005). From Hard to Soft News Standards?: How Political Journalists in Different Media Systems Evaluate the Shifting Quality of News. The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics. 10 (2), 47-68.
     Ryan, G. W. 1999. Measuring the typicality of text: Using multiple coders for more than just reliability and validity checks. Human Organization 58:31322.
     Scheufele, D. A. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication, 49, 103-122.
     Scheufele, D. A. & Lewenstein, B. V. (2003). The public and nanotechnology: How citizens make sense of emerging technologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 7, 659-667.
     Scheufele, D. A., & Tewksbury, D. (2007). Framing, Agenda Setting, and Priming The Evolution of Three Media Effects Models. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 9-20.
     ScienceBlogs. (2010). Special Journal Issue Examines Science Communication in Environmental Controversies. Retrieved from http://scienceblogs.com/framing-science/2010/08/special_journal_issue_examines.php#more (20.06. 2011)
     Shoemaker, P. J., & Reese, S. D. (1996). Mediating the message: Theories of influences on mass media content (2nd ed.). London: Longman.
     Sigal, L. V. (1973). Reporters and officials: The organization and politics of newsmaking. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
     Sigal, L. V. (1986). Who? Sources make the news. In R. K. Manoff & M. Schudson (Eds.), Reading the news (pp. 9-37). New York, NY: Pantheon Books.
     Sumpter, R. S. (2007). Telling the Columbia Story: Source Selection in News Accounts of a Shuttle Accident. Science Communication. 28 (4), 455-475.
     Tanner, A. H. (2004). Agenda Building, Source Selection and Health News at Local Television Stations: A Nationwide Survey of Local Television Health Reporters. Science Communication. 25 (4), 350-363.
     Toumey, C. (2005). Apostolic succession: Does nanotechnology descend from Richard Feynmans 1959 talk? Engineering and Science, 68, 1623.
     Toumey, C. (2008). Reading Feynman into nanotechnology: A text for a new science. Techne: Research in Philosophy and Technology, 12 (3), 133168.
     Van Gorp, B. (2007). The constructionist approach to framing Bringing culture back in. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 60-78.
     van Rooyen, C. (2003). A report on science and technology coverage in the SA print media. South African Foundation for Education, Science and Technology. 1-22.
     Walizer, M. H., & Wienir, P. L. (1978). Research methods and analysis: Searching for relationships. New York: Harper & Row.
     Weigold, M. (1998). Science Communications Research: A literature Review. Retrieved from the World Wide Web: http://science.nasa.gov./scicomm/
     Wiedemann, P. M. & Sch慤z, H. (2006). Framing Effects on Risk Perception of Nanotechnolgy. Research Center Jich, Programme Group MUT, 1-14.
     Wimmer, R. D., & Dominick, J. R. (2005). Mass media research: An introduction, 8th ed. Belmont, CA: Thompson Wadsworth.
     Yang, J. (2003). Framing the NATO Air Strikes on Kosovo across Countries  Comparion of Chinese and US Newspaper Coverage. Gazette: The International Journal for Communication Studies. 65 (3), 231-24		zh_TW