Christopher E. Clarke

A Question of Balance: The Autism-Vaccine Controversy in the British and American Elite Press

Although balance is a well-known and arguably important journalistic norm, how should journalists adhere to this norm when the bulk of scientific evidence clearly favors one (presumably accurate) perspective? Should balance be defined in terms of the quantity of information or the quality of viewpoints presented? Using British and American newspaper coverage of the autism-vaccine controversy as a case study, this article explores whether balanced reporting on scientific claims produced a discourse at odds with the scientific consensus that there was no autism-vaccine link. Implications for journalism ethics and risk communication are discussed.

Heightening Uncertainty Around Certain Science: Media Coverage, False Balance, and the Autism-Vaccine Controversy

To investigate how balanced presentations of the autism-vaccine controversy influence judgments of vaccine risk, we randomly assigned 327 participants to news articles that presented balanced claims both for and against an autism-vaccine link, antilink claims only, prolink claims only, or unrelated information. Readers in the balanced condition were less certain that vaccines did not cause autism and more likely to believe experts were divided on the issue. The relationship between exposure to balanced coverage and certainty was mediated by the belief that medical experts are divided about a potential autism-vaccine link. We discuss theoretical and practical implications of these findings.

A New York or Pennsylvania state of mind: social representations in newspaper coverage of gas development in the Marcellus Shale

What first comes to mind when you think of natural gas development in the Marcellus Shale region? The information and ideas we hold about shale gas development can strongly influence our discussion of this issue, the impacts we associate with it, and the types of regulation we view as appropriate. Our knowledge and beliefs are based in part on social representations—common sense understandings of complex, often scientific, phenomena, generated in the public sphere and reliant on the history, culture, and social structure of the context in which they emerge. In this article, we examine social representations of environmental, economic, and social impacts of natural gas development in the Marcellus Shale, as reported by major regional newspapers. We conducted a content analysis of newspaper coverage in two newspapers in the northern tier of Pennsylvania and two in the southern tier of New York from 2007 to 2011, with a total sample of 1,037 articles. Effects on water quality were by far the most prevalent environmental representation in each newspaper. Economic representations focused on jobs, leases, and royalties, but varied substantially across geographical contexts. Representations of social impacts were relatively rare in each media outlet. We also interviewed the journalists who wrote the most articles on shale gas development at each newspaper. Their perspectives provide some explanations for why certain impacts were mentioned more frequently than others, and for differences between newspapers. We conclude with implications for communicating about impacts associated with shale gas development, and for regulating development.

Public Views About Health Causation, Attributions of Responsibility, and Inequality

Success in addressing health disparities and their social determinants will require understanding public perceptions of health causation, attributions of responsibility, and potential solutions. To explore these perceptions, the authors conducted 12 focus groups (6 with liberals, 6 conservatives; N = 93 participants) in a large U.S. Northeastern state. Participants communicated highly nuanced views about health causation and disparities, identifying layers of responsibility for health. However, individual behaviors and personal responsibility dominated the discussion and served as a counterargument to the significance of social determinants. Participants also showed limited awareness of the range of policies that could be adopted to address health disparities. As policy initiatives benefit from public support in gaining political traction, the authors suggest research paths and possible communication strategies for scholars and advocates.

Efficacy Information in Media Coverage of Infectious Disease Risks An Ill Predicament

Communication scholars have argued that print media ineffectively communicate efficacy information about zoonotic infectious diseases. In this study, the authors analyze U.S. newspaper coverage of West Nile virus and avian influenza, focusing on (a) personal efficacy information and (b) actions societal actors (e.g., government officials) can/should take to address disease risks (“societal efficacy”). Their findings indicate an emphasis on societal efficacy (64% of West Nile virus sample; 81% avian influenza) versus personal efficacy (51% and 55%) and disease symptoms (32% and 10%). The authors speculate that scholars potentially underestimate the magnitude and types of efficacy information within mass media coverage and discuss implications for risk communication.

Content and Effects of News Stories About Uncertain Cancer Causes and Preventive Behaviors

This article presents findings from two studies that describe news portrayals of cancer causes and prevention in local TV and test the effects of typical aspects of this coverage on cancer-related fatalism and overload. Study 1 analyzed the content of stories focused on cancer causes and prevention from an October 2002 national sample of local TV and newspaper cancer coverage (n = 122 television stations; n = 60 newspapers). Informed by results from the content analysis, Study 2 describes results from a randomized experiment testing effects of the volume and content of news stories about cancer causes and prevention (n = 601). Study 1 indicates that local TV news stories describe cancer causes and prevention as comparatively more certain than newspapers but include less information about how to reduce cancer risk. Study 2 reveals that the combination of stories conveying an emerging cancer cause and prevention behavior as moderately certain leads to an increased sense of overload, while a short summary of well-established preventive behaviors mitigates these potentially harmful beliefs. We conclude with a series of recommendations for health communication and health journalism practice.

Including "evidentiary balance" in news media coverage of vaccine risk.

Journalists communicating risk-related uncertainty must accurately convey scientific evidence supporting particular conclusions. Scholars have explored how “balanced” coverage of opposing risk claims shapes uncertainty judgments. In situations where a preponderance of evidence points to a particular conclusion, balanced coverage reduces confidence in such a consensus and heightens uncertainty about whether a risk exists. Using the autism–vaccine controversy as a case study, we describe how journalists can cover multiple sides of an issue and provide insight into where the strength of evidence lies by focusing on “evidentiary balance.” Our results suggest that evidentiary balance shapes perceived certainty that vaccines are safe, effective, and not linked to autism through the mediating role of a perception that scientists are divided about whether a link exists. Deference toward science, moreover, moderates these relationships under certain conditions. We discuss implications for journalism practice and risk communication.

The Influence of Weight-of-Evidence Messages on (Vaccine) Attitudes: A Sequential Mediation Model

Media coverage of contentious risk issues often features competing claims about whether a risk exists and what scientific evidence shows, and journalists often cover these issues by presenting both sides. However, for topics defined by scientific agreement, balanced coverage erroneously heightens uncertainty about scientific information and the issue itself. In this article, we extend research on combating so-called information and issue uncertainty using weight of evidence, drawing on the discredited autism–vaccine link as a case study. We examine whether peoples perceptions of issue uncertainty (about whether a link exists) change before and after they encounter a news message with weight-of-evidence information. We also explore whether message exposure is associated with broader issue judgments, specifically vaccine attitudes. Participants (n = 181) read news articles that included or omitted weight-of-evidence content stating that scientific studies have found no link and that scientists agree that none exists. Postexposure issue uncertainty decreased—in other words, issue certainty increased—from preexposure levels across all conditions. Moreover, weight-of-evidence messages were associated with positive vaccine attitudes indirectly via reduced information uncertainty (i.e., ones belief that scientific opinion and evidence concerning a potential link is unclear) as well as issue uncertainty. We discuss implications for risk communication.

What drives support for self-driving car technology in the United States?

Abstract Recent advances in automotive technology have made fully automated self-driving cars technologically feasible. Despite offering many benefits such as increased safety, improved fuel efficiency, and greater disability access, public support for self-driving cars remains low. While previous studies find that demographic factors such as age and sex influence self-driving car support, limited research has examined variables that are well known to predict public attitudes toward emerging technology. Using self-report data from a quota sample of American adults (N = 1008), we find that age and sex are not significantly associated with support for self-driving car policies when controlling for these other variables. Instead, significant predictors of support included trust in automotive institutions and regulatory bodies, recognition of self-driving car benefits, positive affect toward self-driving cars, and a greater perception that human-driven cars are riskier than self-driving cars. Importantly, we also find that individualism is negatively associated with support. That is, people who value personal autonomy and limited government regulation may perceive policies encouraging self-driving car use as threatening to their worldviews. Altogether, our results suggest strategies for encouraging greater public support of self-driving vehicles while also forecasting potential barriers as this technology emerges as a fixture in transportation policy.

Proximity to Development and Public Support for Hydraulic Fracturing

Research on the relationship between proximity to energy development and public support for said development has produced conflicting results. Moreover, our understanding of this relationship in the context of unconventional oil and gas extraction via hydraulic fracturing becomes even cloudier because of limited data. Drawing on a unique dataset that includes both geo-coded data from nationally representative surveys conducted from 2012 to 2016 (9 waves; n=19,098) and high-resolution well location data, we examine how proximity to new unconventional oil and gas wells shapes familiarity with and support for hydraulic fracturing. After controlling for various individual and contextual factors, we find that proximity to new development is linked to both greater familiarity with and more sup- port for hydraulic fracturing – a relationship that is similar in magnitude to the marginal effects of income, gender and age. We discuss the implications of these findings for effective risk communication, as well as the importance of incorporating spatial analysis into public opinion research on perceptions of energy development.