Australasian Biotechnology (backfiles) AusBiotech ISSN: 1036-7128 Vol. 12, Num. 5, 2002, pp. 42

Australasian Biotechnology, Vol. 12, No. 5, Oct-Nov, 2002, pp. 42

BIOTECH IN THE MEDIA

What is the Influence of the Media?

Craig Cormick

Manager of Public Awareness, Biotechnology Australia. GPO Box 9839 Canberra ACT 2601. Email: craig.cormick@biotechnology.gov.au

Code Number: au02033

Abstract

There is a lot of concern that negative media coverage can lead directly to adverse public attitudes towards biotechnology. However that may not be true for all the population, many of whom are largely unaware of biotechnology issues, regardless of high media coverage. The influence of the media can easily be overestimated by those close to a particular issue, and for most people it is more able to reinforce existing attitudes than change attitudes.

The Daily Telegraph runs a front page story on GM foods with the headline, 'FOOD FOR THOUGHT - Today you will probably eat something genetically modified, but unless it's this doughnut you won't be told', featuring a larger than life GM doughnut - and as a result there's a crisis of confidence in biotechnology. Right?

Well let's look a bit deeper at that.

Whenever a media story appears stating some unpopular finding about a new product or technology or social group - alarm buzzers all over the country ring. But there are lots and lots of places they don't sound at all. If you survey many people in the broad population as to their top ten concerns in life, many will put mortgage, children, crime, health costs, education and other issues that effect them personally - and GM issues won't even be ranked.

While most everybody working in the biotechnology industry, or support industries, saw and noticed and probably remembered the articles on GM food run in The Daily Telegraph (and the other newspapers that later picked up the story) - few readers would be able to recall it without prompting.

Not convinced? Two quick facts - firstly, studies done by Biotechnology Australia show that a large minority of the population cannot recall any stories having been in the media on GM food - even though we know they are there. A 2000 study found that 25% of people could not recall a single story in the media on GM food - and in 2002 that number had actually risen to 40%.

And for the second study - try this on yourself: write down ten stories that appeared in the newspaper you read this morning. Most people can not get more than three or four. And that figure diminishes rapidly as days pass.

This is not to imply that the media has an insignificant effect on people's attitudes - but it is more likely to influence those who have a personal or economic link to a topic - and even then it is more effective at reinforcing attitudes than changing them.

The influence of the media in the UK was undoubtedly instrumental in shaping anti-GM sentiment there, but that does not mean Australians will behave the same way. For a start, as was discussed in the last issue of Australasian Biotechnology News, the media coverage of biotechnology issues in Australia is fairly balanced - and often overwhelmingly positive. Also Australians have not experienced a widespread collapse in trust in the Government in relation to public health issues, as has happened in the UK following the outbreaks of foot-andmouth disease and BSE, and are less susceptible to GM safety scares in the media.

Any analysis of the actual influence of media needs to begin with a look at the proportion of information received from the mainstream media, the credibility people place on that information, and the credibility of individual sources being reported in the media.

Biotechnology Australia studies show that most people state that the media is their main source of information currently (television - 78%, newspapers 76%), but when asked what is the preferred source of information, the media plummet to 10% for TV and 9% for newspapers. The Internet and libraries rated as the number-one preferred source of information (which could be considered a little worrisome, given that so few Australians actually use libraries and there is so much poor quality information and misinformation on the Internet). When we asked more qualitative questions in focus groups, to determine why libraries and the Internet were the preferred source of information we found that it was the closest respondents could reply to some new channel of information - reinforcing dissatisfaction with the media. Focus groups told us they felt the media were unreliable because:

• they simplified issues;
• journalists were rarely science-trained;
• media could be a tool of corporations;
• a propensity for bias and sensationalism.

The latest survey undertaken by Biotechnology Australia, in June this year, found that only 28% of people felt that enough information on gene technology was available - and different sources were rated with different levels of confidence.

The CSIRO repeatedly rates the highest as a source for information (80% in 1999 and 85% in 2001) - and in a 2002 study, looking at where people would go for information on gene technology issues, 38% indicated Biotechnology Australia, 43% indicated the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator and 19% indicated Greenpeace.

When giving public talks on the influence of the media in the GM debate, I have often been challenged by participants who tell me they don't agree with me. But that's my point. Ask yourself, at this point in this article, if it has had any influence on changing your mind, or has it just reinforced whatever views you already held?

Craig Cormick is the Manager of Public Awareness for the Commonwealth Government agency Biotechnology Australia.

Copyright 2002 - AusBiotech