www.czu.cz ; www.raupp.info

This report examines how the UK public responded to information about GM
food technology. It assesses how new technology is communicated to the
public and how it is assessed by them, November 2004 by Cook, G.; Robbins,
P. T.; Pieri, E.

In 2003 when the UK government sponsored a GM National Debate, consisting
of an economic review, scientific review and public consultation. The
authors made a qualitative discourse analysis of data from this consultation
process, to discover:

? the ways in which GM food technology was presented in the UK press during
the first half of 2003

? the views of stakeholders about public knowledge and opinions of GM

? the effect of the language used in press reports and stakeholder
statements on public

Key findings include:

? In general, the four newspapers analysed held consistently to either a pro
GM stance (The Times and The Sun) or an anti GM stance (The Guardian and The
Daily Mail), and this is reflected in their choice of writers and sources,
their selection and presentation of stories, and in the language used.

? Many articles discussed the issues in a narrow frame as a purely
technological issue divorced from a wider historical, political and cultural
context.

? Pro-GM newspapers and interviewees typically presented the issue as purely
scientific, and subscribed to a deficit model of public understanding,
attributing opposition to GM to ignorance and fear.

? In contrast, the focus groups participants, placed the GM issue in a wider
context, linking it to other political events and conflicts (notably Iraq),
and drawing analogies with past commercial and technological developments.

? Focus group participants were largely unconvinced by pro GM arguments

? Although there was general support among both interviewees and focus group
participants for the idea of a public consultation on a new technology,
there was also general cynicism about the National Debate on GM on both
sides. In particular, the view was expressed that the consultation was a
publicity exercise only, that policy could not be affected by ?ordinary?
people, and the key decisions had already been made by an élite.

? Language choices by journalists and stakeholders reflected an entrenched
view of the debate as a conflict.

? This sense of division was echoed by various language choices by focus
group participants, such as, for example, a constant polarisation of ?us?
and ?them?.

? Although focus group participants were not sensitive to all linguistic
nuances, their responses to texts, and to specific wordings within them,
revealed a view of press, politicians and stakeholders as manipulative.

The main determinant of focus group reactions to the texts they were shown
was not the language but their perception of the author or the source.

Full PDF version of the report: How language choices affect public trust
[www.regard.ac.uk]

------------------------------------------
Posted to Phorum via PhorumMail