Constructing a “breakthrough”: News values in Science Magazine’s 2017 ranking of most important discoveries

Katarzyna Molek-Kozakowska



Abstract

The objective of this study is to conduct a stylistic analysis of the synopses publicized in the end-of-the-year ranking list of 2017 scientific “breakthroughs” from Science Magazine. The article provides a review of literature on science popularization (also known as science accommodation) and presents the typology of news values and rationalization cues that are used by editors to make science-related coverage both newsworthy and credible at the same time. The article lists the possible ways in which scientific findings can be stylistically constructed as “breakthroughs”. The analysis consists in quantifying and illustrating the typical stylistic maneuvers for framing selected science-related issues as “breakthroughs.” The article concludes with the implications of such constructions for the public understanding of science.

Keywords:

science popularization, journalism, news values, rationalization values

Bazerman C., 1988, Shaping Written Knowledge, Madison, Wisconsin.
  Google Scholar

Bednarek M., Caple H., 2012, News Discourse, London.
  Google Scholar

Bednarek M., Caple H., 2014, Why do news values matter? Towards a new methodological framework for analyzing news discourse in Critical Discourse Analysis and beyond, “Discourse and Society” 25(2), s. 135-158.
  Google Scholar

Bednarek M., Caple H., 2017, The Discourse of News Values, Oxford.
  Google Scholar

Bell A., 1991, The Language of News Media, Oxford.
  Google Scholar

Biber D., Conrad S., 2009, Register, Genre, and Style, Cambridge.
  Google Scholar

Boykoff M.T., 2011, Who Speaks for the Climate?: Making Sense of Media Reporting
  Google Scholar

on Climate Change, Cambridge.
  Google Scholar

Bucchi, M., 1998, Science and the Media: Alternative Routes to Scientific Communications, London.
  Google Scholar

Entman R.M., 1993, Framing: Towards a clarification of a fractured paradigm, “Journal of Communication” 43(4), s. 51-58.
  Google Scholar

Fahnestock J., 1986, Accommodating science: The rhetorical life of scientific facts, “Written Communication” 3, s. 275-296.
  Google Scholar

Galtung J., Ruge M., 1965, The structure of foreign news: The presentation of the Congo, Cuba and Cyprus Crises in four Norwegian newspapers , “Journal of International Peace Research” 2, s. 64-90.
  Google Scholar

Guenther L., Ruhrmann G., 2013, Science journalists’ selection criteria and depiction of nanotechnology in German media, “Journal of Science Communication” 12(3), s. 1-17.
  Google Scholar

Jensen E., 2012, Scientific sensationalism in American and British press coverage of therapeutic cloning, “Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly” 89(1), s. 40-54.
  Google Scholar

Harcup T., O’Neill D., 2001, What is news? Galtung and Ruge revisited, “Journalism Studies” 2(2), s. 261-280.
  Google Scholar

Hyland K., 2000, Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing, Harlow.
  Google Scholar

Kitzinger J., 2007, Framing and frame analysis.– Media Studies: Key Issues and Debates, ed. E. Devereux, London, s. 144-161.
  Google Scholar

Kitzinger J., Williams C., 2005, Forecasting science futures: Legitimising hope and calming fears in the embryo stem cell debate , “Social Science and Medicine” 61, s. 731-740.
  Google Scholar

Kuhn T., 1962, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago.
  Google Scholar

Latour B., 1987, Science in Action, Cambridge.
  Google Scholar

Molek-Kozakowska K., 2015, Pragmalinguistic categories in discourse analysis of science journalism, “Lodz Papers in Pragmatics” 11(2), s. 157-179.
  Google Scholar

Molek-Kozakowska K., 2016, Framing disease, ageing and death in popular science journalism, “Brno Studies in English” 42(1), s. 49-69.
  Google Scholar

Molek-Kozakowska K., 2017a, Stylistic analysis of headlines in science journalism: A case study of New Scientist, “Public Understanding of Science” 26(8), s. 894-907.
  Google Scholar

Molek-Kozakowska K., 2017b, Communicating environmental science beyond academia:Stylistic patterns of newsworthiness in popular science journalism, “Discourse & Communication” 11(1), s. 69-88.
  Google Scholar

Molek-Kozakowska K., 2017c, Journalistic practices of science popularization in the context of users’ agenda: A case study of New Scientist, “Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Litteraria Polonica” 5(43), s. 93-109.
  Google Scholar

Nelkin D., 1995, Selling Science: How the Press Covers Science and Technology, New York
  Google Scholar

Perez-Llantada C., 2012, Scientific Discourse and the Rhetoric of Globalization, London.
  Google Scholar

Richardson J.E., 2007, Analysing Newspapers. An Approach from Critical Discourse Analysis, Basingstoke.
  Google Scholar

Risbey J.S., 2008, The new climate change discourse: Alarmist or alarming , “Global Environmental Change” 18, s. 26-37.
  Google Scholar

Download


Published
2020-01-10

Cited by

Molek-Kozakowska, K. (2020). Constructing a “breakthrough”: News values in Science Magazine’s 2017 ranking of most important discoveries. Stylistyka, 27, 233–249. https://doi.org/10.25167/Stylistyka27.2018.15

Authors

Katarzyna Molek-Kozakowska 

Statistics

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.


License

1. Copyrights to published works are held by the University of Opole (to the collective work) and the Authors (to individual parts of the collective work that have an independent meaning).

2. Only previously undistributed works can be published in the scientific journal "Stylistics".

3. The University of Opole does not restrict the possibility of the author's further dissemination of his work on condition that the scientific journal "Stylistics" is indicated as the original place of publication and the consent of the University Publishing House.

4. Consent to the publication of the work in the scientific journal "Stylistics" is tantamount to granting the author a non-exclusive license to the University of Opole, including the right to use the work without territorial restrictions and time limits in the following fields of exploitation:

a) within the scope of recording and multiplication of the work - production of any number of copies of the work in whole or in part using a specified technique, including printing, reprography, magnetic recording and digital technique, introduction of the work into computer memory and computer networks,

b) within the scope of circulation of the original or copies on which the work has been recorded - circulation, lending or hiring of the original or copies,

c) within the scope of dissemination of the work in a manner other than specified in item 2 - making the work or its abstract available on the Internet by enabling the recipients to access the work on-line or enabling them to download the work to their own device that makes it possible to read it, placing the work in electronic databases that disseminate scientific works, including in particular the CEEOL database (Central and Eastern Online Libray) and the abstract in English in the CEJSH database (The Central Europaen Journal of Social Scienes and Humanites).

d) within the scope of creating and distributing dependent works created using the work - using them in the fields of exploitation specified in points 1-3.

5. The author is not entitled to compensation for granting the license to the work.

6. The author agrees that the University may grant further permission to use the work (sublicense) in the fields of exploitation specified in par. 2 paragraph 4.

7. The author agrees that, in connection with the distribution of the work, his or her personal information, that is, name, affiliation, and e-mail address, may be made public.