Información científica en Argentina, España y Méxicofuentes, recursos multimedia y participación de los lectores en los diarios online

  1. Segado-Boj, Francisco 1
  2. Chaparro-Domínguez, María Ángeles 1
  3. Díaz-Del Campo, Jesús 1
  1. 1 Universidad Internacional de La Rioja
    info

    Universidad Internacional de La Rioja

    Logroño, España

    ROR https://ror.org/029gnnp81

Revista:
Estudios sobre el mensaje periodístico

ISSN: 1988-2696

Año de publicación: 2018

Número: 24

Páginas: 397-412

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.5209/ESMP.59957 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Estudios sobre el mensaje periodístico

Objetivos de desarrollo sostenible

Resumen

Este artículo analiza los factores y rasgos comunes presentes en una muestra (n=700) de textos periodísticos sobre ciencia aparecidos en las ediciones online de tres diarios hispanoparlantes de referencia (La Nación de Argentina, El País de España y El Universal de México) en 2010, 2012 y 2014. Mediante un análisis de contenido cuantitativo se miden los principales rasgos comunes en cuanto a temas abordados, fuentes consultadas, recursos multimedia y figuras retóricas utilizadas. Del mismo modo, se calcula la influencia que estos factores ejercen en el número de comentarios y en su viralidad en Twitter. Los resultados apuntan a una tendencia a la personalización de la información científica, donde la autoridad de los circuitos tradicionales -revistas e instituciones- es desplazada por la presencia de los científicos como fuentes personales directas. Por otro lado, se comprueba que la atención temática se ha desplazado desde salud hacia las ciencias naturales.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Adams, William C. (1986): “Whose lives count? TV coverage of natural disasters”. Journal of Communication, 36(2), 113-122 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1986.tb01429.x
  • Allan, Stuart (2006): Online News: Journalism and the Internet. Maidenhead, Open University Press.
  • Allern, Sigurd (2002): “Journalistic and commercial news values: News organizations as patrons of an institution and market actors”. Nordicom Review, 23 (1-2), 137–152.
  • Bright, Jonathan (2016): “The Social News Gap: How News Reading and News Sharing Diverge”. Journal of Communication, 66 (3), 343-365, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12232
  • Carlson, Matt (2016): “Embedded Links, Embedded Meanings: Social media commentary and news sharing as mundane media criticism”. Journalism Studies, 17 (7), 915-924, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2016.1169210
  • Carver, Rebecca B.; Rødland, Einar A.; and Breivik, Jarle (2013): “Quantitative frame analysis of how the gene concept is presented in tabloid and elite newspapers”. Science Communication, 35 (4), 449-475 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1075547012460525
  • Castell, Sarah; Charlton, Anne; Clemence, Michael; Pettigrew, Nick; Pope, Sarah; Quigley, Anna; Shah, Jayesh N.; and Silman, Tim (2014): Public Attitudes to Science 2014. London, ESRC http://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/pas-2014-main-report.pdf [Consulta: 15 de mayo de 2017]
  • Clark, Fiona & Illman, Deborah L. (2006): “A longitudinal study of the New York Times Science Times section”. Science Communication, 27 (4), 496-513, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1075547006288010
  • Deuze, Mark (2005): “What is journalism? Professional identity and ideology of journalists reconsidered”. Journalism, 6 (4), 442–464, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1464884905056815
  • Fahy, Declan & Nisbet, Matthew C. (2011): “The science journalist online: Shifting roles and emerging practices”. Journalism, 12 (7), 778-793 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1464884911412697
  • García-Perdomo, Víctor; Salaverría, Ramón; Kilgo, Danielle K.; and Harlow, Summer (2017): “To Share or Not to Share: The influence of news values and topics on popular social media content in the United States, Brazil, and Argentina”. Journalism Studies, 1-22, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2016.1265896
  • Granado, Antonio (2011): “Slaves to journals, serfs to the web: The use of internet in newsgathering among European science journalists”. Journalism, 12 (7), 794-813, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1464884911412702
  • Hansen, Anders (2009): “Science, communication and media”, en Holliman, Richard et al. (eds.): Investigating Science Communication in the Information Age (105-127). Oxford, Oxford University Press.
  • Hijmans, Ellen; Pleijter, Alexander; and Wester, Fred (2003): “Covering scientific research in Dutch newspapers”. Science Communication, 25 (2), 153-176, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1075547003259559
  • Hwong, Yi-Ling; Oliver, Carol; Van Kranendonk, Martin; Sammut, Claude; and Seroussi, Yanir (2017): “What makes you tick? The psychology of social media engagement in space science communication”. Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 480-492, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.068
  • Jarque Muñoz, José Manuel y Almirón Roig, Núria (2008): “Periodismo para Internet o periodismo, y punto”. Palabra Clave, 11 (2), 219-252.
  • Jarreau, Paige B. & Porter, Lance (2017): “Science in the Social Media Age: Profiles of Science Blog Readers”. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, http://dx.doir.org/1077699016685558
  • Knobloch-Westerwick, Silvia; Johnson, Benjamin K.; and Westerwick, Axel (2013): “To your health: Self-regulation of health behavior through selective exposure to online health messages”. Journal of Communication, 63 (5), 807–829. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12055
  • Lemańczyk, Szczepan (2014): “Science and National Pride The Iranian Press Coverage of Nanotechnology, 2004-2009”. Science Communication, 36 (2), 194-218, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1075547013516873
  • Maillé, Marie-Ève; Saint-Charles, Johanne; and Lucotte, Marc (2010): “The gap between scientists and journalists: the case of mercury science in Québec’s press”. Public Understanding of Science, 19 (1), 70-79, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662509102690
  • Manca, Stefania & Ranieri, Maria (2017): “Networked Scholarship and Motivations for Social Media use in Scholarly Communication”. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18 (2), http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/2859/4084 [Consulta: 25 de mayo de 2017]
  • Massarani, Luisa; Amorim, Luis; y Montes de Oca, Acianela (2012): “Periodismo científico: reflexiones sobre la práctica en América Latina”. Chasqui. Revista Latinoamericana de Comunicación, 120, 73-77.
  • Massarani, Luisa & Buys, Bruno (2007): “Science in the press in Nine Latin American countries”. Brazilian Journalism Research, 3 (2), 77-96.
  • Massarani, Luisa; Buys, Bruno; Amorim, Luis H. and Veneu, Fernanda (2005): “Science Journalism in Latin America: A case study of seven newspapers in the region”. Journal of Science Communication, 4 (3), http://jcom.sissa.it/archive/04/03/A040302 [Consulta: 29 de mayo de 2017]
  • Matheson, Donald (2004): “Weblogs and the epistemology of the news: Some trends in online journalism”. New Media & Society, 6 (4): 443–68, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/146144804044329
  • Messing, Solomon & Westwood, Sean J. (2014): “Selective exposure in the age of social media: Endorsements trump partisan source affiliation when selecting news online”. Communication Research, 41 (8), 1042-1063, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0093650212466406
  • Mitchelstein, Eugenia & Boczkowski Pablo J. (2009): “Between tradition and change: A review of recent research on online news production”. Journalism, 10 (5), 562–586, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1464884909106533
  • Myers, Greg (2010): The discourse of blogs and wikis. London–New York, Continuum.
  • Nielsen, Kristian H. & Schmidt Kjærgaard, Rikke (2011): “News coverage of climate change in nature news and science now during 2007”. Environmental Communication, 5 (1), 25-44, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2010.520722
  • Peters, Hans P. (1995): “The interaction of journalists and scientific experts: co-operation and conflict between two professional cultures”. Media, Culture & Society, 17 (1), 31-48, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/016344395017001003
  • Pires de Almeida, Maria Antónia (2013): “Epidemics in the news: Health and hygiene in the press in periods of crisis”. Public Understanding of Science, 22 (7), 886-902, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662512473212
  • Polino, Carmelo & Castelfranchi, Yurij (2012): “The ‘Communicative Turn’in Contemporary Techno-science: Latin American Approaches and Global Tendencies”, in Schiele, Bernard; Claessens, Michel; and Shi, Shunke (eds.): Science Communication in the World (3-17). Dordrecht, Springer.
  • Polino, Carmelo; Chiappe, Dolores; y Fazio, María Eugenia (2006): Análisis de la oferta informativa sobre ciencia y tecnología en los principales diarios argentinos. Buenos Aires, SECYT.
  • Pont Sorribes, Carles; Cortiñas Rovira, Sergi; and Di Bonito, Ilaria (2013): “Challenges and opportunities for science journalists in adopting new technologies: the case of Spain”. Journal of Science Communication, 12 (03), https://jcom.sissa.it/sites/default/files/documents/JCOM1203%282013%29A05_en.pdf [Consulta: 28 de mayo de 2017]
  • Reese, Stephen D.; Rutigliano, Lou; Hyun, Kideuk; and Jeong, Jaekwan (2007): “Mapping the blogosphere: Professional and citizen-based media in the global news arena”. Journalism, 8 (3), 235–261, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1464884907076459.
  • Rensberger, Boyce (2009): “Science journalism: Too close for comfort”. Nature, 459, 1055–1056, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/4591055a
  • Rosen, Cecilia; Guenther, Lars; and Froehlich, Klara (2016): “The Question of Newsworthiness: A Cross-Comparison among Science Journalists’ Selection Criteria in Argentina, France, and Germany”. Science Communication, 38 (3), 328-355, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1075547016645585
  • Rozo, Claudia (2006): “Representaciones de cultura científica y cultura tecnológica desde los medios de comunicación. Diario El Tiempo, caso de estudio”, en I Congreso Iberoamericano De Ciencia, Tecnología, Sociedad e Innovación, Ciudad de México, www.oei.es/historico/memoriasctsi/mesa5/m05p16.pdf [Consulta: 27 de mayo de 2017]
  • Santamaría, David D. (2004): “Professional Routines in Catalan Online Newsrooms—Online Journalism in Real Contexts”, en II Congreso Online del Observatorio para la Cibersociedad. http://www.cibersociedad.net/congres2004/grups/fitxacom_publica2.php?group=89&id=112&idioma=es [Consulta: 15 de mayo de 2017]
  • Schäfer, Mike S. (2009): “From public understanding to public engagement: An empirical assessment of changes in science coverage”. Science Communication, 30 (4), 475-505, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1075547008326943
  • Schäfer, Mike S. (2011): “Sources, characteristics and effects of mass media communication on science: a review of the literature, current trends and areas for future research”. Sociology Compass, 5 (6), 399-412, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9020.2011.00373.x
  • Shoemaker, Pamela J. & Vos, Tim P. (2009): Gatekeeping theory. Abingdon, Routledge.
  • Singer, Jane B. (2014): “User-generated visibility: Secondary gatekeeping in a shared media space”. New Media & Society, 16 (1), 55-73, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444813477833
  • Steensen, Steen (2009): “The shaping of an online feature journalist”. Journalism 10 (5), 702-718, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1464884909106540
  • Summ, Annika y Volpers, Anna-Maria (2016): “What’s science? Where’s science? Science journalism in German print media”. Public Understanding of Science, 25 (7), 775-790, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662515583419
  • Trench, Brian (2007): “How the internet changed science journalism”, en Bauer, Massimiano & Bucchi, Martin (eds.): Journalism, Science and Society: Science Communication: Between News and Public Relations (133-141). New York, Routledge.
  • Trench, Brian (2009): “Science reporting in the electronic embrace of the internet”, en Holliman, Richard et al. (eds.): Investigating Science Communication in the Information Age: Implications for Public Engagement and Popular Media (166-179). London, Oxford University Press.
  • Veneu, Fernanda; Amorim, Luis Henrique; and Massarani, Luisa (2008): “Science journalism in Latin America: how the scientific information from a scientific source is accommodated when it is transformed into a journalistic story”. Journal of Science Communication, 7 (1), https://jcom.sissa.it/archive/07/01/Jcom0701%282008%29A03 [Consulta: 5 de mayo de 2017]
  • Vu, Hong Tie (2014): “The online audience as gatekeeper: The influence of reader metrics on news editorial selection”. Journalism, 15 (8), 1094-1110, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1464884913504259
  • Weingart, Peter; Engels, Anita; and Pansegrau, Petra (2000): “Risks of communication: discourses on climate change in science, politics, and the mass media”. Public Understanding of Science, 9 (3), 261-283, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/9/3/304
  • White, David M. (1950): “The ‘Gate Keeper’. A Case Study in the Selection of News”. Journalism Quarterly, 27, 383-390, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/107769905002700403
  • Winter, Stephan & Krämer, Nicole C. (2012): “Selecting science information in Web 2.0: How source cues, message sidedness, and need for cognition influence users’ exposure to blog posts”. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18 (1), 80–96, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01596.x
  • Zamith, Rodrigo; Pinto, Juliet; and Villar, Maria Elena (2013): “Constructing climate change in the Americas: An analysis of news coverage in US and South American newspapers”. Science Communication, 35 (3), 334-357, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1075547012457470
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet