Doctoral Degrees (Journalism)

Permanent URI for this collection

https://scholar.sun.ac.za/handle/10019.1/633

Browse

Browsing Doctoral Degrees (Journalism) by Author "Lukanda, Nathanael Ivan"

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    From lab to fork? Press coverage and public (mis)perception of crop biotechnology in Uganda
    (Stellenbosch : Stellenbosch University, 2018-12) Lukanda, Nathanael Ivan; Claassen, George; Stellenbosch University. Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences. Dept. of Journalism.
    ENGLISH ABSTRACT: This study explores the structure of the controversy surrounding genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in Uganda. It focuses on how two local newspapers, the New Vision and the Daily Monitor, cover the subject, and on the public perception regarding a contested science (biotechnology), promoted and de-campaigned in the same pages simultaneously. The aim was to establish the different ways in which media coverage of biotechnology influences public perception of its products, especially crop (food) GMOs, in Uganda. It draws on the sciencein- society model, the public sphere and the media logic theoretical framework as a lens for understanding Uganda’s case in this global debate. The study used content analysis, a face-toface survey and in-depth interviews to obtain data and analyse Uganda’s intricate situation in terms of having GMOs on the market in the absence of an enabling law to commercialise what is in the country’s laboratories (labs). The key findings indicate that the coverage and perception of GMOs are shaped by the contours of capitalism, mistrust in government institutions and outright misinformation, all tied to personal and societal beliefs. The controversy is laced with discrimination, noticeable in the sharp-tongued accusations and counter-accusations. The debate has been described as a “distortion”, “deception”, “complexity”, “confrontation”, “murky” and an “opportunistic interaction”. In the two newspapers analysed for the purposes of this study, biotechnology was largely covered by freelancers, who were caught between evidence-based science reporting and providing a voice to all stakeholders on a subject newspaper editors consider peripheral in the light of audience and advertiser flight. Biotechnology is politicised to make it sellable. Legislation dominates the fault-finding elitist debate, driven mostly by events in other countries. Men are six times more likely to be used as sources in stories on biotechnology, but women’s chances of being quoted more than triple when they are quoted in the same story with men. Experts have limited impact as both scientists, and non-(pseudo) scientists are major sources of information on biotechnology, a mark of weakened cultural authority of science in the post-expert age. Biotechnology is a controversial subject in the newsroom and in society. Newspapers are part of the chain link for creating awareness, educating, sustaining debate and generating an ‘issues culture’. The scientist-journalists’ relationship determines how biotechnology is covered. Ethics, health, patents, contamination, sustainability and bioterrorism are risk concerns. Biotechnology remains a fulcrum for scientific, cultural, political and economic arguments. The debate on GMOs is also a clash of traditions between conservationists and their pro-GMO opponents. The youth are more likely to oppose GMOs in a debate from which farmers are hardly represented. There is stigmatisation of information sources, and yet a change in source of information and increase in knowledge are more likely to have a negative impact on individuals’ perceptions of the risks of GMOs. Public desire for face-to-face engagements with scientists is increasing, even though scientists’ technical opinions seem to be an inconveniencing luxury in the polarised debate. This study births an economic-media bicycle-chain model to tentatively explain the key issues in the debate. The study recommends the use of training in science communication to jump-start public engagement with biotechnology and other science subjects by inspiring academic involvement, increasing scientists’ branding, promoting scientific culture and stimulating public participation. The use of edutainment images/visuals in science communication could enhance discussions and weave science into the fabric of citizens’ day-to-day life as a form of accountability to the taxpayers who fund research. In addition, communicators should use traditional and digital media to harvest ideas to organise content, report about and engage with experts and their audience on new styles of storytelling that can be adopted to pave the way for dialogue on biotechnology and other science-related topics. Further, the study recommends the integration of a BrainLab in science institutions’ curriculum to equip future researchers with the creative communication skills to engage the media, policymakers and the public, as researchers get credit for mentoring their students in such outreaches; researchers can also get input in such forums through crowdsourcing and feedback for feedforward in future research. Such an approach is expected to promote team science communication and prevent science from getting lost through translation.