An analysis of media discourse on genetically modified rice in China

Discourse and Communication 15 (2):220-237 (2021)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Current problems and controversies involving GM issues are not limited to scientific fields but spill over into the social context. When disagreements enter society via media outlets, social factors such as interests, resources, and values can contribute to complicating discourse about a controversial subject. Using the framework for the analysis of media discourse proposed by Carvalho, this paper examines news reports on Chinese GM rice from the dimensions of both text and context, covering the period of 2001–2015. This study shows that media may not only construct basic concepts, theme, and discursive strategies but also generate an ideological stance. This ideology constituted an influential dimension of the GM rice controversy. By following ideology consistent with the dominant position of the Chinese government, the media selectively constructed and endowed GM rice with a specific meaning in the Chinese social context, making possible the reproduction and communication of GM rice knowledge and risks to the public.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,991

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Interests, Norms, Meanings: A Study of Rice Biotechnology in India.Sambit Mallick & Avinash Kumar - 2020 - Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society 40 (3-4):31-39.
Paternalism in China Daily’s coverage of Chinese Muslims.Peter Thomas & Meng Ye - 2020 - Discourse and Communication 14 (3):314-331.

Analytics

Added to PP
2021-05-10

Downloads
5 (#1,560,281)

6 months
3 (#1,045,430)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Public Opinion. By Charles E. Merriam. [REVIEW]Walter Lippmann - 1922 - International Journal of Ethics 33:210.

Add more references