Medialization and Credibility: Paradoxical Effect or (Re)-Stabilization of Boundaries? Epidemiology and Stem Cell Research in the Press

Abstract

This chapter asks how two seemingly contradictory findings can be explained: The conceptually sound reasoning that more “negative” science in the news leads to a loss in credibility on the one hand and empirical research showing the stability of the epistemological status of science on the other hand. By distinguishing between normative and cognitive expectations, three possible effects on credibility can be identified: (1) a loss in credibility, (2) a tension between normative and cognitive expectations and (3) a re-stabilization of the credibility of science. In the coverage of epidemiology and stem cell research a re-stabilization of credibility and a tension between normative and cognitive expectations can be observed, a loss in credibility cannot. I then argue that this finding can be attributed to the logic of mass media. A loss in credibility would imply a fundamental break with deeply rooted cultural patterns, while a tension as well as a re-stabilization of the relationship between normative and cognitive expectations is compatible with the integration function of mass media: co-ordinating the mutual expectations and expectation-expectations of different social spheres. Seen from this perspective, medialization on the one hand creates a credibility problem that fulfils the integration function of binding science to the normative expectations of its social environment. On the other hand, it solves a potential credibility problem by providing the conditions necessary for a more “realistic” re-alignment of cognitive and normative expectations. Thus, it appears as the functional and necessary counterpart to the permeation of science into all areas of society.