Abstract
Australian authorities have approved genetically modified (GM) food and crops despite persistent public ambivalence towards the technology. This action has been legitimated in part by dismissing public concerns as having no basis in “sound science”. Such an approach to governance is undemocratic because it uses unacknowledged value-laden assumptions that, among other things, neglect attention to intractable uncertainty around technological impacts. This paper explores the degree to which journalists can help expose these assumptions, open up democratic debate about them, and stimulate more accountable use of science. It uses empirical evidence to explore coverage of the GM debate in Australia, and the constraints on journalists in facilitating critical engagement with the views of scientific power elites in such technological risk debates. Some trajectories for how journalism may better facilitate civic debate on technological futures are then canvassed.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
