The weekly science section of the New York Times, Science Times, is an important and influential entity in science journalism. This article presents the results of an in-depth, longitudinal study of Science Times over twenty years. Sampling every five years from 1980 to 2000, the authors analyzed changes in the size of the section, advertising, and coverage emphasis in terms of disciplines and themes treated. Science Times grew from 1.7 pages per issue, on average (excluding advertising), in 1980 to 5.4 pages per issue in 2000. While the downturn in computer-related advertising is often blamed for the demise of science sections in other newspapers, Science Times was bigger in 2000 than during the boom years of computer-related advertising. Medicine, health, and behavior received the most attention overall, although the proportion varied over time. While research findings were the most frequent theme, explanations, reviews, and profiles were a substantial component. The findings are discussed with regard to the institutional history of Science Times.
Bader, R.1990. How science news sections influence newspaper science coverage: A case study. Journalism Quarterly67 (1): 88-96.
2.
Best, S., and D. Kellner. 2001. The postmodern adventure: Science, technology, and cultural studies at the third millennium. New York: Guilford.
3.
Bruck, P.1989. Strategies for peace, strategies for news research. Journal of Communication39 (1): 108-129.
4.
Bucchi, M., and R. G. Mazzolini. 2003. Big science, little news: Science coverage in the Italian daily press, 1946-1997. Public Understanding of Science12:7-14.
5.
Dean, C.2002. New complications in reporting science. Nieman ReportsFall:25-26.
6.
Diamond, E.1994. Behind theTimes: Inside theNew York Times. New York: Villard.
7.
Dunwoody, S.1986. The science writing inner club: A communication link between science and the lay public. In Scientists and journalists: Reporting science as news, edited by S. M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, and C. L. Rogers, 155-169. New York: Free Press.
8.
Evans, W., and S. Hornig Priest. 1995. Science content and social context. Public Understanding of Science4:327-340.
9.
Evans, W. A., M. Krippendorf, J. H. Yoon, P. Posluszny, and S. Thomas. 1990. Science in the prestige and national tabloid presses. Social Science Quarterly71:105-117.
10.
Friedman, S. M.1986. The journalist’s world. In Scientists and journalists: Reporting science as news, edited by S. M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, and C. L. Rogers, 17-41. New York: Free Press.
11.
Fujimura, J.1988. The molecular biological bandwagon in cancer research: Where social worlds meet. Social Problems35:261-283.
12.
Fürsich, E., and E. P. Lester. 1996. Science journalism under scrutiny: A textual analysis of Science Times. Critical Studies in Mass Communication13:24-43.
13.
Gans, H. J.1979. Deciding what’s news. New York: Pantheon.
14.
Gelb, A.2003. City room. New York: Marion Wood.
15.
Hilgartner, S., and C. L. Bosk. 1988. The rise and fall of social problems: A public arenas model. American Journal of Sociology94:53-78.
16.
Hinkle, G., and W. R. Elliott. 1989. Science coverage in three newspapers and three supermarket tabloids. Journalism Quarterly66:353-358.
17.
Jerome, F.1986. Gee whiz! Is that all there is? In Scientists and journalists: Reporting science as news, edited by S. M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, and C. L. Rogers, 147-154. New York: Free Press.
18.
Kiernan, V.2003. Diffusion of news about research. Science Communication25:3-13.
19.
Lenihan, R.1998. New York Timeslaunches revamped science section. Editor & Publisher October 17:36-37.
20.
Lewenstein, B. V.1987. Was there really a popular science boom?Science, Technology, & Human Values12:29-41.
21.
Lewenstein, B. V.1995. From fax to facts: Communication in the cold fusion saga. Social Studies of Science25:403-436.
22.
Lutz, C. A., and J. L. Collins. 1993. ReadingNational Geographic. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
23.
Miller, D.1999. Mediating science: Promotional strategies, media coverage, public belief, and decision making. In Communicating science: Contexts and channels, edited by E. Scanlon, E. Whitelegg, and S. Yates, 206-226. London: Routledge.
24.
Miller, D., J. Kitzinger, K. Williams, and P. Beharrell. 1998. The circuit of mass communication: Media strategies, representation, and audience reception in the AIDS crisis. London: Sage Ltd.
25.
Nelkin, D.1995. Selling science: How the press covers science and technology. Rev. ed.New York: W. H. Freeman.
26.
New today: An expanded Science Times. 1998. The New York Times October 13:F1.
27.
Pellechia, M. G.1997. Trends in newspaper coverage: A content analysis of three US newspapers. Public Understanding of Science6 (1): 49-68.
28.
Phillips, D. P., E. J. Kanter, B. Bednarczyk, and P. L. Tastad. 1991. Importance of the lay press in the transmission of medical knowledge to the scientific community. New England Journal of Medicine325 (16): 1180-1183.
29.
Potter, J., and D. Levine-Donnerstein. 1999. Rethinking validity and reliability in content analysis. Journal of Applied Communication Research27:258-284.
30.
Rogers, C. L.1986. Appendix F: Science in the mass media: A selected guide. In Scientists and journalists: Reporting science as news, edited by S. M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, and C. L. Rogers, 313-322. New York: Free Press.
31.
Rogers, C. L.1999. The importance of understanding audiences. In Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science, edited by S. M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, and C. L. Rogers, 179-200. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
32.
Scientists’ Institute for Public Information. 1993. Science news: What does the public want?SIPIscope20 (2): 1-10.
33.
Shain, R. E., and J. Philips. 1991. The stigma of mental illness: Labeling and stereotyping in the news. In Risky business: Communicating issues of science, risk, and public policy, edited by L. Wilkins and P. Paterson, 61-74. New York: Greenwood.
34.
Singer, E., and P. M. Endreny. 1993. Reporting on risk. New York: Russell Sage.
35.
Weigold, M. F.2001. Communicating science: A review of the literature. Science Communication23:164-193.
36.
Where to find chess and the computer column. 1998. The New York Times October 13:F2.
37.
Wilcox, S. A.2003. Cultural context and the conventions of science journalism: Drama and contradiction in media coverage of biological ideas about sexuality. Critical Studies in Media Communication20 (3): 225-247.
38.
Willems, J., and E. Woudstra. 1993. The use by biologists and engineers of non-specialist information sources and its relation to their social involvement. Scientometrics28:205-216.
39.
Wilford, J. N.2003. The birth of Science Times: A surprise, but no accident. The New York Times November 11:F2.
