IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i7p1910-d218499.html

Examining German Media Coverage of the Re-Evaluation of Glyphosate

Author

Listed:
  • Veronika Villnow

    (Chair of Economics of Horticulture and Landscaping, School of Management and School of Life Sciences Weihenstephan, Technical University of Munich, 85354 Freising, Germany)

  • Meike Rombach

    (Chair of Economics of Horticulture and Landscaping, School of Management and School of Life Sciences Weihenstephan, Technical University of Munich, 85354 Freising, Germany)

  • Vera Bitsch

    (Chair of Economics of Horticulture and Landscaping, School of Management and School of Life Sciences Weihenstephan, Technical University of Munich, 85354 Freising, Germany)

Abstract

This study investigates media coverage of the re-evaluation process of glyphosate from 1 January 2015 to 31 March 2018. In a comparative, qualitative print media analysis, the promotion of claims and the use of narratives of Die Zeit , a weekly newspaper, and top agrar , an agricultural trade journal, are explored. Results identify noticeable differences in both media outlets’ news reporting. Whereas Die Zeit focused on potential health risks and the scientific controversy, top agrar’s coverage emphasized the harmlessness of glyphosate. The multifaceted use of narratives by Die Zeit contrasts with the comparatively low use of narratives by top agrar .

Suggested Citation

  • Veronika Villnow & Meike Rombach & Vera Bitsch, 2019. "Examining German Media Coverage of the Re-Evaluation of Glyphosate," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-16, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:7:p:1910-:d:218499
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/7/1910/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/7/1910/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gloy, Brent A. & Akridge, Jay T. & Whipker, Linda D., 2000. "Sources Of Information For Commercial Farms: Usefulness Of Media And Personal Sources," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 3(2), pages 1-16.
    2. Winnie Isabel Sonntag & Achim Spiller, 2018. "Measuring Public Concerns? Developing a Moral Concerns Scale Regarding Non-Product Related Process and Production Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-16, April.
    3. Hunt Allcott & Matthew Gentzkow, 2017. "Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election," NBER Working Papers 23089, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Roger E. Kasperson & Ortwin Renn & Paul Slovic & Halina S. Brown & Jacque Emel & Robert Goble & Jeanne X. Kasperson & Samuel Ratick, 1988. "The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(2), pages 177-187, June.
    5. Bitsch, Vera, 2005. "Qualitative Research: A Grounded Theory Example and Evaluation Criteria," Journal of Agribusiness, Agricultural Economics Association of Georgia, vol. 23(01), pages 1-17.
    6. Jale Tosun & Herman Lelieveldt & Trevelyan S. Wing, 2019. "A Case of ‘Muddling Through’? The Politics of Renewing Glyphosate Authorization in the European Union," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-18, January.
    7. Hunt Allcott & Matthew Gentzkow, 2017. "Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 31(2), pages 211-236, Spring.
    8. Klaus G. Grunert, 2005. "Food quality and safety: consumer perception and demand," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 32(3), pages 369-391, September.
    9. Asa Boholm, 1998. "Comparative studies of risk perception: a review of twenty years of research," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(2), pages 135-163, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Áine Regan & Ursula Kenny, 2022. "What Do the Public Want to Know about Farming and Why? Findings from a Farmer-Initiated Public Consultation Exercise in Ireland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-18, April.
    2. Rössert, Sebastian & Gosling, Elizabeth & Gandorfer, Markus & Knoke, Thomas, 2022. "Woodchips or potato chips? How enhancing soil carbon and reducing chemical inputs influence the allocation of cropland," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    3. Sarah P. Church & Belyna Bentlage & Roberta Weiner & Nicholas Babin & Brian R. Bulla & Katelyn Fagan & Tonya Haigh & J. Stuart Carlton & Linda S. Prokopy, 2020. "National print media vs. agricultural trade publications: communicating the 2012 Midwestern US drought," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 161(1), pages 43-63, July.
    4. Mohr, Svenja & Höhler, Julia, 2023. "Media coverage of digitalization in agriculture - an analysis of media content," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    5. M. Rut Jiménez-Liso & Manuela González-Herrera & Isabel Banos-González, 2020. "Socio-Ecological Controversies in the News as Trigger of a Model-Based Inquiry Instructional Sequence about the Effect of Global Warming on the Great Barrier Reef," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-20, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Leopoldo Fergusson & Carlos Molina, 2020. "Facebook Causes Protests," HiCN Working Papers 323, Households in Conflict Network.
    2. Dean Neu & Gregory D. Saxton & Abu S. Rahaman, 2022. "Social Accountability, Ethics, and the Occupy Wall Street Protests," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 180(1), pages 17-31, September.
    3. Robbett, Andrea & Matthews, Peter Hans, 2018. "Partisan bias and expressive voting," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 107-120.
    4. Henrik Skaug Sætra, 2021. "AI in Context and the Sustainable Development Goals: Factoring in the Unsustainability of the Sociotechnical System," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-19, February.
    5. Fathey Mohammed & Nabil Hasan Al-Kumaim & Ahmed Ibrahim Alzahrani & Yousef Fazea, 2023. "The Impact of Social Media Shared Health Content on Protective Behavior against COVID-19," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(3), pages 1-16, January.
    6. Bartosz Wilczek, 2020. "Misinformation and herd behavior in media markets: A cross-national investigation of how tabloids’ attention to misinformation drives broadsheets’ attention to misinformation in political and business journalism," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-22, November.
    7. Joël Cariolle & Yasmine Elkhateeb & Mathilde Maurel, 2022. "(Mis-)information technology: Internet use and perception of democracy in Africa," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 22010, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    8. Barrera, Oscar & Guriev, Sergei & Henry, Emeric & Zhuravskaya, Ekaterina, 2020. "Facts, alternative facts, and fact checking in times of post-truth politics," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    9. Sumeet Kumar & Binxuan Huang & Ramon Alfonso Villa Cox & Kathleen M. Carley, 2021. "An anatomical comparison of fake-news and trusted-news sharing pattern on Twitter," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 27(2), pages 109-133, June.
    10. Mignot Sarah & Pellizzari Paolo & Westerhoff Frank, 2024. "Fake News and Asset Price Dynamics," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 244(4), pages 351-379.
    11. Zazli Lily Wisker & Robert Neil McKie, 2021. "The effect of fake news on anger and negative word-of-mouth: moderating roles of religiosity and conservatism," Journal of Marketing Analytics, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(2), pages 144-153, June.
    12. Roger D. Magarey & Christina M. Trexler, 2020. "Information: a missing component in understanding and mitigating social epidemics," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-11, December.
    13. Christoph March & Ina Schieferdecker, 2021. "Technological Sovereignty as Ability, Not Autarky," CESifo Working Paper Series 9139, CESifo.
    14. Kübler, Raoul V. & Manke, Kai & Pauwels, Koen, 2025. "I like, I share, I vote: Mapping the dynamic system of political marketing," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(C).
    15. Deena A. Isom & Hunter M. Boehme & Toniqua C. Mikell & Stephen Chicoine & Marion Renner, 2021. "Status Threat, Social Concerns, and Conservative Media: A Look at White America and the Alt-Right," Societies, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-20, July.
    16. Lohse, Johannes & McDonald, Rebecca, 2021. "Absolute groupishness and the demand for information," VfS Annual Conference 2021 (Virtual Conference): Climate Economics 242454, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    17. Seth C. Lewis & Logan Molyneux, 2018. "A Decade of Research on Social Media and Journalism: Assumptions, Blind Spots, and a Way Forward," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 6(4), pages 11-23.
    18. Germano, Fabrizio & Sobbrio, Francesco, 2020. "Opinion dynamics via search engines (and other algorithmic gatekeepers)," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    19. Felix Chopra & Ingar K. Haaland & Christopher Roth, 2019. "Do People Value More Informative News?," CESifo Working Paper Series 8026, CESifo.
    20. Saifuddin Ahmed & Muhammad Ehab Rasul & Adeline Wei Ting Bee & Ashling Tai, 2025. "Understanding Cross-Platform Variability in Misinformation Engagement: Insights From Meta-Owned Platforms," SAGE Open, , vol. 15(3), pages 21582440251, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:7:p:1910-:d:218499. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.