Discussion

The primary result, that newspapers in Europe have biased the news on genetically-modified foods in a negative manner, is not surprising, since previous research in this area (Fitzgerald et al. (2002), Vilella-Vila and Costa-Font (2008), King’s College (2008), Nichols-O’Neill and Woodworth (2012)) have already identified such negative bias in various degrees. However, these studies argue that this negative bias may change to neutral or even positive over the years, but the results do not support such a view.

Further, the on-going Eurobarometer scores (although not measured every year) show that the European population continues to be negative towards GM foods. This negative feeling of Europeans towards GM foods is also confirmed by a report from the European Commission (Gaskell et al., 2010) which says ‘In 2010, combining ‘totally agree’ and ‘tend to agree’ we find 27 per cent in support. By the same token, 57 per cent are not willing to support GM food. The comparison between 2010 and 2005 shows no substantial changes in the public’s perception of GM food.’ There is an endogenous relationship between the negative bias on GM foods by European newspapers and the negative perception of GM foods by the European population, but it may be surmised that the starting point of this process is the activists influencing the newspapers to bias against GM foods and the population reacting to such news before the endogenous relationship sets in. A focussed research in this area using the appropriate instruments can yield very interesting results.

The manager of a processed food firm needs to constantly track the changes in newspaper stance in each country in Europe since, as seen in the results, there are both inter-country and inter-year variations in the reporting of news on GM foods.

62 2.12 Conclusion

This paper first shows the possible role of media and the inherent bias in business strategy, and why a manager should care about media bias and its impact on corporate strategy. This leads to the need for the manager to understand the various facets and reasons for media bias and this is where the current research aims to add to the existing literature.

The second part of the paper explains the methodology and the results of the content analysis carried out on articles which appeared across 46 European newspapers, and the existence of media bias against GM foods is shown, with 65.5% of the articles in Europe showing a negative bias towards genetically modified foods. This negative bias is in line with the Eurobarometer scores (see Table 2.1) and supports the literature in media bias, for example, Mullainathan and Shleifer (2005) state that the idea that people appreciate, find credible, enjoy and remember stories consistent with their beliefs is standard in the communications literature. Mullainathan and Shleifer (2002) also argue that readers suffer from confirmatory bias: they dismiss stories that are inconsistent with their belief. Since news stories that are not memorable are considered to be bad, a newspaper has an incentive to alter its story so that it better fits the readers’ category.

Another argument from the same authors is that newspapers may bias what they consider as

‘mildly interesting news’ in order not to be dismissed by the readers, while for big stories, they may not fear dismissal by the readers. This raises an interesting question: do newspapers in Europe believe, that over a period of time, GM foods have become less interesting and hence the news around this subject needs to be biased? This may be the new phase, and the findings of Fitzgerald, Campbell and Sivak (2002) show that by the year 2000, media coverage on GM food had already moved to a neutral middle ground. But the current thesis shows that strong negative media bias against GM foods existed across European countries during the period 2005 and 2010.

63 Thus the overall results of the paper can be summarized as follows: 1) Very few studies have been carried out to show newspaper bias in Europe when consumers are faced with new technology launches, but these papers do not appear to analyse the possible reasons for such bias, making it difficult for the manager to appreciate the impact of the possible bias; 2) In the current paper, a strong negative bias on GM foods in European newspapers during the period 2005-2010 is evident; 3) However, the bias levels and trends vary by country and by newspaper, which in turn requires a more in-depth study.

2.13 Limitations and future research

Given the language and cultural differences across European countries which also result in country-specific interpretations of newspaper articles, a more robust method of translation of the articles may be explored in the future. Further, television and internet offer increasingly interesting media for analyzing media bias, and these should be examined in further research in this area. Some additional steps might also be explored to strengthen the idea that there is a negative coverage in the media regarding the launch of new technologies. In particular, if one could show that there are structural dimensions driving this negative feeling and identify the structural reasons, those results would support the findings of this chapter. This is what is studied in the following two chapters.

2.14 References

Adkins Covert, T.J., Wasburn P.C. (2007). Measuring Media Bias: A Content Analysis of Time and Newsweek Coverage of Domestic Social Issues, 1975-2000. Social Science Quarterly. Vol. 88, No. 3, September 2007, p 690-706.

Ansolabehere S., Lessem R. and Snyder J.M. (2006). The orientation of newspaper endorsements in U.S. elections, 1940-2002. Quarterly Journal of Political Science 1, 2006, p. 393-404.

Alterman, E. (2003). What Liberal Media? The Truth about Bias and the News. Published by Basic Books, A Member of Perseus Books Group, NY, USA. 2003.

Anand, B., Di Tella R., Galetovic A. (2007). Information or opinion? Media Bias as Product Differentiation. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy. Vol. 16, No. 3, Fall 2007, p 635-682.

Bagdikian B.H. (2004). The New Media Monopoly. Boston: Beacon Press, 2004.

Baron D.P. (2005). Competing for the Public Through the News Media. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy. Vol. 14, No.2, Summer 2005, p 339-376.

64 Bednar M.K., Boivie S., Prince N. (2013). Burr under the saddle: How media coverage influences strategic change. Organization Science. May/June 2013 vol. 24, No.3, p 910-925.

Berryhill D.A. (1994). The Media Hates Conservatives: How it Controls the Flow of Information. Published by Huntington House Publishers. 1994.

Besley T., Burgess R. (2002). The Political Economy of Government Responsiveness:

Theory and Evidence from India. Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 117, 2002, p 1415-1451.

Besley T., Pratt A. (2001). Handcuffs for the Grabbing Hand? Media Capture and Government Accountability. London School of Economics and Political Science, London.

Bonardi J.P., Keim G.D. (2005). Corporate political strategies for widely salient issues.

Academy of Management Review. Vol. 30, No. 3, 2005, p 555-576.

Bruno R. (2009). Markets Evidence of Bias in the Chicago Tribune Coverage of Organized Labor – A Quantitative Study from 1991 to 2001. Labor Studies Journal. Vol. 34, No.3, September 2009, p 385-407.

Croteau D., Hoynes W. (1994). By Invitation Only: How the Media Limit Public Debate.

Common Courage, 1994.

Deephouse D.L. (2000). Media Reputation as a Strategic Resource: An Integration of Mass Communication and Resource-Based Theories. Journal of Management. Vol. 26, No.6, 2000, p 1091-1112.

Di Tella R. and Franceschelli I. (2010). Government Advertising and Media Coverage of Corruption Scandals. Draft dated July 11, 2010.

Dunham W.R. (2011). Framing the Right Suspects: Measuring Media Bias. April 8, 2011.

Available at SSRN:http://ssrn.com/abstract=1805897 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1805897.

Dyck A., Volchkova N., Zingales L. (2006). The Corporate Governance Role of the Media:

Evidence from Russia. NBER Working paper series. Working Paper 12525. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA. September 2006.

Dyck A., Zingales L. (2004). Private benefits of control: an international comparison. Journal of Finance, American Finance Association. Vol.59, No.2, 2004, p 537-600.

Efron E. (1971). The News Twisters. Los Angeles, Nash Publishing, 197.

Erfle S., McMillan H. (1990). Media, Political Pressure, and the Firm: The Case of Petroleum Pricing in the Late 1970s. Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 105, 1990, p 115-134.

Fang L., Peress J. (2009). Media Coverage and the Cross-section of Stock Returns. The Journal of Finance, Vol. 64, No.5, October 2009, p 2023-2052.

Fitzgerald R., Campbell H., Sivak S. (2002) Content Analysis of Bias in International Print Media Coverage of GM Food. Rural Society, Vol. 11, No. 3, 2002, p 181-196

Gaskell G., Allum N., Bauer M. W., Jackson J., Howard S., Lindsey N. (2003). Ambivalent GM nation? Public attitudes to biotechnology in the UK, 1991-2002. Life Sciences in European Society Report: London School of Economics and Political Science.

Gaskell G., Stares S., Allansdottir A., Allum N., Castro P., Esmer Y., Fischler C., Jackson J., Kronberger N., Hampel J., Mejlgaard N., Quintanilha A., Rammer A., Revuelta G., Stoneman P., Torgersen H., Wagner W. (2010). Europeans and biotechnology in 2010 – Winds of

65 Change? A report to the European Commission’s Director-General for Research. European Commission, Brussels. October 2010, EUR 24537 EN.

Gentry R. J. and Shen W. (2013). The impact of performance relative to analyst forecasts and analyst coverage on firm R&D intensity. Strategic Management Journal. vol 34(1), 2013, p 121-130.

Gentzkow M., Shapiro J.M. (2006) Informal Institutions and Comparative Politics: A Research Agenda. Kellogg Institute, Working Paper #307, September 2003.

Gentzkow M., Shapiro J.M. (2006) Media Bias and Reputation. Journal of Political Economy.

Vol. 114, No. 2, 2006, p 280-316.

Gentzkow M., Shapiro J.M. (2008) Market Forces and News Media in Muslim Countries.

Information and Public Choice. Edited by Roumeen Islam. The World Bank (2008), p 107-120.

Goldberg B. (2002). Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News. Regnery Publishing, 2002.

Groseclose T., Milyo J. (2005). A Measure of Media. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Volume CXX, November 2005, Issue 4, 2005, p 1191-1237.

Gurun U.G. and Butler A.W. (2012). Don’t Believe the Hype:Local Media Slant, Local Advertising, and Firm Value. The Journal of Finance, Volume 67, Issue 2, April 2012, p 561-598.

Haynes K.T., Hillman A. (2010). The effect of board capital and CEO power on strategic change. Strategic Management Journal, Volume 31, Issue 11, November 2010, p 1145–

1163.

Hebden W.C., Shin H.K., Hallman W.K. (2005). Consumer responses to GM foods:Why are Americans so different? Choices. A publication of the American Agricultural Economics Association. 4^th Quarter 2005. 20(4).

Herman E.S., Chomsky N. (1988) Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. New York: Pantheon Books, 1988.

Hertsgaard M. (1989). On Bended Knee: The Press and the Reagan Presidency. Published by Farrar Straus Giroux, New York, 1989.

Hoban T.J., (1998). Trends in consumer attitudes about agricultural biotechnology.

AgBioForum, Vol 1(1), p 3-7.

Hoban T.J. (2002). American consumers’ awareness and biotechnology. Ithaca: National Agricultural Biotechnology Council. 2002.

Holsti O.R. (1968). Content analysis. In G. Lindzey & E. Aaronson (Eds.). The Handbook of Social Psychology. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. 1968.

Hsieh H-F., Shannon S.E. (2005). Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis.

Qualitative Health Research. Vol. 15, November 2005, p 1277-1288.

King’s College London (2008). Do European Consumers Buy GM Foods? (“CONSUMER CHOICE”). European Commission: Framework 6 – Contractor: King’s College London, Project No. 518435. Final report. Contract Period: May 1^st 2006 to October 30^th.

66 Lichter S. R., Rothman S., & Lichter L. (1986). The Media Elite: America's New Power- brokers. Bethesda, MD: Adler & Adler, 1996.

Lott J.R. Jr., Hasset K.A. (2004). Is Newspaper Coverage of Economic Events Politically Biased? Manuscript, American Enterprise Institute, 2004.

Macnamara J. (2003). Media content analysis: Its uses; benefits and best practice methodology. Asia Pacific Public Relations Journal, 6(1), 2003, p 1-34, 2003.

Marks L.A., Kalaitzandonakes N. (2001). Mass media communications about agrobiotechnology. AgBioForum, Vol. 4 (3&4), 2001, p 199-208.

McInerney C., Bird N., Nucci M. (2004). The Flow of Scientific Knowledge From Lab to the Lay Public: the Case of Genetically Modified Food. Science Communication, 26, 75-106.

2004.

Mullainathan S., Shleifer A. (2002). Media Bias. Working paper 9295. National Bureau of Economic Research. Cambridge, MA. October 2002, p 1-26.

Mullainathan S., Shleifer A. (2005). The Market for News. The American Economic Review.

Vol. 95, No.4, September 2005, p 1031-1053.

Neuendorf K. (2002). The Content Analysis Guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage Publications, 2002.

Nichols-O’Neill K., Woodworth M. (2012). Cross-National Newspaper Coverage of Genetically Modified Foods. A Community Structure Approach. The College of New Jersey, May 4, 2012.

Ohtsubo H., Yamada Y. (2007). Japanese Public Perceptions of Food-related Hazards.

Journal of Risk Research. Vol. 10, No. 6, September 2007, p 805-819.

Petrova M. (2008). Political economy of media capture. Information and Public Choice – Media Markets to Policy Making. ed. Roumeen Islam. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

Reuter J., Zitzewitz E. (2003). Do Ads Influence Editors? Advertising and Bias in the Financial Media. Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 121, No. 1, 2003, p 197-227.

Rohner D., Frey B.S. (2007). Blood and ink! The common-interest game between terrorists and the media. Public Choice, Springer Media, Vol. 133, May 2007, p 129-145.

Rusher W.A. (1988). Curbing the Power of the Media Elite. New York: William Morrow and Company, 1988.

Stromsnes K., Selle P., Grendstad G. (2006). Norwegian Environmentalism between State and Community: Why Greenpeace Failed in Norway. Paper presented at the 7th International ISTR Conference. Bangkok, Thailand, July 9-12 2006.

Vilella-Vila M., Costa-Font J. (2008). Press media reporting effects on risk perceptions and attitudes towards genetically modified (GM) food. The Journal of Socio-Economics. Vol. 37, 2008, p 2095-2106.

Vogel D. (2012). The Politics of Precaution: Regulating Health, Safety and Environmental Risks in Europe and the United States. Princeton University Press. 2012.

Wartick S.L. (1992). The relationship between intense media exposure and change in corporate reputation. Business & Society. Vol. 31, issue 1, 1992, p 33-49.

67 Wiersema M.F., Bantel K.A. (1992). Top management team demography and corporate strategic change. Academy of Management journal. 1992. vol. 35 no.1, 1992, p 91-121.

Wiersema M.F., Zhang Y. (2011). CEO Dismissal: The role of investment analysts. Strategic Management journal. vol. 32, issue 11, November 2011, p 1161-1182.

Wiesenfeld B. M., Wurthmann K. A., Hambrick D. C. (2008). The stigmatization and devaluation of elites associated with corporate failures: a process model. The Academy of Management Review, Jan 2008, vol.33, Issue:1, p231-251.

Zhang C., Bai J., Huang J., Hallman W., Pray C., Aquino H. (2004). Consumer Acceptance of Genetically Modified Foods: A Comparison between the US and China. Selected Paper prepared for presentation at the American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, Denver, Colorado, August 1-4, 2004

68 Appendix 2.1. Examples of Original Language and Translated Articles

1. Negative Content (Kommersant, Russia) 10 опасных для природы изобретений Most of the technologies that facilitate a person's life, ruin the environment

# Text edited

Genetically modified organisms

Genetically modified organisms have been obtained by American scientists in the early 1980's. In 1988, the United States were first planting of transgenic crops. Now crops with modified genes occupy in the world, more than 100 million ha. Meanwhile, the issue of security products with GMOs is still open. Some scientists claim that they can cause mutations that lead to allergies and diseases of internal organs.

Source: http://www.kommersant.ru/doc.aspx?fromsearch=c9648bf0-4f8b-484a-b0aa-c9e769fe7b13&docsid=1370675

2. Negative Content (Daily Mirror, UK)

GM salmon that grows twice normal rate set to get approval for eating

A monster salmon designed to grow at twice the normal rate is set to become the first genetically modified animal approved for eating.

Food regulators in the States are considering whether the product, called AquAdvantage salmon, is fit to eat and safe for the environment.

They have signed off five of the seven criteria.

The fish contains a growth hormone that would make it ready for sale in 18 months rather than the usual three years. But the fish would need EU approval to make it into British supermarkets.

AquaBounty, the Massachusetts company behind the fish, insists it is safe and is hoping for approval within months. Chief executive Ronald Stotish said the fish would be no bigger than normal, simply grown in half the time. He said: "You don't get salmon the size of the Hindenburg. You get to those target weights in a shorter time."

AquaBounty would sell fish eggs to fish farms. They would be bred sterile to prevent them getting into the wild and breeding with native salmon.

But Peter Melchett, policy director of the Soil Association, said: "Once you have bombarded an animal with other genes, the DNA is unstable, and there is no guarantee these fish will remain sterile.

"It poses far too great a risk to wild salmon.

69

"A fish that grows so quickly is also likely to lose some of the nutritional benefits.

There is no such thing as a free salmon lunch and we will pay the price."

Even if given the green light, it would take two or three years to hit the supermarkets.

The EU has approved only two GM products since 1998 - a potato engineered for starch production and an insect-resistant maize.

Source: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/06/28/it-s-one-big-leap-for-gm-salmon-115875-22366105/

3. Positive Content (La Repubblica, Italy) Prodotto un riso ogm più ricco di vitamina A

ROMA - è nato "Golden Rice 2", una nuova pianta di riso geneticamente modificata ricca di vitamina A, che potrebbe battere la carenza di questo nutriente che affligge nel mondo oltre 250 milioni di persone. La nuova versione del Golden Rice contiene una quantità 20 volte maggiore di pro-vitamina A (beta carotene) della precedente versione e potrebbe garantire la metà del fabbisogno giornaliero dei bambini di questa importantissima vitamina, ha riferito sulla rivista Nature Biotechnology un consorzio di ricercatori americani e britannici.

Fonte: http://ricerca.repubblica.it/repubblica/archivio/repubblica/2005/03/30/prodotto-un-riso-ogm-piu-ricco-di.html

Translated Text

GM rice produced a more rich in vitamin A

ROME - was born "Golden Rice 2, a new genetically modified rice plant rich in vitamin A, which could beat the lack of this nutrient in the world that affects over 250 million people. The new version of Golden Rice contains 20 times more pro-vitamin A (beta carotene) than the previous version and could provide half the daily requirement of children of this important vitamin, reported in the journal Nature Biotechnology a consortium of American researchers and British.

Source:http://ricerca.repubblica.it/repubblica/archivio/repubblica/2005/03/30/prodotto-un-riso-ogm-piu-ricco-di.html

4. Neutral Content (Le Monde, France)

L'UE s'attaque à l'embargo français sur les OGM

Paris et l'autorité européenne chargée de la sécurité alimentaire ont croisé le fer, sauvegarde contre son utilisation en France.

"Aucune preuve scientifique, en termes de risques pour la santé humaine ou animale ou pour l'environnement, n'a été fournie pour justifier l'invocation d'une clause de sauvegarde," explique l'AESA. La Commission européenne doit désormais étudier la position de l'AESA. Ensuite, elle ordonnera très probablement à la France de lever son embargo, estiment des sources diplomatiques.

Mais Paris a immédiatement répliqué en annonçant qu'il maintenait sa position. Le ministère de l'écologie a fait savoir dans un communiqué que la France allait se défendre devant le Conseil des ministres européen. La clause de sauvegarde européenne permet d'interdire provisoirement la culture ou la vente d'un organisme génétiquement modifié autorisé dans l'UE, en invoquant un risque pour la santé ou l'environnement. Les Etats membres utilisant cette clause doivent présenter à Bruxelles des éléments scientifiques "nouveaux" pour la justifier. Le MON810 n'a pas été semé en 2008 et reste interdit en France.

Source: http://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2008/10/31/l-ue-s-attaque-a-l-interdiction-francaise-des-ogm_1113462_3244.html

70

Translated Text

The EU is addressing the French ban on GMOs

Paris and the European authority responsible for food safety have crossed swords, Friday, Oct. 31, with the backdrop of the French position on GMOs. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) said the French ban of genetically modified maize MON810 produced by the U.S. firm Monsanto was unjustified. It responded to a request from the European Commission on the validity of the invocation at the beginning of the year, a saving clause against its use in France.

"No scientific evidence in terms of risks to human or animal health or the environment was provided to justify the invocation of a safeguard clause," EFSA says. The European Commission must now consider the position of the EFSA. Then it most likely will order France to lift its embargo, say diplomatic sources.

But Paris has immediately responded by announcing that it maintained its position.

The Department of Ecology said in a statement that France would defend itself before the European Council of Ministers. The EU safeguard clause allows provisional prohibition of the cultivation or sale of a GMO authorized in the EU, citing a risk to

5. Neutral Content (The Hindu, India) – Example of how newspapers decide the content of the news

Bt brinjal trials have GEAC approval: TNAU

‘The network project is closely monitored by agencies of the Government of India’

A day after a group of environmentalists protesting Tamilnadu Agricultural University’s (TNAU) field trials of genetically modified (GM) brinjal by storming into its research farm here, the university on Saturday said demonstrators violated TNAU’s rights and also the Government of India regulations.

The university authorities said they have lodged a police complaint. The university registrar, Dr P. Santhana Krishnan, in a statement maintained that the GM crop trials

The university authorities said they have lodged a police complaint. The university registrar, Dr P. Santhana Krishnan, in a statement maintained that the GM crop trials

Dans le document Media bias and media firm strategy (Page 62-0)