Marginal voices in the media coverage of controversial health interventions: how do they contribute to the public understanding of science?

While the media are a significant source of information for the public on science and technology, journalists are often accused of providing only a partial picture by neglecting the points of view of vulnerable stakeholders. This paper analyzes the press coverage of four controversial health interventions in order to uncover what voices are treated marginally in the media and what the relative contributions of these voices are to the stories being told. Our empirical study shows that: 1) patterns of source utilization vary depending on the health intervention and less dominant stakeholders are in fact represented; and 2) the use of marginal voices fills certain information gaps but the overall contribution of such voices to the controversies remains limited. In order to strengthen the media coverage of science and technology issues, we suggest that further research on journalistic practices: 1) move beyond the dichotomy between journalists and scientists, and 2) explore how different categories of readers appraise the meaning and relevance of media content.