Illicit drugs and the media: Models of media effects for use in drug policy research

Abstract

Media can influence audiences in four key ways: by setting the agenda and defining public interest; framing issues through selection and salience; indirectly shaping individual and community attitudes towards risk; and feeding into political debate and decision making. Each has relevance for the AOD field. For example, media coverage of the escalating heroin-related problems in Australia played a strong role in generating interest in heroin overdoses, framing public discourse in terms of a health and/or criminal issue and affecting political decisions. Implications AND CONCLUSION: Media coverage in relation to illicit drugs can have multifarious effects. Incorporating media communication theories into future research and actions is critical to facilitate understanding of the short- and long-term impacts of media coverage on illicit drugs and the avenues by which the AOD field can mitigate or inform future media debates on illicit drugs.

Measuring research influence on drug policy: A case example of two epidemiological monitoring systems

“…Beyond the traditional modes of academic publication, dissemination into the public sphere through mass media and the internet can also influence policy uptake, though indirectly. The integral role of the media in shaping political debate and public opinion is widely acknowledged (Lancaster, Hughes, Spicer, Matthew-Simmons, & Dillon, 2011) and is considered to influence "not only the public profile of problems but also the political response to them" (McArthur, 1999, p. 151). In this way, public opinion is considered to play a significant role in political and policy decision-making processes (Matthew-Simmons, Love, & Ritter, 2008).…”

‘Crossing the line’: Criminological expertise, policy advice and the ‘quarrelling society’

“…It has been fleetingly mentioned in relation to media constructions of drug-related issues (Lancaster et al 2010;Ayers and Jewkes 2012); as a footnote providing evidence of the power of politics over evidence (Rock 2010) and as a symbolic and inauspicious end to New Labour's drug policy stance (Watson 2012). The under-consideration of the David Nutt case is an unfortunate oversight that this article begins to address as it provides a clarifying example of the muddied inter-relationship between evidence, policy, and law on one hand, and the blurring between moral beliefs, values and politics on the other.…”

Dos drogas, diferentes mensajes: los medios y la regulación de la marihuana y el alcohol en Uruguay

“…Sin embargo, este proceso es más complejo: los encuadres pueden ser tanto variables dependientes como independientes (Barry, Brescoll y Gollust, 2013), ya que los mismos medios, por un lado, se nutren de las Contratexto n. o 28, julio-diciembre 2017 preferencias de la opinión pública, son susceptibles a los discursos predominantes de las élites y los expertos, y, por otro lado, incluso pueden influir en la definición de las políticas públicas a través de sus encuadres (Lancaster, Hughes, Spicer, Matthew-Simmons y Dillon, 2011). En resumen, la evidencia muestra que la influencia de los encuadres mediáticos en las políticas públicas y la opinión pública es importante, pero también existe el efecto inverso: de la opinión pública, expertos e implementadores de la política hacia la cobertura mediática (Wolfsfeld, 2011).…”