<%BANNER%>

Religion, Science and Public Education: Newspaper Coverage of the Origins' Debate in Ohio's Public Schools

xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20110115_AAAAEZ INGEST_TIME 2011-01-16T02:12:01Z PACKAGE UFE0008950_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 1189 DFID F20110115_AADILC ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH martin_j_Page_70.txt GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
a4536946fae16631c648ad1d167f6b01
SHA-1
7988d434affff4f34594a3c3a494e14dae15aa59
102586 F20110115_AADIGF martin_j_Page_36.jp2
2f4a2aa215907f4bc54951645b729918
9a8228b8104097b88cfe6e662dcead2ed2ab3287
1053954 F20110115_AADHZH martin_j_Page_13.tif
46ea987cb614e44e2035937c90d0b164
93d90b9b0506291269d7f1d980b156d0c91fe237
24681 F20110115_AADIBH martin_j_Page_01.jp2
4916b2ea34ca1e2911914532340ae0bc
358a5848fbe5688a8f2c871c1eb2994fd3f4c79e
3444 F20110115_AADHUK martin_j_Page_87thm.jpg
92463ae74e3e9e84e62b8e0f8f099ce5
253fb791c05cee1c9b9afbf1611963195b38648a
543 F20110115_AADILD martin_j_Page_71.txt
68997cf5e911a6f1aa6f80e2dee0132a
11c3919bc859dc9b04d0db3584072820d556f906
86808 F20110115_AADIGG martin_j_Page_38.jp2
0ea62ef81d86732158620c226ea612db
9965eb5208648c841a6d14efa2b8eb9411e0a060
2004 F20110115_AADHZI martin_j_Page_39.txt
acd38b75e10cacb98896d6b9d5118e44
a886af381b5d6472dd744e43879ae7117af3c942
3232 F20110115_AADIBI martin_j_Page_53thm.jpg
f9f0643548bef9eb025b8a1c5281ca24
721320d2aa91a04c66965ceb3d1a915e3ccc7179
F20110115_AADHUL martin_j_Page_62.tif
9d10663571b2965f86dd40a87f9404a3
eacf23beab28670724695209bdc372de79a4ebcf
2723 F20110115_AADILE martin_j_Page_73.txt
f86d170053a24f79f3be84b39bd42d39
72b5a71f7d04e9eaa34920514f4b9bd0297969e8
99554 F20110115_AADIGH martin_j_Page_40.jp2
2fa89598fbc1f81f990a7f9b253ba736
7851e60453d55990633372a4e69387a044d6a8ba
4575 F20110115_AADHZJ martin_j_Page_05thm.jpg
25d029542469d00e272282162f5a1399
bbdf5171642ea4c92294da3992d563009d90a3bd
5725 F20110115_AADIBJ martin_j_Page_38thm.jpg
cf914dbf6f74c05c757352ee4621f719
837a9bdb11fffdd5b189750a820e6ad09b5f5ea8
6426 F20110115_AADHUM martin_j_Page_61thm.jpg
931934699c26712f51e6a77ad5e949b7
07b7a106152a985925d1f0fb88f30616279539b4
3205 F20110115_AADILF martin_j_Page_74.txt
bf9fb3ff7c1950a99900880bbb83164b
baca85e838267c0139ae75cabc0658d10dde7d3e
104588 F20110115_AADIGI martin_j_Page_44.jp2
d1823e83dcaad1cd86de2e82a3f0c33c
67bdad495921059e1b2794e59e7bda7c16c0c030
25271604 F20110115_AADHZK martin_j_Page_51.tif
aaf489a4543160fe76d46ed3e31592f9
ad2aebef310ff3434ac57d3a3e9e7254a4ede074
23846 F20110115_AADIBK martin_j_Page_01.jpg
29f5a11c48b020622557acaae65f8435
fa5272ebe8496eddc57f9ea461cd2bf266679e65
23031 F20110115_AADHUN martin_j_Page_06.jpg
131b9bac467c63b224cfae37af375af2
6c75c8cee56eb755ce739b667618b676583e3df1
3055 F20110115_AADILG martin_j_Page_75.txt
9780040afb2408376eef069acf798dea
1574af091ae99c310eae11bf05ca86c3bf07f4e8
40601 F20110115_AADIGJ martin_j_Page_46.jp2
0c6ad4a8fa2b45f7ac72f6232a4e6ce3
b44caedf69ce8605eafca5fc9c8a8cfc647d64f7
23442 F20110115_AADHZL martin_j_Page_64.QC.jpg
0a8086de39c0f0306f4f364b1cf39977
68f97e6e7fb35c5ea29a08909139c8f4eee359fe
48422 F20110115_AADIBL martin_j_Page_19.pro
be4f4e9e019364d1f2db50368499ca08
d660e93c7d2e2c5f98f2de663febacc850d193d3
23753 F20110115_AADHUO martin_j_Page_07.pro
527db93fb45bdfa00801b644cf7a9dee
0c5a02d38667b1d74ee6777ff2eb940d29df34a3
1935 F20110115_AADILH martin_j_Page_76.txt
0c319ee93e5443ffc15b70100da731a0
41b0a01147538a045a31a19fd2c3e3da5a4c2b21
57842 F20110115_AADIGK martin_j_Page_47.jp2
12c3b8904504a32c8b0c89c749f393d5
e913b21c41441f7a4f039ad96ab2865ce64953aa
22523 F20110115_AADHZM martin_j_Page_19.QC.jpg
24eead1938a920b0447361d177d8f256
13108567cb9eba0231893098ca002d53a4d4c17b
13475 F20110115_AADIBM martin_j_Page_67.jpg
daeffc0ddb794e6612bc61327ef2920e
24562a79f26ad35b8507c9560d32d0713b0df7be
72390 F20110115_AADHUP martin_j_Page_29.jpg
80751acb9258259e252c19e81f1da77e
67dbe8c8776b986f678c9b70843cde278ff122e7
2279 F20110115_AADILI martin_j_Page_77.txt
acb3f941216c0f035b32f2f843792ff6
3eb819a5219f9b21ddc5aefc97b46604fde9474d
6282 F20110115_AADHZN martin_j_Page_62thm.jpg
acf04374a76441b310ae2652d39bdcfa
0322e5d3bce887e435d67f51ad8bd0b4094d91a4
F20110115_AADIBN martin_j_Page_34.tif
3b0c314da3482a0c370e752a5c1f4ecb
e8257bf9eef06d8e6d5ebf50cbe55b0f3ef350bf
19856 F20110115_AADHUQ martin_j_Page_06.pro
75254c2356a5955b1ad55f26ac0972a6
a192247a6fcbe519bf5d14c9a9adaa640cd5c085
2218 F20110115_AADILJ martin_j_Page_79.txt
5a9f06e968c37b4880e2d7f317d4a470
54f20eb3973f36bc180c54ca34a23ec55ee7ffca
23370 F20110115_AADIGL martin_j_Page_48.jp2
702491c8c4d18508f097cc323b8105b1
854d044088d396fd7aae9330fd6d73c566be576d
F20110115_AADHZO martin_j_Page_77.tif
a62a14fb037029325e971b1e53f9405f
006e4789000970305999aefa66b64ff1e78d26a6
9990 F20110115_AADIBO martin_j_Page_54.QC.jpg
0b7297f95a6c83c2632ccaf34023761e
f9411bbd97a4e8fd3bf95ecbe5f1bfba152b869d
49457 F20110115_AADHUR martin_j_Page_26.pro
65fda0ab996fd7f1ddcc0a9d18a1cdd4
ad38e78573858129744cb189a66618ce7a72c9aa
2318 F20110115_AADILK martin_j_Page_83.txt
027d4a03594b8ce7d613cc32f7d94378
ddfb1acf6c80a30dc737ca557906168647dfee20
443773 F20110115_AADIGM martin_j_Page_49.jp2
f1b84b4e0ce3aede0c1f1f90f7d9d62f
bf0f4adc43614580b9beaaac0261f1d3c37c346e
F20110115_AADHZP martin_j_Page_23.tif
b11e58e4c933c792bcf142157716d4aa
a7265f383f8c2ed0f529e607535c177472c81772
F20110115_AADIBP martin_j_Page_57.tif
b692c49f8c14ecc15538c46a12057c0e
d55be67a3fa92b6840cdff8257cd8a7524cd7261
23306 F20110115_AADHUS martin_j_Page_14.QC.jpg
d06a2fd39074478648f0b98640fa44dc
fd9973db254fe8574b6d43f72ae9544557026071
2307 F20110115_AADILL martin_j_Page_86.txt
d89cc4dbf4a39b97cf659e039897d613
064202bbf8e33bab1b08841d7183e45772204ddb
348967 F20110115_AADIGN martin_j_Page_50.jp2
1167d9496ae6e6cd4d84e36cce5e214b
7f9ab98781372d43a474e923b9749391455d68b5
91116 F20110115_AADHZQ martin_j_Page_41.jp2
6da1dd3618be0fe408e8f181d94882d0
f2c0da4ee5514b7943e606c7451a1df31092a7b0
6547 F20110115_AADIBQ martin_j_Page_25thm.jpg
3ce7d83ddd42e1ca2adacaa49a6a3620
5309818b585e66b00a66024dd9b43221dbea2435
F20110115_AADHUT martin_j_Page_70.tif
69d163987f835347880c29bf71532ee3
4be519512c846c68a67b42779d60aa57d2a2dc43
1037837 F20110115_AADILM martin_j.pdf
977b714d0fc0e6e18f885439ca246ed0
c2f0d347b1c3cefcb6d68f40e3e41413aaccb968
365242 F20110115_AADIGO martin_j_Page_51.jp2
0e9574f3f445b9bf4279fe8d94602c9e
d2f7d5d001b7db54aeabfba56de1397af0f2f41a
125401 F20110115_AADHZR martin_j_Page_77.jp2
815c6d41109a3c8f53a413a1f13bd57f
e221547f4f44b4a99b35ad5f1bf8130a7af702bb
2057 F20110115_AADIBR martin_j_Page_32.txt
e833d6a9263ade087b87d21e7f073d55
8f70ec4995f44be227d04ac3fd7ba3a225590706
25845 F20110115_AADHUU martin_j_Page_55.pro
1c8a050033c0e2cffeb57fa8cc03ecad
dfdaf58c3eabf0196f87ee53a07d173b5931aa97
7554 F20110115_AADILN martin_j_Page_01.QC.jpg
7b1694315f6964cb1f1f4ce7c20425e0
b84a7113acb498d9982c2385988a6f6bbc05acdc
337996 F20110115_AADIGP martin_j_Page_52.jp2
dbdf58f2964ee7a2b5dd598cdbdf17ba
6484618922977339c10895f8139fa7382ffdf8b5
22424 F20110115_AADHZS martin_j_Page_45.QC.jpg
529ced99355b541b22cfacfa3424fcbc
788b0b15d170f1c8bcaa2218f11ebfd232d46f0a
119207 F20110115_AADIBS martin_j_Page_82.jp2
5ff72355727a778a21ff61a1ca8891f7
846ab64675d61f4c12f73e9a24c38c3414e4aefc
50826 F20110115_AADHUV martin_j_Page_84.pro
4c48b55a338b7ac8936eea239c523b80
94587a7de7de8f8da42b8a6a42d25af211a42e89
3289 F20110115_AADILO martin_j_Page_02.QC.jpg
db1ee525809e9eb7aeec521299396077
abb5e4047e179941103b6c156b8a3ff32913da22
358443 F20110115_AADIGQ martin_j_Page_53.jp2
c1fa323205ccc9bb4812092991ba74ce
a1638e3e80e96b3137c3f0eb2f8733cfa0fb4628
53823 F20110115_AADHZT martin_j_Page_72.pro
127422975e78876ccae8806ff30aaf32
35dc279b92e2151ec19acce73a6a224206f521c2
12960 F20110115_AADIBT martin_j_Page_70.QC.jpg
628fe34c768efc5865ee59f59a5dd1fb
959dbcbd3fc661b96f003d6298c477cd3ff9a9af
106661 F20110115_AADHUW martin_j_Page_23.jp2
b4985a3eb94343a45ef48619f085840e
67ea51f4b417d11e466f66f6ef563aeab795f412
1374 F20110115_AADILP martin_j_Page_02thm.jpg
f1ff728f066f5008edd42cfe7e5e2cea
6fdc9f0bd72f2360ce412171b1b345e10f775c13
103572 F20110115_AADIGR martin_j_Page_62.jp2
26afd314c30b03f7c6c7c93e22729f08
5d91f7f95bb91c449d392991f3316b5da92360a7
F20110115_AADIBU martin_j_Page_33.tif
274eda33b3202dfde1740979ed959663
65ab2683d4028b1af15ee3e3bff54934aa5c226e
65012 F20110115_AADHUX martin_j_Page_73.pro
95c141be857ec3b9c2169c434862e6d6
b1ca719ca4fb51021b7ecf051d4d86766a3fd0b9
F20110115_AADHZU martin_j_Page_45.tif
331b0e6683885f13da946f8db6046cc5
81756179161106bd35a4cea9720d0670ea2dd9c5
108187 F20110115_AADIGS martin_j_Page_66.jp2
8b8a89c876f815266995def70c0d2d56
bec4f0420eabe9e266696bf9b1528e2eb03f5866
F20110115_AADIBV martin_j_Page_30.tif
741d5c27ac6223928cfb456fd39e6d95
ac5b8cffad5f1b7ab12e98f658721de246cd0d4f
29921 F20110115_AADHUY martin_j_Page_88.jp2
a0d2216c0a4e9eab552a7a2ff3e3199e
bcc56fa2c4d5ef63a3ea5406c2d6921c20685afb
42411 F20110115_AADHZV martin_j_Page_56.pro
463e6db5007ff800ad712a4985eeaa2f
9ca3837a4f214cacc913076099e1caf51b015faf
7910 F20110115_AADILQ martin_j_Page_04.QC.jpg
868dea2d10fe3892aba7036f7f448db8
a2db8939a425c5eb52951443ced15fde104bb022
57104 F20110115_AADIGT martin_j_Page_68.jp2
adae9ef6c51e4fbaf58df20babb137d6
4d50ee044be7f9599caa7a29a88d7a7b9dad953a
1714 F20110115_AADIBW martin_j_Page_03thm.jpg
6ec8541e00b5104c9ffba76d949cd017
e82e5d76a8499122fe8b6186564bb523c340511d
2058 F20110115_AADHSA martin_j_Page_34.txt
23a92663cea3aaf973984bf25f968310
83d02bda76cca395443108098a44970d1586f658
67785 F20110115_AADHUZ martin_j_Page_59.jpg
1e64bae9bf03d6ef435e32b905bc6402
b396dc17f77e66d21dd6e6167cc2bbb7f61b3cb3
67039 F20110115_AADHZW martin_j_Page_45.jpg
8464058b6d94cca2c003c72cd4c2e015
44f20b42bf38043f61592feee15c5310abccad0e
2590 F20110115_AADILR martin_j_Page_04thm.jpg
7bf6856a1fc4caeaabf23b25c7781261
a1f9d16c0ae313bbba34041ea9b2d052b47b18ac
65624 F20110115_AADIGU martin_j_Page_70.jp2
9ee978dc974cbe8e7c04f61d11b8ea63
3465c7d4075de441660dcdeb56516ac65abd758e
4343 F20110115_AADIBX martin_j_Page_37.QC.jpg
4748669441ba87e08289401e7b682b02
d0b8f39b34bbe598e1419faf53cc04dce935e2dc
6395 F20110115_AADHSB martin_j_Page_63thm.jpg
abe33f7b72dc9e9179fb284f519c4917
59e3821534fa856a121edfd239d0af2678f80386
47843 F20110115_AADHZX martin_j_Page_24.pro
7d507db7b86aab1dd7ea5fc6e4ad1d61
50683a1b5fce224bda916004ac5a6264af1d8eb7
17094 F20110115_AADILS martin_j_Page_05.QC.jpg
5eef7fb7e6ee1b12dd68d29264dfe9ec
71bfb01529961b9a90dd9044ea6992da2b52b710
33432 F20110115_AADIGV martin_j_Page_71.jp2
ca7b14efe8c678e989c33767bdbd69ce
2492d1b4b38b140cd8890c387a910567fc0c5fed
6432 F20110115_AADIBY martin_j_Page_57thm.jpg
ab3e743ae19bf92e875e98722c752e3a
9880d853feb4041b1c60626c78d062bf6dcbe14c
113459 F20110115_AADHSC martin_j_Page_11.jp2
cc056cf989a18b2a56028e5701413db9
c73ee7da12b9cf4523763a04c1bb1f3013825b9c
6157 F20110115_AADHZY martin_j_Page_24thm.jpg
8b5b4b2380363e02f482b7ddfb6a3eaf
99fcad8ae30cb8523757bd0d5d8f4eda6f6b1ccc
4842 F20110115_AADILT martin_j_Page_08thm.jpg
143aa808eaf455baa60b5d5a64df0482
ab7d6602b7af7e18fc00512f151973c626be6628
155674 F20110115_AADIGW martin_j_Page_74.jp2
63f887576a1b79e2f8c2c6ea5251485d
be196ac1e03cbb62372139307a52c048a2894c98
F20110115_AADIBZ martin_j_Page_08.tif
9eda42b8616c9165a88d269d1e2e0909
9b51dc86af788d5267f478cca8a1d25e6b63a585
15191 F20110115_AADHSD martin_j_Page_51.pro
fcacf93cfc154a29947c570377c13fd2
8b0f1493db74cf495f573ff25000e0541164e9e5
106913 F20110115_AADHXA martin_j_Page_26.jp2
310f4476c72ff4a42effe3a117dca37c
e2b2aeddd19f8e6bab2f3f92ad9dfdd499552169
69814 F20110115_AADHZZ martin_j_Page_44.jpg
091d862ecaa65d8c4740878d066eba59
e32a791186c16f45bdd39d3079c0c789a5006c7e
23658 F20110115_AADILU martin_j_Page_10.QC.jpg
698fa2cf7bb34a9760e395dbb4f6b994
b2b6076fd6ef0d024cd7abd4d0d339386f66065b
157326 F20110115_AADIGX martin_j_Page_75.jp2
f21dbee8c818303bdf7e56c6ac3b1a6a
bce6126747076b3494266dea5caf59e26e2b1ec8
6148 F20110115_AADHSE martin_j_Page_59thm.jpg
b925ad6cd6463cb6a02df5776e19d4ce
867d4ed2ee52e18d66a4e6633f0fb85ff8a1f303
10340 F20110115_AADHXB martin_j_Page_07.QC.jpg
10a0a3605459314192009b04bdd4e3bd
99c17dd1e148bf113cf75fe601201e333b124a63
23993 F20110115_AADILV martin_j_Page_11.QC.jpg
8bb39a498b500a266ff81a663fd6c964
401e37aefd275b306bd3c059b74a34f7460f86f1
126804 F20110115_AADIGY martin_j_Page_78.jp2
c5f2aec74aeed42f80a53119c9f9086a
af63b33bd967e106d8654a82eff9162bf4356456
20659 F20110115_AADHSF martin_j_Page_22.QC.jpg
59209d6a98023d79f2e649d6cccaa2d7
1d85d3cc794d9839b348851a71df9b896a3f1ed5
13526 F20110115_AADIEA martin_j_Page_55.QC.jpg
dc494ca94999d70708afc95f80a9dda1
bbeeab9c9654ff6e6e596d99c3605cafe2d9faa4
50984 F20110115_AADHXC martin_j_Page_85.pro
b6c953627f058280dd8100f223b7b612
5161b35bd9ee3de96e2ad17ce1a5ef0a98b04a30
6545 F20110115_AADILW martin_j_Page_11thm.jpg
6ce41ebc6555a3dbce208bd42908c3fe
18c1d338cd1d6416ec1bbdff5fafba9f85aef333
119628 F20110115_AADIGZ martin_j_Page_79.jp2
9d1a28ea047013570a7cb1d14c35aa51
a9c2fa9e8372c7a75ce8b9e1fb14c20a18053c2a
72437 F20110115_AADHSG martin_j_Page_13.jpg
17cec573e2720d75300d96de114bc503
2cf944d90c62c8f39898afc5257455101d92b2f4
57435 F20110115_AADIEB martin_j_Page_78.pro
d2740135f543255c78172499f2c03184
d37233e7e4389a3eaf483bf9838e15d0372fe667
21905 F20110115_AADHXD martin_j_Page_72.QC.jpg
ca143735a1db2ffde6429d3c5f3b2591
c9380635104489106735625af9c71452548e7923
23493 F20110115_AADILX martin_j_Page_13.QC.jpg
a60516ba6928344f8658fabbbcf8b3f2
f80d87ee91056e928e53f1ed0e1d36bf2357dac7
182 F20110115_AADIEC martin_j_Page_21.txt
9ca57e89d8be9fea5ee50ee0ea72f0e9
284050449705d59b7a545b9991d783f778702f8a
F20110115_AADHXE martin_j_Page_65.tif
4ea2d8850d6afafab5c0ba2f4cc1bbb2
812e892e68f020d0703cd08350a55015db083ec1
1874 F20110115_AADHSH martin_j_Page_61.txt
fd256a1cea6917bda9a3d7fb5031fed2
e04d19b9e45a6bc58b7f4e78390bc99966c352f6
6541 F20110115_AADILY martin_j_Page_13thm.jpg
e33e4085ef514ca846f6382e190e58db
f2b03628006e4c02e052739d9a2d4abfd682a9c8
38749 F20110115_AADIJA martin_j_Page_38.pro
81fa0a30ce58aef9185afbfd554fc8fe
a77b2e82c352b6d71a77b4d6149131f9d657a39f
6748 F20110115_AADIED martin_j_Page_86thm.jpg
aa86f7beb0e4bde60f1b326910df2c74
206af04b06a0dd21fc9c376681cba8eeab38e08b
2025 F20110115_AADHXF martin_j_Page_28.txt
ddb2a0bb379a3a901d6d9350b4823bd3
654786729790a2cc533b81c8d964020abaa09561
114261 F20110115_AADHSI martin_j_Page_65.jp2
3cd0db284c453829300b02ffd87db012
df4a550a2bf87b61110df4d59cd9fc1356e1e9dd
6472 F20110115_AADILZ martin_j_Page_14thm.jpg
09fa772e51db54ca088eaa1a285f6796
c0996a37a24f199be08d7ab48091570c09fa1708
49794 F20110115_AADIJB martin_j_Page_42.pro
33f902262f35e1b8a287275880f79c1e
40ff4df68510499f6babb4b5613d928676e7774d
1984 F20110115_AADIEE martin_j_Page_42.txt
e88b42cac67b48b04da2326f5b14a6cc
707cdd18d9ef4f5953b6a9880c0182d9aef4e5e7
27967 F20110115_AADHXG martin_j_Page_75.QC.jpg
8954ec794b2e8a01f691e3fd586e13d3
698b68dc6db62cce294db1dd4d9a84f32a1bc25c
105371 F20110115_AADHSJ martin_j_Page_60.jp2
fcb995eed592152ff1673e8f93ff437f
b5022d1375c64bbb74e1db2520e022732a62b24e
48504 F20110115_AADIJC martin_j_Page_43.pro
47afbb96ff4be0c83058ecd6dac852f2
1b5330c7b96a03d01919adee9406b4fe905d5e5f
4286 F20110115_AADIEF martin_j_Page_21.QC.jpg
5d99a9bff942659f8503d18b26fcaca9
b6b9cddf807a01b0192f1988d081d6dc204b0b4a
8472 F20110115_AADHXH martin_j_Page_01.pro
e8834aaf7974f7adbad406f2ce4d6348
fb024d0e0528cd49128b6e92b2369a9d118469fd
1149 F20110115_AADHSK martin_j_Page_68.txt
d39076387e7f6b2187019b87f018d0b0
044e913d3aa4fc68b54fa627164cbdd690e336fa
47918 F20110115_AADIJD martin_j_Page_47.pro
ab7c925ee6e93309388f5eaefce98ee3
fdba843a64e0c7dc12786f11f52b5ae91f66a3ca
132680 F20110115_AADIEG UFE0008950_00001.xml FULL
5995c06a3357ecc44f1fbd3c72cf7a41
399d376a0c0c254faa46f1d0fbc179246a1aa8b8
30967 F20110115_AADHXI martin_j_Page_53.jpg
f565a6cd31b51c47621735ecc488ffe5
86ee94e4e7dbd0f22790ee50f26168026ac17c9d
49203 F20110115_AADHSL martin_j_Page_23.pro
4ceaf5c93b6c89be63b99d9f678bfc28
846e8dca69e56ec2dea47cff8671f500b5f0957e
14036 F20110115_AADIJE martin_j_Page_50.pro
b9b849177b6eca080ebc60f8eabf1034
1f30fd77934c5cb7798d7d6ae31f9ff3476a75ae
F20110115_AADHXJ martin_j_Page_78.tif
313bd3a4878245d3614025c44e9dcefc
c6a0624d8c9a0d247ec8c0c60a3e3e40fe9a2372
109025 F20110115_AADHSM martin_j_Page_15.jp2
4a111f24da6da46ce795ce5096dee31e
40979fd9ffd6ac17c32d9393fbc4650ac9701bfb
13302 F20110115_AADIJF martin_j_Page_52.pro
94092ca79c701e0fe3c804887fba5755
efe407b65f39ea60ba948d524cab6ffd094901f1
2101 F20110115_AADHXK martin_j_Page_84.txt
6a12427f88291d728d398bbd48bf02ab
5386601d8bfa834c4b68a8c581da76ca1da6e052
47016 F20110115_AADHSN martin_j_Page_30.pro
6958e7e562158088c5c52d85de079e0f
e57bf0064739b947b081f9bd1eb1ba60aab95404
50842 F20110115_AADIJG martin_j_Page_57.pro
a4ea1edfaed6dccacd8a8d6768ae5092
24e060eec317d2b8fb5e7370d169ca8a599b1fed
64444 F20110115_AADHXL martin_j_Page_09.jpg
913ce4cf5f77f51e89583f3256b841ff
e5dce1e0e9d3dd07890dd50e6857233971253fbe
22231 F20110115_AADHSO martin_j_Page_30.QC.jpg
79db35d557a3e504d455e4c4bf618f38
d36530926fad29fae24f015f2e0f1304ef6b03ec
51523 F20110115_AADIJH martin_j_Page_58.pro
4eeea9a12aa531291969c890cb664bd5
c968ffb975a7eb413d310673c2fd990aae76d8e6
33412 F20110115_AADIEJ martin_j_Page_07.jpg
9f40c1d7e1dc1f5a16828afdb5b803c9
819ac0d3652a33a7f85fd7453bae37817c40adf6
16760 F20110115_AADHXM martin_j_Page_48.pro
3303af8369065f73645567109819660b
6ac2d36ac2542c85553567211a83a3ffd79fbb86
73259 F20110115_AADHSP martin_j_Page_58.jpg
45cbaea3d76bbc1ed2af7406e6d4bc73
117db7219827916aa43c64824ef202afdc032097
48107 F20110115_AADIJI martin_j_Page_59.pro
720a4a86fa16b6c6fe076b9c499aa3ad
dd84e693a74a5dfc4f3b31324accd3da7a9e223c
72327 F20110115_AADIEK martin_j_Page_10.jpg
b0d92162555223492e120733d409f502
1c28a8d7154b19a964cf1b910654f298120ff012
58882 F20110115_AADHXN martin_j_Page_38.jpg
68434395244c878058ae6e5baf965e12
9924de287c22fc2d125accadeb07f37eb54503e3
22391 F20110115_AADHSQ martin_j_Page_24.QC.jpg
f2ed1241c3e3537efa7fac2c7327833f
f6ec5b274b61526ccdadff42b84eaaab2767f4eb
49079 F20110115_AADIJJ martin_j_Page_60.pro
77961512a9770bd876ef8b0480ff0d33
ac798e9ee37c7f0c56e8713a95124baefee2b555
71463 F20110115_AADIEL martin_j_Page_12.jpg
41022c58828781380ad2e8bbb99d2125
7ff5f74e7aa0395e485336074b5889c2a81db0f7
2317 F20110115_AADHXO martin_j_Page_78.txt
6634e905a4d5f5e8532407fd92e1a021
56f35140fe567cba14e5bd5e484b0f90f03a2ce9
52036 F20110115_AADHSR martin_j_Page_33.pro
6ef6808bed63a5205140aa5c9adf87e7
d4e7f44878cc7754ff47d94e0387b550aa0febe1
4078 F20110115_AADIJK martin_j_Page_67.pro
b38d117ded96d75e4c8df1eca7877cd7
f5c7ba79465bb4de224d0edf1c86698a1a0b6691
72722 F20110115_AADIEM martin_j_Page_18.jpg
032272feab83ebaa4a2ce43e74df0922
4569f9a2509e96484b366a06102a598686570ab4
24108 F20110115_AADHXP martin_j_Page_32.QC.jpg
8110013f588933dad5442baa8f864f8f
ea5d2b5660c80c3731f2765f9d3f01b94cbd7086
74017 F20110115_AADHSS martin_j_Page_32.jpg
a14c9dafa1535b70999b05eb6a66f91e
5b15e6e0b41cd34d8030224c35a70d9066a0329f
28931 F20110115_AADIJL martin_j_Page_70.pro
d0dd1f379cd4490a42cc0abb0b8a27ae
9d77fc56646bcbbf9261b264aa48acb226e780bf
68610 F20110115_AADIEN martin_j_Page_19.jpg
1b45acb1082c5d3514c3af35bcba1c6d
3d5a98e902e08dec24863c96ca8da0ebd48073d9
5752 F20110115_AADHXQ martin_j_Page_40thm.jpg
af345da03f22406e2046c05b5a602ede
3ae6e64dcc9db96de46df6a3e4fbb73a4e9969d9
24189 F20110115_AADHST martin_j_Page_04.jpg
698971ec193a881bea24471d6cb78060
c121ca3531b31cfb9dcb01041144e7860698e133
13058 F20110115_AADIJM martin_j_Page_71.pro
9c1986003be996cc7c049e6a97c51d24
7bcf5ee810042ea16136174535518b8cf014a06d
63757 F20110115_AADIEO martin_j_Page_22.jpg
ef96d2b17ea35cac708bb69c611b4591
ed4b7d453c0cfee952bac874ea7472ba1912c5d6
2002 F20110115_AADHXR martin_j_Page_10.txt
e752cfe078df22633d80e88ea7b5072e
e3b44efc3fbafe39a2b9cc87597842ab4ab7592b
22209 F20110115_AADHSU martin_j_Page_43.QC.jpg
2c265aa85607ce4e5d19ec00ff9397be
a6efc035b9686f38fcd760506e6b09f928e462b0
78225 F20110115_AADIJN martin_j_Page_75.pro
5466fac7b11285687096377e27654878
43cf6fa38688296aa322e2efc5c7a481edb82f1a
68704 F20110115_AADIEP martin_j_Page_30.jpg
0e315560eeaba96a5a69b32f6a4c4134
4d98dcdc09d4c946d2d19c15bdb7f99d2e7651fc
F20110115_AADHXS martin_j_Page_22.tif
e18785616979a0d8a6256b3e62d5ef70
967f2dc68bb1456bd633167214a87067ab528018
72718 F20110115_AADHSV martin_j_Page_57.jpg
f24487f040f3a495ae2b2f758a942c22
16c504cdcc5ca8263fb167fe0085c7bebcffbc49
67314 F20110115_AADIEQ martin_j_Page_35.jpg
6dfa7d3d3de57ec8f906bf008959087d
4b8fcbde9850a146a35947640475c552a00925f5
6259 F20110115_AADHXT martin_j_Page_72thm.jpg
54949ec3b3711fb2b4126a0372921bd2
3e5b5cb57a2a2c2e44b77170bd33a6c4f8b51cd4
109770 F20110115_AADHSW martin_j_Page_64.jp2
5a62ad9b01729c7a73475f81a177e216
b97efb0d5bfe085fb4e4e28ec1dcc1617988a667
46721 F20110115_AADIJO martin_j_Page_76.pro
445756e72f9bd46615995b980a4163c4
56d165f748fad740df8f2b36c781b8c82d2d3507
12708 F20110115_AADIER martin_j_Page_37.jpg
a05da14cf360eb2f8a878ac0f2c65f90
ee09c5e76be2257ed222c47ced9adc213b0e46ca
70215 F20110115_AADHXU martin_j_Page_26.jpg
bb5d4a3bc6d76729e079c565b5b116ef
1bc2648683e95f033917635dc812acc56b4b0b99
F20110115_AADHSX martin_j_Page_59.tif
9afc5a0066efdc7a4238edda1cd190b5
e78a58f8ae464da1ee92242d10e1f7105dcf70f4
56029 F20110115_AADIJP martin_j_Page_81.pro
e293efad1bdf618eef88662583c91fe5
ad56cd72eb8172a4aac3e8ed450f22a153d1dd99
59847 F20110115_AADIES martin_j_Page_41.jpg
aadc1962f4a1852e9580a641524ecdb7
eba82084f251d7ca66c4b3d1904fd9a120a67bd2
4470 F20110115_AADHXV martin_j_Page_69thm.jpg
cbc0c0c9cec36a4f299e276ed48ff722
9daa505f936806655938f0af072440d4c2cdfe78
55137 F20110115_AADIJQ martin_j_Page_82.pro
f235a651b62f672e8bd87e92e9d689d8
f3d9fde6e616867898720ebb7e70c90f013e62c5
68056 F20110115_AADIET martin_j_Page_43.jpg
97b906a420b67bacf251e1d5ddc8b7ca
784a3cc207a93edfbdb8f83ae64212bf878d056a
6491 F20110115_AADHXW martin_j_Page_10thm.jpg
77cb60ac42d47a57cdeb41616506fb83
3f2a13004d1e607c6581f14d124c8f63268ed613
3195 F20110115_AADHQA martin_j_Page_46thm.jpg
470d17a912e6d9a10c3b672eddf9d333
0b421313080633fa21759df5352e74deaa5bc388
5823 F20110115_AADHSY martin_j_Page_76thm.jpg
aa334345e36d316ee86231d805c4636a
eb4d7ff9fd6e47dc126fb854f09bc5e882c1a012
56270 F20110115_AADIJR martin_j_Page_83.pro
a06bdec03c5c98c6ef23b82a452a2816
b80f5a596053969e943f99fb1cc69803a6cc33d6
19957 F20110115_AADIEU martin_j_Page_48.jpg
c5c3a399f70f0e129730d75540703ebd
be03adc82cbd89622171b234fbfaa4ca30b593e9
2104 F20110115_AADHXX martin_j_Page_85.txt
e8c20e05c181468b55006e284256c0ec
a452a7c2c5ee0d4ac36b8a89ef66e1b5a4369e88
19188 F20110115_AADHQB martin_j_Page_41.QC.jpg
afb8fbf6ae58bd4406dbbfb123c3a54c
a78091698cccc951f3345f08a9a5094551aaa364
22248 F20110115_AADHSZ martin_j_Page_59.QC.jpg
573dc9ce905870c9ab87ef205117735a
64dafbe477ce26a76fb1d56b0e5bb06350d34f4e
56260 F20110115_AADIJS martin_j_Page_86.pro
dfb0757cc1977bbab42bdd9476d546fe
c027bfa5b03bef9ae895d977a72140f80ac2ec2a
35977 F20110115_AADIEV martin_j_Page_49.jpg
3838b9d5ca0df66f2860a45d2e8ae939
30ac1e1fda9887e9ac81ead197d126a4ba437580
111131 F20110115_AADHXY martin_j_Page_34.jp2
da60396b6c17fe1e4db68553f3a6467b
e2544dd5f689fc85170c5a3cc98fa846ce163692
73225 F20110115_AADHQC martin_j_Page_39.jpg
b4261e731b09fc1ddb39929eebe66b7b
322c276d02283c6ecbb6afd3920f51992d2a3af7
22269 F20110115_AADIJT martin_j_Page_87.pro
f7fbaf28ca563f58118c0150014e7838
a38b884619089c6e96bec9b141bd5b6f5d63b7df
29695 F20110115_AADIEW martin_j_Page_50.jpg
9e8aa1b4796b9e1dae0b192c6bbf597a
d3a992bf7057e0ab7475a459fe492a6a67dcf4d6
F20110115_AADHVA martin_j_Page_39.tif
37f9ae4c63140bd56ab85910102f5729
c725c933e88de6a5bc9431f456326f0b9e6d62c7
29935 F20110115_AADHXZ martin_j_Page_69.pro
4f67be2d58135f85b898817d2452a0d7
2bf680f413be95083cd543f70630b6792f3fd787
1942 F20110115_AADHQD martin_j_Page_19.txt
f2b3b94c0e0c72e88c3abe8056ea4002
1f71cedbda2c65d010e0abc6d51d40f3c0fda15c
113 F20110115_AADIJU martin_j_Page_02.txt
570c83503aa44b37fa8b51fd509fad9c
5544f48eb669711203b30bf39512434713473a6f
110515 F20110115_AADHVB martin_j_Page_57.jp2
1747220ba364e4cff288c1bfb6e7636a
1e69ca60e18d80f80a2e4570600d10f7ad0e804a
853 F20110115_AADHQE martin_j_Page_49.txt
329a91acbe9a940c2179ff5f24c19b4c
693d9cc993d05ee4356d360097c79ca48de94660
29362 F20110115_AADIEX martin_j_Page_52.jpg
ddbdfd1df1ebbb3bbd227b04cd4a602c
4e2e092a66e2514f9e810afc4496507a3c289038
217 F20110115_AADIJV martin_j_Page_03.txt
b5fd71f8be93567d0612fe5280d46026
1016dff9e61046f04cc970e7c1f8ca9b6dec4c90
916 F20110115_AADHVC martin_j_Page_51.txt
55eca3caa5131ec748b1f3a8345dff11
d7ae49e7f8f8e1524ac65efe9d5177e4bfdc3054
53296 F20110115_AADHQF martin_j_Page_80.pro
906902d589e9113275dae2cd4094fca6
9df4e6bfd1888b76e009f3d7edf1e001d3cb565e
111605 F20110115_AADICA martin_j_Page_58.jp2
72588fec7652430d1dc55c4cca54c70f
a879bc5051bee85f55dfc393dff1d02b7941b44a
31771 F20110115_AADIEY martin_j_Page_54.jpg
4b4ee80615b7e3b89d68986d7047795b
ec372d7a9533bd773b4b7fcfd49fb31b344b9beb
506 F20110115_AADIJW martin_j_Page_04.txt
404673b47f78abef2ab1f9056449226d
d7ebdfc7fe653807c3825f964c841726d030aa54
30621 F20110115_AADHQG martin_j_Page_51.jpg
139fb5d819499e7da98cfdf903b85794
e8886aa155bd7b13e09182f5255db01a8d929a3d
56460 F20110115_AADICB martin_j_Page_77.pro
a3b5bd149e13b8824563d09cd103a123
24b43de23322a4ed538c1f13c537c81a87cae204
70364 F20110115_AADIEZ martin_j_Page_60.jpg
1a1c1211337dee406baebd7ab612e0eb
805f0161a57f4e082684f40c10aebc18202a7fd5
24233 F20110115_AADHVD martin_j_Page_54.pro
c520b56edd31762b01068b6edf13042c
f032cc142563412e6fea68961165986e66e9ef52
631 F20110115_AADIJX martin_j_Page_06.txt
17ebed479905bd0a4fdfb237fddb7412
72a5cc54098e6ee601b39fd97aeacaa3d5e568a3
F20110115_AADHQH martin_j_Page_40.tif
df3cb346d929b9ffd7541959da128b9a
07c66d8a5daf80d445f985d86802f099d9f76a58
2713 F20110115_AADICC martin_j_Page_88thm.jpg
e3ce2374da9a1141c9f9c2c8be04f3c6
b0f0311182bb6ddf54d0fc26d1305e5cbba2e31f
2010 F20110115_AADHVE martin_j_Page_57.txt
173270087d2af1400366af601f87f39a
6a80c139b0ea20d0a8f594954d23529af5432d45
1511 F20110115_AADIJY martin_j_Page_08.txt
71d41d9a5f33b7514fca9fdbfc9a61ea
a421e4db015a26ec229ef35ab11bcebfffbdf52e
117265 F20110115_AADIHA martin_j_Page_80.jp2
17c53ef486cdaaea4eadc5a7a4033bc8
bcea667abf2a0ee0ac131eb0549dbeff0bdefcc0
51455 F20110115_AADHQI martin_j_Page_28.pro
eaee77095cf53e74a920f5827f8cbe3b
c5e8e7183b3a2d879451656d66d6f6965f735520
F20110115_AADICD martin_j_Page_61.tif
19ac2c8edeb28ab0da6ebc5ee9dd0d2b
9a014599b699998f8d8435f2edc1c6bee318791a
46204 F20110115_AADHVF martin_j_Page_40.pro
28540f0ae071341cf89b04a39bfecfdb
5047b685c03bfb3c09d1f5c189da44b15d52816f
1838 F20110115_AADIJZ martin_j_Page_09.txt
5680d4c0f6c36d0217b9b3f1f6f82397
c67ae089560a3d131ccbd55c87488d42d1360e33
121674 F20110115_AADIHB martin_j_Page_81.jp2
7e4a19ce50e9382a13a02846437f3f58
41ae6ce40dd213bc7011e84fd753bb544f0d611f
1978 F20110115_AADHQJ martin_j_Page_15.txt
0eb690f7b4394c0859691cbd2cb5929b
f22777caafb905a05d8968fc806202f13ac2e545
6087 F20110115_AADICE martin_j_Page_48.QC.jpg
5e72a80ff9f05ffeb0a14d8146edde6a
8f821f45b21334e9adaaa2dde990976744312692
23307 F20110115_AADHVG martin_j_Page_12.QC.jpg
3c633b28a55bc33c4724980f87ec58ad
57320c6cd59f93e26996f748418a19d57cba1c49
113668 F20110115_AADIHC martin_j_Page_84.jp2
b64df8f4fc60f3ece4364739c9c22a8c
aa6414bb34a41018661ed4a510999c92e76073c2
2039 F20110115_AADHQK martin_j_Page_66.txt
2afe9236a215bfe013ece5ad2deecb3c
b9d92c6acc42d92460cc6dad84675264f38b2a0d
5914 F20110115_AADICF martin_j_Page_09thm.jpg
bc4208cedabdabd6b75db5127b34a989
def24de428ea746ebe50b07a8ba9ba56a60ad013
6788 F20110115_AADHVH martin_j_Page_33thm.jpg
7be716549d068473922bdeaaac7b8334
a4d7189755a6ed4636b7fe1df2b009906ad45023
6633 F20110115_AADIMA martin_j_Page_17thm.jpg
f52a1908270074dc60f80c0d1a499e83
f35559666586422f532c88a60bcd5049b94ce399
52946 F20110115_AADIHD martin_j_Page_87.jp2
5c138ce041b810a4bd5c943d028f89ab
73966dd272b2f089e7263e8c41bc8d629765c739
10871 F20110115_AADHQL martin_j_Page_21.jp2
6e47bb3e570d50b3005961640ca41e81
84989190668f4d7708833f8ac2028cefb4152b9b
102627 F20110115_AADICG martin_j_Page_45.jp2
60af006277db2e91d815717c0521dc9e
88ed44dca56ab3117bcfc34b6ac568ec212e1c50
109608 F20110115_AADHVI martin_j_Page_72.jp2
14794fe8eb0ed547d7b0bf4c0e7f268c
771ef3701ed9a1b240a1ae582703036005998226
6341 F20110115_AADIMB martin_j_Page_19thm.jpg
a84c78bf1db49e2b0573f7fa6fe5d5f5
90a9bd819233c1940ab5096e32002564bd33b8b5
F20110115_AADIHE martin_j_Page_02.tif
5fd4d175e2d4c169c5a2b9fc5a0292f8
bc32e3e7f3890ee43587c2f77b4d1a1ea13b4aa8
6587 F20110115_AADHQM martin_j_Page_58thm.jpg
785192b2677ca28e63657aef9857ae55
c7d05a78e704e420e2f44a026be231a496f737d6
110813 F20110115_AADHVJ martin_j_Page_42.jp2
57c87f35b8b2483889d5ab454394adab
45ad39ed12bea1576a6f8138f0bb86bd19c1e321
22968 F20110115_AADIMC martin_j_Page_20.QC.jpg
842f2c3a01a51cdf042272ef5e220d96
e3aa798b1dd60a873e3643d4fde880d3f2dcada0
F20110115_AADIHF martin_j_Page_03.tif
bbe2aeffa31d88d68b12b69cbba827ca
6e3dcb611a0ffcc20a3c2cdd18072ed5078e01ec
F20110115_AADHQN martin_j_Page_37.tif
c475f344ac04f9e2cf7f3c846d72da9e
f8b47473ece47bc7f8424a26a4c3b3fb6aa7c600
24063 F20110115_AADICH martin_j_Page_77.QC.jpg
d8d11bbd952560a54416a6496fee27a6
6f9d067351930b1355dab8dccbe4c2822dbd826b
3605 F20110115_AADHVK martin_j_Page_47thm.jpg
7be2449a83aa29501a19452ed011c69b
1b66e495ff57617a11975dd1eb614b327609b91f
6307 F20110115_AADIMD martin_j_Page_20thm.jpg
a1b217c482514802f71d53e31b581519
bd31ee81163298c2c281a117fc753bfd0aa4b222
F20110115_AADIHG martin_j_Page_06.tif
3e8f251830c623851df0344b77df9aa2
c8fde824f3e9a44e661ed374b99355c7d7fdb436
12037 F20110115_AADHQO martin_j_Page_67.jp2
db644e93fc0a2b0e150aabffa3a042c4
f992592cb5e124d638827fa9f7ba4cd14e524cc6
187 F20110115_AADICI martin_j_Page_37.txt
6401650be7d3d2c66a5df1429e185cd0
0b8ad1cb85d04c50217ce6d7a16345c0d94311a3
109960 F20110115_AADHVL martin_j_Page_10.jp2
fc7897564fded21b3af8e71e0dcd2a5b
47a377fe6bd7ee824208e489ca4cb29b0c882d98
6401 F20110115_AADIME martin_j_Page_23thm.jpg
d0f9d922a5c7eeb9841930114af2a44e
001bd156e2453da63f7d1d31181a4c674d35dd9b
F20110115_AADIHH martin_j_Page_11.tif
069f5fa5d6fa6c5326434d493df4d644
3c3f41adacfccd018c7aeca1b5f3e13c9753adc9
73380 F20110115_AADHQP martin_j_Page_84.jpg
b5a0e5fa2e1db98010b207a7a0943f46
9b2f9d18c20bb580f61169cf1890504e40a3fc65
2247 F20110115_AADICJ martin_j_Page_06thm.jpg
4fac4533f8b7a914aa2cfd5ffca50957
4f3874a5193d965e44ff1ef3edcee93e449d97d4
1291 F20110115_AADHVM martin_j_Page_69.txt
93cd41bfb06dff8586f2dd5e13265cc5
cd2977fdb86a4b902d7ab8f8965ce941b8ef6887
23336 F20110115_AADIMF martin_j_Page_25.QC.jpg
936f2cad8bffd5be04e2f50a6a49f7cf
226a6d9402ba921c9d6f85c1d358f251ffe0ecd1
F20110115_AADIHI martin_j_Page_12.tif
98d3330c04ce0670d2c792a2578324b2
ad638073619fb3a57e614f31714d378b68385c0a
47697 F20110115_AADHQQ martin_j_Page_62.pro
adcc7e00ecf9f99807f0a2ce91948180
f88d5ff0350c4ded8d7dd8681f34bfc74ca14db6
22818 F20110115_AADICK martin_j_Page_84.QC.jpg
ff2dc79bbaf59a49b7f20712ee9c3d54
5ad221372db6c7b21ac387a4e154252f559de230
F20110115_AADHVN martin_j_Page_41.tif
7f9c0c19930baa0e3496f2eae89b16d1
9a6afae9373780451dd9d9d4b851f4916b63453f
23874 F20110115_AADIMG martin_j_Page_27.QC.jpg
4996ce7e413bcb9cd65d0e3d6f8ea021
0e5ffcb4059062429283500ec5df33816370324a
F20110115_AADIHJ martin_j_Page_14.tif
4aed9051f475041b2a1ff6504c3e817e
1c8edd3511f00667e3289a6750d46a33748a4713
33388 F20110115_AADHQR martin_j_Page_08.pro
d1bccf28ff15324d5c86439095374f31
b38599706c4dfa1235916a07b992091cffff187c
21993 F20110115_AADICL martin_j_Page_36.QC.jpg
95db0f621b9fba36d1fe1cb36d5d91af
486e10ef20e3bd31810c16a6d5784a24e040b033
50177 F20110115_AADHVO martin_j_Page_25.pro
cd4fd93e51099e72dbc7366f665a22ad
48bd629927aee67dd9b443cee7df097a635626f5
23618 F20110115_AADIMH martin_j_Page_28.QC.jpg
8bb6dc370d8fdd62225dd1b22f8b8ddd
b85fad8a9171ce9afefd6276fcc1ae931b7dcf47
F20110115_AADIHK martin_j_Page_15.tif
de6a2db13bbd55d8169e7d4f7ff09be5
ea4e9552a2aebcaf99b60c24ac2d670ad02a4111
76592 F20110115_AADHQS martin_j_Page_82.jpg
7dd69899030c789d2c5ea9758a71c4e6
49f80e488d3c2514555950d15e46724d80116589
24391 F20110115_AADICM martin_j_Page_86.QC.jpg
d4e55e2e0a3be3dba1c86f7e98250fad
168089d1d8a3cde7c93ab5714d734e63d7f2f250
6662 F20110115_AADHVP martin_j_Page_06.QC.jpg
50a24a5640c87619bc9bc2df189e4818
7c5fd3005357b3c8482733fd7319105a56242f61
6347 F20110115_AADIMI martin_j_Page_28thm.jpg
99eda2ed5c788624aef6a473165f0b37
d84648fb5484bbe0a3a52eb19242a84c2431ce44
F20110115_AADIHL martin_j_Page_16.tif
8e9ddd931af0611629c5cb77858bf127
5075dbe845e7498fb3b0c677b1094e9f2901ecd7
F20110115_AADHQT martin_j_Page_50.tif
7d68de2f1f03752515704f0a69b30e70
e05a9c5d03a15ce3759808bd1bcf14c4a7476188
F20110115_AADICN martin_j_Page_60.tif
ca85dfa40062d4904c98599b84cad475
e6c7d0a951626093f01a1e68e4d7910f8585a4d6
14628 F20110115_AADHVQ martin_j_Page_53.pro
bad43a7d04bf78b82d653aeeb6aa6ae7
6b39378f49fb8cdd9476cb7e4ac017cef7b51234
23663 F20110115_AADIMJ martin_j_Page_29.QC.jpg
3bc8312033ac136eb81382602c8559ff
0c16d3273b410f40a93da398502ef7ddbd5d6a8c
F20110115_AADHQU martin_j_Page_36.tif
f7504cd41653f089636ddca5fd8a50c5
5761f909357282bafac98e7374a3eb8c6ed39df5
68074 F20110115_AADICO martin_j_Page_61.jpg
6887f08fe43c5439b2f08fa44f2ee232
584d7a3121aff55062c2caf37c938bd36e7c4122
12023 F20110115_AADHVR martin_j_Page_88.pro
e8b347c06c302f53a6ab4cdd0f67257f
14f42dbb2ccabc2caa175c05ae769eb1a761deed
6603 F20110115_AADIMK martin_j_Page_29thm.jpg
2aa5a6f8e48b419fb3aff5df0e263735
60f5e1a51659e5d832324d8343a5c210f8deaf7d
F20110115_AADIHM martin_j_Page_17.tif
f66abc2cd22952f99ed3d37ea9eeff21
f13af7e16966ffc4232e55ff86d9d7351765fb5f
16770 F20110115_AADHQV martin_j_Page_08.QC.jpg
a1e881e67d08cc5a36c4d239b25e46d3
91aa388635a6a78e0022d6a446d0ba25d1ab6ad5
105307 F20110115_AADICP martin_j_Page_43.jp2
abe794bda5cd2bd76954adcdecec431a
3e464b194fc6835f8864725837a5582958b07b27
24296 F20110115_AADHVS martin_j_Page_17.QC.jpg
d93e9f898ed16d1a281921714cedbf9e
b92d76d64a2400580e1fa19d706305c43ea7dbbe
23621 F20110115_AADIML martin_j_Page_34.QC.jpg
02f7c5525e69731bf47e4ca23651ba7d
14c66a629862ecd218cf553e43f74e76ef4b69b9
F20110115_AADIHN martin_j_Page_18.tif
6d9089985a1a5b149df650b13f9ca895
de5a19f9632b17343f9e5a419d86e7f62ebecdac
68728 F20110115_AADICQ martin_j_Page_62.jpg
65b2f985fb7b27183e175c029663b4aa
759c48fa94adc8b5cbee4249c998e778c572336c
51478 F20110115_AADHVT martin_j_Page_18.pro
6a6336067b8e20ff31bde063e3a947b0
1d3fd761ce2a0bd9451572d3292f64f78cb78e90
6551 F20110115_AADIMM martin_j_Page_34thm.jpg
676bd8f7de61e4009f04da5383bae708
75b3fb07a7eb18222e2305a2a1313df3f16f31a3
F20110115_AADIHO martin_j_Page_21.tif
aa8e9382a40ed5b64dfab193762e29ae
8749a7d875bfd11f914bcbcb886089222912e3a1
6560 F20110115_AADHQW martin_j_Page_32thm.jpg
03638d655802ad3a7d90d2916586ccb1
c79abf5bd1d17090e2b59318e5b04d097863d99e
6680 F20110115_AADICR martin_j_Page_18thm.jpg
0c5ee8be0ee17b600c959a9e229ad587
63f9521a8fa950f979d0889350724b9c32369310
6564 F20110115_AADHVU martin_j_Page_31thm.jpg
0674e09efd58a8153b290f3e625061e0
248ff0fc965d1f67dbdbf65e24d76c89f22f333e
6167 F20110115_AADIMN martin_j_Page_35thm.jpg
5a44080840b73acb90e9cd060d8d6381
c859731ecfe8b5ce324a2a1781634f64e71eed63
F20110115_AADIHP martin_j_Page_24.tif
5c58b93cebb7215cafa68db7cf9c7d9b
e5ccd1e40c9ccb603d7564ac9e5d690e2bd83d3d
3506 F20110115_AADHQX martin_j_Page_21.pro
d4a37e792b45e3fc42d292f4499dc3aa
cb45d73cf61a9c5b0e92a9ad421485487dea64b3
72774 F20110115_AADICS martin_j_Page_16.jpg
8f07355182e3015b0a9c4bd2ea0557d9
59f9c312090ad159436e237ae6eb69ed4d7d8931
44475 F20110115_AADHVV martin_j_Page_70.jpg
d510b5eb73ce4236f37172fc350e10da
43a78af54c2e93563aea90ea64ff3dbcf9337a92
5727 F20110115_AADIMO martin_j_Page_41thm.jpg
98595df3ce8f4953e9ffa5fa1a558ec8
cedafd36d761ad4788560dd5f1e60abc07605d96
F20110115_AADIHQ martin_j_Page_25.tif
7ac3f044527daa167e1daf8cd1117188
0e290ed397e1e12faa903729e658f9e9699e88d7
1607 F20110115_AADHQY martin_j_Page_37thm.jpg
9dbec3c3658635788332b95585da01bd
b0c5e53bce37425114ded83e0f87c0a44ec8747f
2839 F20110115_AADICT martin_j_Page_50thm.jpg
370b157857ad4d00e1143acf2f0b8cbb
06c75f1d47f1b0df02d3fe9426029857be195eb5
6471 F20110115_AADHVW martin_j_Page_44thm.jpg
89f61979ee5334c587fb3de969da81cb
bb3d4b0b2dfc1f8d5718279a284de54237b0583c
23842 F20110115_AADIMP martin_j_Page_42.QC.jpg
526db8634d616cf35ae012e2d0515224
d21114a30ef1469b71773b08b1fbbc396bd15368
F20110115_AADIHR martin_j_Page_29.tif
6590cb9c130f5f58325e8a084fc90182
5a197ba94e3aff86de94cade24dfb5c5b6625eb0
762262 F20110115_AADHQZ martin_j_Page_07.jp2
936c86babdacda23ff1279b899cb57e8
c71f1bc6edf783a287b4e5a884053f6627e6763d
110106 F20110115_AADICU martin_j_Page_31.jp2
db2a6b51353b220dc9e9e3980a3a90b8
462f3612bab2c1dbd52d3a8ba7dc95c33d177852
114513 F20110115_AADHVX martin_j_Page_85.jp2
2b37091a2cb85a091a655c66425d74c7
6429c07f349005fc07b715b4ed921ddbf10566df
6700 F20110115_AADIMQ martin_j_Page_42thm.jpg
ed49fe93bfbbb5561bf571d3d7c2d82f
1349f914d18b3d910c6684d9d0a5dccb424de604
F20110115_AADIHS martin_j_Page_31.tif
92a541116eeebaef3d60ca3da8204394
0558e71e36ab7d01a6fe7152d6b0302be70c22ef
6597 F20110115_AADICV martin_j_Page_81thm.jpg
168f9dfeb7ecb367ac843c0e65bb43f4
18557d9596b845a8337207ce5ec2daff2fe45a50
24946 F20110115_AADHVY martin_j_Page_68.pro
5078b9d77befd2467c8de7213dd4d2cd
0f8126d333a2894706781d68a47aa8125071bb74
F20110115_AADIHT martin_j_Page_32.tif
6379bbad160b520566b29c454dfce0ab
c32fb47af033a9e765f9969a02a2118043e62acb
23966 F20110115_AADICW martin_j_Page_16.QC.jpg
9163770270c6cb358bef9c5246feadbc
3cfd5f5ffd047475229d73e8ad4b9c67b7bc58fc
F20110115_AADHTA martin_j_Page_82.tif
1656771dcb601cc15b819baf6067d296
4dcb96b227e053836385f31ca5411a476c404119
43427 F20110115_AADHVZ martin_j_Page_55.jpg
67761f8bfe4b9326e7449f97260eb8b4
bb8c4a5b7007dcdd0a0bae46cc25072ba28624f6
F20110115_AADIMR martin_j_Page_43thm.jpg
5526c9263398ef8c5ba09b64d2dc0ac3
04906d3ba0debfe31b06c5a10f8a0a9124665b7d
F20110115_AADIHU martin_j_Page_38.tif
0b37b675dd487170b5f6aa2f8f30366b
32502dc8c4c19a472a043c6fe188f57d7f9bd773
51013 F20110115_AADICX martin_j_Page_14.pro
14034659595826f9d377fb66445c597c
6379adf778133351478c74dc768a4a6865995300
6908 F20110115_AADHTB martin_j_Page_73thm.jpg
639fb60a2c11b2beeb3e414fa6d533f1
8dee6ac0be00e694bff5dc1d87023aeeaebb5c38
6113 F20110115_AADIMS martin_j_Page_45thm.jpg
b1d866dae9525c11e06471d443166978
bbdb421a53cd827884e05a20b2073d6ca628724e
F20110115_AADIHV martin_j_Page_43.tif
ef92a4e3c4fa0738c75d566d63ba33a1
4baf67b8f34a6e3800079baf85e5cd4be718291c
3033 F20110115_AADIAA martin_j_Page_07thm.jpg
54839fc79177dd3bfa7a2a40cee6eb5e
bc8c1c7e7f5967175cf7eefba88fb9936b625719
71736 F20110115_AADICY martin_j_Page_42.jpg
eda79916b383e7c38f429897474e4bf3
2232e13de35fa7b5f1be9341e1949e81824203e1
10287 F20110115_AADHTC martin_j_Page_02.jpg
5ad8994110b5131c4362a5621f599251
4fa255a7a1ac4aa94629ef894a543f147efda18f
11755 F20110115_AADIMT martin_j_Page_47.QC.jpg
e89b589b765d3e24379067cc88885e4c
3b4fd38f71cf0af66db0594c6bc71cc9d7f761ec
F20110115_AADIHW martin_j_Page_44.tif
b319191d75f781a4c5ba28c0a2f46f3c
34303800224a6a28907e10198bf7328b6b3438b9
122635 F20110115_AADIAB martin_j_Page_83.jp2
6baf1fc37d4be32f84841f974712fc8d
b882b95d8cc2a1028e342570ae38909351c72b9e
6454 F20110115_AADICZ martin_j_Page_27thm.jpg
18c50c484bcad9a4e7b2bc2ada67c9d7
49a896e403862fe85330b144df1572f42a7a2a0f
F20110115_AADHTD martin_j_Page_04.tif
8b58b530c2ee9faf1998c609c8a1e9b1
9f89d1bd530e5256b67c73de514e49731396f93a
F20110115_AADHYA martin_j_Page_69.tif
8e1a76f2e87631aee44f2538b2761ee4
b9f5e6aee0a3f1909f936f3608c1da0bff31af54
2173 F20110115_AADIMU martin_j_Page_48thm.jpg
66d19954b913ebba154ec5ced7cd96d3
f7a3d8049cba428889981a4baa660942bdc48412
F20110115_AADIHX martin_j_Page_46.tif
0d727c130e047234e0320c5a62b0e34e
a25319a7451d9dd0b278c193de4b6dbdba2f94fc
71194 F20110115_AADIAC martin_j_Page_20.jpg
05e0909da3081d7e40746fee790752a2
fb5836a1d8cd316c674b2b8c8bc199719481171e
F20110115_AADHTE martin_j_Page_15thm.jpg
b64b2f2e3ce3502a2e8a07e15219fa51
40990080aae01189232031774dc15591dbfc39ef
47419 F20110115_AADHYB martin_j_Page_61.pro
5bf2b103355df616df4af837fae31182
84405ba6abf355bfd7496eaf54bb56ab392adc1d
3437 F20110115_AADIMV martin_j_Page_49thm.jpg
d8b28a331b1b3635fdeb6e9ffddebadc
ebc74889c0e2b7d6cf7b18f6361841ae0509f534
F20110115_AADIHY martin_j_Page_47.tif
614960959f753d142741ce15f2e94aa3
18e2e6d78e10ea90b9a750d249ce5eec75e16468
74196 F20110115_AADIAD martin_j_Page_80.jpg
5a21da66a5405d49b8438bac3701d775
578ada0ec8c2d8456f369b8be867137f0e077be5
2190 F20110115_AADHTF martin_j_Page_80.txt
f5c573d44b5b46e80fbac573002259c4
0ffc1bb0e2c8ca1b0883f62667a19378263595b1
71714 F20110115_AADIFA martin_j_Page_64.jpg
bed1ee496f3fd42098cded4e8c744539
b1536a00445a9884feaa0806040c36096b53c130
71646 F20110115_AADHYC martin_j_Page_31.jpg
b69a3f25e25284f446fb8b2a21c7a5ca
c0bd1e8b37f86ec851a54999049a8fc5753a7e6a
9573 F20110115_AADIMW martin_j_Page_50.QC.jpg
c76a1709d02b0dcc5330f3bfbad16eb8
5fd46278072ffe28f722b0aa19d12217b95216a6
F20110115_AADIHZ martin_j_Page_48.tif
f2ba999a9532d183547c9c1dc29301c4
d607fb457bebf7ae0b26d4af52655e9819ded91f
50691 F20110115_AADIAE martin_j_Page_29.pro
a3c8ca80698835f7174317e782dcd767
7b62fef838c9d327d28f2713469af001c450fd7d
45934 F20110115_AADHTG martin_j_Page_36.pro
1f33c06a4775f65b7752ea1e30337b4b
4574a8c0db4b688c26e131a7e6661e6da41d42f3
70470 F20110115_AADIFB martin_j_Page_66.jpg
6ef2a66abb48e06f241a8d70a6f66b9d
25cc21b40639f85cbfbb696f41918d6e0c9ac816
21239 F20110115_AADHYD martin_j_Page_09.QC.jpg
ce91d9982d0843568b3d312998013486
a37d5a928338ffd6ce67c83e37bde3328135d641
9913 F20110115_AADIMX martin_j_Page_51.QC.jpg
627af455acfb9428cd64b02fcafe4754
ba4d5ca1bd12c3ed9b73e6f19d00e1ea07bd253b
19095 F20110115_AADHTH martin_j_Page_38.QC.jpg
3bca56c39b6f2abf5f8bfb53034a35aa
9303e7167bf7ee29ab7d5cfb013ad49d5f462775
41244 F20110115_AADIFC martin_j_Page_68.jpg
1e82ca77ad5d0c12fd144874b313a5a0
fa458a7e1de4973b8ec958a664b3b9432ded1f71
2047 F20110115_AADHYE martin_j_Page_27.txt
30283ed7ff523bef312db37308718420
3712276085d3402503a3622eed347983b869d188
2892 F20110115_AADIMY martin_j_Page_51thm.jpg
d2a91806e30f2010512d2e0ad3451ac4
c7917791e299fb30b34aba014c5ee636e0667f6b
2001 F20110115_AADIKA martin_j_Page_11.txt
df5cc59a1f5f4e62426bee28843759e2
1444edd3d4ab3886543b1bbf87234fd8f7a70235
50888 F20110115_AADIAF martin_j_Page_66.pro
453cb53241e82240bcb655c3c39d06cb
aec331c5d9f300de481969b4933b3cf6ae9bbfb0
22620 F20110115_AADHTI martin_j_Page_23.QC.jpg
17b35356c7c86180d47f6ee01b061676
728f2e80abade81b920bc465dbbf800df33f0327
46734 F20110115_AADIFD martin_j_Page_69.jpg
7dd8f7c63c356f4f95982d3af82c5d8e
0a3c88b6667b81b06f116506363043d21731b61e
529 F20110115_AADHYF martin_j_Page_88.txt
bb21b0365fee76ed3110c68f5c42ca7b
ec3545a5a0be89703002f17a5f70a6e341fea558
4222 F20110115_AADIMZ martin_j_Page_55thm.jpg
2ae4c1299539ca02b46bd48fd4b472f1
12d3f14f96b26511388555c3e2d74fa461473418
2042 F20110115_AADIKB martin_j_Page_16.txt
53dc039c3566073c4aecfa3e4d67a9fa
4f0c7d6e065d517713d8f6175d65a28699c9bf44
2657 F20110115_AADHTJ martin_j_Page_05.txt
372c97a855dbcffd8112566063ecac80
935c2fccc546fee95d172b88f5b1b1724c027acb
25277 F20110115_AADIFE martin_j_Page_71.jpg
eed26fc4158de4947a50f29179ab1869
f2a096441350204044f138f2d7a1eb87401ebfa6
6532 F20110115_AADHYG martin_j_Page_85thm.jpg
00510c7832a874a5f50ebadecb5fb5c7
e87d5278f4a396a388f048832c0c9ae06a7db220
16837 F20110115_AADIAG martin_j_Page_46.pro
a29a15cc49d24692e8065b4b85bd23e2
a70967e772790a25bea0d8869c314b7cd77eed6e
1960 F20110115_AADIKC martin_j_Page_20.txt
70d47a4eefbb1a229432d04239842fbf
dbcbf46c73655a3ca23c9d73ad5d2b7ada3adaab
71529 F20110115_AADHTK martin_j_Page_15.jpg
5c2bcb9709f8d5e2362efcc569488f77
41ba151f5860ab756b8c8016966753649f959f10
74769 F20110115_AADIFF martin_j_Page_72.jpg
8167b490bf59e310c0a8f29e87d6135f
953704763da134a306b411ea503037cfb23f31e4
23102 F20110115_AADHYH martin_j_Page_31.QC.jpg
f53c66b23123ccc7c4315d42210bfcd1
5e85e7eed8052fda8285f2486e2b52e62ec9e1a3
F20110115_AADIAH martin_j_Page_85.tif
9a5ee38250a3fcf23da7e192d41e8171
10e0c08aba91d83e289f5438a80dc40692835052
1792 F20110115_AADIKD martin_j_Page_22.txt
3fe803b05f8fd20831c43ddad9567316
94a9de7901ecbb0b00e1e2cde381a30b722f0892
79116 F20110115_AADHTL martin_j_Page_74.pro
d69dda956d2399e710383a1c4402b7a7
bf7e7a509faf7b12e0881ca6ffefaad0542d3252
71644 F20110115_AADIFG martin_j_Page_76.jpg
af359e9e2fa9bbcbf0c8f8801c45f200
c7b14235f5499af791653c2f7517081b7dec5aa9
66286 F20110115_AADHYI martin_j_Page_36.jpg
142cbb4e7e7f50bedd172d2e9f7fcb62
1cdb169fc4e232f099e5b4440d12e58da687771c
9749 F20110115_AADIAI martin_j_Page_53.QC.jpg
f1486ec5a3bddb9d3de87d80655648fb
69179a455ce51a5dad470296cfc2e499dabf2de8
1939 F20110115_AADIKE martin_j_Page_23.txt
2b1493fa7f4f20a3bb28f85179450a8b
16018c1e6e074203d1ff2bdcfba70189e150038b
4081 F20110115_AADHTM martin_j_Page_03.QC.jpg
73b3043a9778e7116ac3c6dbbb1e8636
df6ae5d95caa67c377a082646a951597093da0a5
83312 F20110115_AADIFH martin_j_Page_77.jpg
691905a741f8e436486d7b5e40cac56d
8009d5f54f5cc9cd522854f0c77f19186cbdf570
F20110115_AADHYJ martin_j_Page_81.tif
1490c437c8de1de11c2deabb3174bc97
fb352d3ac7916241c5204e804a518b65ef650fa2
712 F20110115_AADIAJ martin_j_Page_46.txt
46cea2e13cdca184bf5ab6213027275b
bc64a6ab43f3232af5810e7932a2a6fa676c80ab
F20110115_AADIKF martin_j_Page_25.txt
95993e490a07a47e4bb37aad44fdfdcb
11fe1f74e6f817c9c86f689d439420a947d80791
901 F20110115_AADHTN martin_j_Page_07.txt
b344cd25c9bf58e9e515e0d72cdb38d9
659f65c636e7375aab37de544989cbe10fb4f70d
84517 F20110115_AADIFI martin_j_Page_78.jpg
d8a352103d463a7ad38a22622715bd55
b9f6ab683875b6122a40317a641bd748bd9d57e1
F20110115_AADHYK martin_j_Page_11.jpg
441288d2ad11a5ae34d37ebf037ac619
607b7ea3d6670106d0d3250f24f6ae5c5aa13a26
6557 F20110115_AADIAK martin_j_Page_12thm.jpg
e48d6e76e6ca54423782b45e4d2fd138
51c13bfad83f7ee3b0526ba7130d35989bc913b7
1979 F20110115_AADIKG martin_j_Page_26.txt
3b8f8ea01e356a40529fe59f46f4fa41
523ad19052e41ab76de00e54d5e14e11b7d624c2
53108 F20110115_AADHTO martin_j_Page_65.pro
b5dce9baf55a161feca788bbff6d9c2a
8da95b4bcd08b77eca498f4cf5f69abc23660455
78128 F20110115_AADIFJ martin_j_Page_79.jpg
885bfb3eb5bef384a9685227cdb9d619
f1367ea045dc2ac47bc43d16504fcdc2ab39ca4d
22807 F20110115_AADHYL martin_j_Page_85.QC.jpg
37e2bd453792beb59829aa14ee821406
6dfcaca007f4382dd14f9540d842c4ec335e496a
89976 F20110115_AADIAL martin_j_Page_73.jpg
bf49a3c1cc342d59c370786715a7416c
3c89c9d3f2b698ea1b78f494eb4a2901d9a3f0fb
2022 F20110115_AADIKH martin_j_Page_29.txt
906ef76d5306364b7e98a35d8c35476f
5786f0b0694e94d4c42dacdfd3f2849777cb4e5c
7704 F20110115_AADHTP martin_j_Page_71.QC.jpg
b5b9b880d9cd1ed5bd9b9b80836b61b7
c420994fa83fb4293bf6a75d16c2589359e52522
F20110115_AADHYM martin_j_Page_63.tif
287cc3408ea427b994e8c7d5827b846a
a61f09e6447e412a11447cacbdb93abf26016caf
F20110115_AADIAM martin_j_Page_28.tif
b461dd0cb6df686f0f95dbbeb608b0b7
da10ea12b4bc8e18de998b4f54ef3c858845360e
1856 F20110115_AADIKI martin_j_Page_30.txt
b58cc02c65161d0b2116fac1bc108862
7e99bf64311531a81780e096846f8b6a297e2d47
73562 F20110115_AADHTQ martin_j_Page_27.jpg
768697fb72089f98d492bb42759109c5
e17160d2019376ce9373af8546a1caadee63c7de
78672 F20110115_AADIFK martin_j_Page_81.jpg
38c75db5e0e2e5281bc7d69c7c4cc7eb
604ff9f5f9b6e6b614a9dd194dc20c85c8a3bc82
F20110115_AADHYN martin_j_Page_84.tif
a782581a32acce37dbef633f82a2d749
bc5f89681485ab39228cb4f1bbe305d6e5344d7e
123526 F20110115_AADIAN martin_j_Page_86.jp2
fce3530473fa5369f9aab6a57c636c60
b2f35472f13ae14664a84bdeaf20aa44d92d8d34
2078 F20110115_AADIKJ martin_j_Page_33.txt
68ed24e7cfba48d5156efea9461fecbe
85e3c9e336cb1fe29fb69c52b990b44ea216a66b
102383 F20110115_AADHTR martin_j_Page_74.jpg
cae0e0ad9cbc0daf6afcf6d0bb6919ae
57e130f136aed1ed3754953c555c111b2c23010e
78678 F20110115_AADIFL martin_j_Page_83.jpg
de0860eb7701c085c36632593e5d3a8a
e29db28182d1ea197134294d642afa2ff9e68f45
F20110115_AADHYO martin_j_Page_19.tif
9b9c5354086c805758ea5495124b0fac
99e564e03e21b1bb84961ecc131162314a6c1944
108196 F20110115_AADIAO martin_j_Page_20.jp2
4fd8759b7cc23e88b4ce87ac76a5eddd
5fc5f392709873ca4c35604e0fc15941d3b260f4
1688 F20110115_AADIKK martin_j_Page_38.txt
9f6395dfe4d809254a172ef0cb97cfd5
7693fb3abc7e053c36ed03ebdcc1bdd3936489d0
72447 F20110115_AADIFM martin_j_Page_85.jpg
f5bad6abb1a1159cf9622130527a335d
4fbf62d7fff0fa3f610b9c0ec974cd928911bd4e
6386 F20110115_AADHTS martin_j_Page_79thm.jpg
8438ede08f256089d41500230fb97792
37f99bfedeb817f9d1f740705294aef481f2c128
71539 F20110115_AADHYP martin_j_Page_14.jpg
5e4d9e59662893a6c36f40f335f49b33
da719d8e52511a5404b268a6b6e2526969da2ce6
F20110115_AADIAP martin_j_Page_64.tif
93f6e849eadeeb46a8e76ac4cca4fdd1
1d5a63dbc7098ba4652f95ebff31956c40e4f86f
1863 F20110115_AADIKL martin_j_Page_40.txt
4b79b137727c097d03ccc4c712029d0c
32a0ee00726923720525105377876542cf7bceb5
82364 F20110115_AADIFN martin_j_Page_86.jpg
a65a6d577da6e833ba528fe09223ee81
f0029031933442974a5eebce7ef6b61fcdc81840
23777 F20110115_AADHTT martin_j_Page_18.QC.jpg
b8939c93f1a06f77585edca28b03df60
5fcfb1f044ecc722c1002c46eb1abaca0352e084
29864 F20110115_AADHYQ martin_j_Page_46.jpg
3c5b5624644d5ff7a6e4b192edd838a7
dab136b8a082337b381d666296fad2085f09ffb9
F20110115_AADIAQ martin_j_Page_54.tif
eee146bc2e301fb24c6d2d9e3386dfc5
785c844157fa0dfcaecdaa51cd313c03dd550b4d
1918 F20110115_AADIKM martin_j_Page_43.txt
c433cc997624b90bf5dfe1e831520ad0
85cf8fba9658556aa22f7c60acb1f6c2b1546447
11533 F20110115_AADIFO martin_j_Page_03.jp2
35dcf4f567306e92ad7eb66d7bd7f41b
d9c54b335b545c7ee408d186cb5c07c3a991542a
F20110115_AADHTU martin_j_Page_58.tif
daf9f2bc72ccfcdea660d778123ac97f
8bf8256c5148c5367e6fc7dad8dcd7665ae1f520
F20110115_AADHYR martin_j_Page_55.tif
ab5d140f5ee5d18278e7e9f14755c13d
1d4ca68b82d826d2c1c99d7fa7188bac689b6588
12714 F20110115_AADIAR martin_j_Page_68.QC.jpg
2de1b1eaa36b6ade9c53a9d67674124f
99d4731e4dbfa8c6c308a7cc730ee87cd3968bd3
3024 F20110115_AADIKN martin_j_Page_47.txt
3e05acd21606d0db79d75ffc6a0562ef
f056e9a15e40cd3f33488e8208be8db00d6bf8b7
28803 F20110115_AADIFP martin_j_Page_04.jp2
20d0780fd096b8452578800ea89c0077
2d420073f1b6a0fc3e805609de23dd6de36a8165
14220 F20110115_AADHTV martin_j_Page_03.jpg
96c00a3a2e98b9435c7863dac9e69eb4
13108a1582ffc773a636ae101f17b93fdccea861
71691 F20110115_AADHYS martin_j_Page_63.jpg
6d48e317f6816e47c62a775a2f06ceb5
1d7f9437eb7fe25f6a628b5d0eceb2f3145fe88f
3428 F20110115_AADIAS martin_j_Page_37.pro
3e794ec6e9064224218de14229bb172c
37aa73e02cb7eca6f121790e5986dc528432678e
1258 F20110115_AADIKO martin_j_Page_48.txt
1bd6f993a87730e60e131d5693f4c7e4
69ce8010db6359c7d4d57cdad73883eaa831f587
1051983 F20110115_AADIFQ martin_j_Page_05.jp2
d61364ebb7e4f475572bad0593616730
25dce227f579c2fe5f20d3573c1f6b6f2cdc3c0e
F20110115_AADHTW martin_j_Page_10.tif
b62a33e0c5cb91e3047b7a54a07b6963
c180528797168b0240d27938717eb861d928abd6
F20110115_AADHYT martin_j_Page_27.tif
bacc811f42ca24f9c718c3e56bf4206c
80fe1c2e998aa15769e5072ae98c4ac34e8239b4
72996 F20110115_AADIAT martin_j_Page_28.jpg
9969b41b5b9d18b6f992098de1c9a738
0213ee95e5abdd565c1399c390bf8c6f14ddbb51
75454 F20110115_AADIFR martin_j_Page_08.jp2
e0be55a76cf55c21629fffb25cbdad7c
9514aa8a10c7f455f76681689618d407af7717ee
53892 F20110115_AADHTX martin_j_Page_08.jpg
0dfc92657f3c39b50ba87f76fedb4f49
a34d1f35c89d6c60112364f347f5b55edf9dbacd
61490 F20110115_AADHYU martin_j_Page_56.jpg
58acce427b015fcf7661795743a0dd14
c97fbf1dbfde92eb6e16b0da6d857a2696f4748a
49614 F20110115_AADIAU martin_j_Page_20.pro
e1ebfc5c857e7ab25e31b2d30c1950a4
5e98c2d10e3c4b87c5f6b0dbdc7e2b6ae9b55f36
795 F20110115_AADIKP martin_j_Page_50.txt
8904c8019c493869ae3b4228b525996b
0852900a0e1874828128dcecb85f7eedf6e05e85
96754 F20110115_AADIFS martin_j_Page_09.jp2
2fe61bcb90fffc169498b267d7a10bee
3e2f9eb7a01b4e2cf8f14859d20bb048799468ee
4123 F20110115_AADHTY martin_j_Page_70thm.jpg
3e6c03a3900910aa9f513de309605978
fab027b7dea4c9ba610822acf6dd011fbac68b17
F20110115_AADHYV martin_j_Page_07.tif
29d679c96aeb4573ccbaafe9b6146a42
952313d3f43f9993623e6b9f124724f39e30d8e1
1710 F20110115_AADIAV martin_j_Page_67thm.jpg
e0b606b49226d86604f6d16d4dd1be43
402987741345ae58e2f183218901c997538fa576
805 F20110115_AADIKQ martin_j_Page_52.txt
08c56cfad1c0057680cb160b5c96cd23
faa8d17e536901135ff5cb4ecf5c17123540f02f
108135 F20110115_AADIFT martin_j_Page_12.jp2
1c7abdaf178781abf274b78ca3e8614a
55fadebc0c123702b57a8c77ed4d927f27df9551
1857 F20110115_AADHYW martin_j_Page_45.txt
91c5edda7d801fdd024365a7f97e8398
b1b75854837ba4fe808698fd722f9d362076bee4
F20110115_AADIAW martin_j_Page_05.tif
7f7be9f69314711556085c4631c2fdbe
1253b4fc34744db4709f5b4120ba16528fac4523
11119 F20110115_AADHRA martin_j_Page_49.QC.jpg
8f02167130349f850794f00014dc9f2e
58c2725cbaa81aa418573b3c3456c94dae070c28
684 F20110115_AADIKR martin_j_Page_53.txt
4add9b3ce4b46f79738e7f62b7a46d8e
0767ecb3f6618fa1110abc39c946b27ee8dd656d
110542 F20110115_AADIFU martin_j_Page_13.jp2
385d211f71dcbe5039c039255df2f180
9d063dee02720e7708768488677e72a45f21e6cd
474 F20110115_AADHTZ martin_j_Page_01.txt
0ba1c87f0e2c3cc4049f75510216c9bc
a99ab8db30de95e4b73200c0aaa023d537d99341
69303 F20110115_AADHYX martin_j_Page_23.jpg
020c1ceecb8949c1f4bbbb1782ec86db
b04cf350fde98fca184acb34c2d12507bf8cecee
71797 F20110115_AADIAX martin_j_Page_34.jpg
0c83752f30999127d68ba9d30138ea00
dcf08151af4a047790c74746b5b54bf1e125b5cf
6566 F20110115_AADHRB martin_j_Page_39thm.jpg
2d855f8a6bf156992f35cb805d0c2f7b
6eee6501ef82ec5c9c48c63d3c175fa99dfec6b6
948 F20110115_AADIKS martin_j_Page_54.txt
5c19abdb7734240f8c22d18777406f36
a9e60e4be9147e95073f55a428a780f765f5dee0
113282 F20110115_AADIFV martin_j_Page_17.jp2
69f38abfb63c91ab2e7c1facaa39bc5c
76240e3da4e255a4dd56919e7e47e3d9eb80addf
46142 F20110115_AADHYY martin_j_Page_35.pro
ff1017e957dcf76ca211fc9585ecba52
295c9a2b7ebed0e316e08075469acf9d6bfb1b6f
915 F20110115_AADIAY martin_j_Page_87.txt
d4c1782d3c98b98401b9e527e252cd87
a7724e36ad3fb7867414488e8f803f5e900240c7
F20110115_AADHRC martin_j_Page_87.tif
c64604748b4aba81a700416d27ac14a9
668be3b955689058caf6aa26d0fcde626e4199e5
1286 F20110115_AADIKT martin_j_Page_55.txt
dbb23d08b3a0b95eb363b1cdb2781bf8
8b23333108abf2dffb4fd73f047bc3aec62faad6
111037 F20110115_AADIFW martin_j_Page_18.jp2
5d6ffb48ba254f78c5a4d609c9a2601c
29917f06cb53300f48ea78a00208491bb8ff1391
F20110115_AADHWA martin_j_Page_71.tif
15aa3a59ff3a32babb8a683354cf6af7
954cf867a207793a8cdec8a7f0f27ab90fea52d5
1988 F20110115_AADHYZ martin_j_Page_13.txt
f0190ff69886b02a26a454d89c089f8e
9d7a398fe44ac3d4e3e089db48092bad4b677b81
23131 F20110115_AADIAZ martin_j_Page_26.QC.jpg
d7de2a3d466d7703c09bb9e57f1c3788
e4a04fc176cce9bfd65d15afefa75b26a00044eb
6264 F20110115_AADHRD martin_j_Page_26thm.jpg
8cd957575d3acdec161c41ef313fafe0
d8ab105803cce6911a142b6ba9d71603c360f550
1754 F20110115_AADIKU martin_j_Page_56.txt
395011b1d3f733e84b0f7677bcec8eb2
594346fc8836c08db233c5fd45725edf61fb0aa2
95344 F20110115_AADIFX martin_j_Page_22.jp2
72ce76fdad5f42a88ffd0d23ec3a12a1
4599114c563d32621a044f772996d4121db7ca03
1846 F20110115_AADHWB martin_j_Page_35.txt
66143b224cfe33b52d476a161c293750
664ee4ad78a376c85b10fbc30108ccba8355c180
16542 F20110115_AADHRE martin_j_Page_49.pro
399491739bc8c5acd16b95c1f9491c18
5a599d5fcd7ed0516b4b02c76981f4df241c3a1d
2026 F20110115_AADIKV martin_j_Page_58.txt
a2a1e6f2cab78f9c2a6e46fdb92facdd
fa0fb8119b34d4afec2506c1167ce3343b0f1e98
106460 F20110115_AADIFY martin_j_Page_24.jp2
50dd3d6adbd531647bf457eae0f41291
5c2f7a5175e866dd90b6a6a7e672de333e8c4505
F20110115_AADIDA martin_j_Page_49.tif
ce45f33c979b26ede8864b1456594e10
241afa7e39f07aa8886d2a86061914aaced83c6b
1902 F20110115_AADHWC martin_j_Page_59.txt
d2336952b9fc88798b51ee18c980c65d
1d937b79da36ba238162d3323a1fb3e24dfb19f3
1199 F20110115_AADHRF martin_j_Page_02.pro
17b2a5dab020656962839c60af7e364f
20bb60912b17ce16529141f775659ac41225a6f3
1933 F20110115_AADIKW martin_j_Page_60.txt
3fc8583f0b7fad5efad0f882333d3dea
f46e535621eb739a4e6a45a1bfd861158ac2ef02
110145 F20110115_AADIFZ martin_j_Page_25.jp2
fbb07ba3c2279fcdf0cda968bc8d3270
dfdf7f927009ceb68e59dced145a62a307388c8b
1950 F20110115_AADIDB martin_j_Page_31.txt
0ccda0769ca8e1aa6cd303b3b99ec136
e6b3b4d30cee1bcd15e0ba189ba793476782a708
46679 F20110115_AADHWD martin_j_Page_45.pro
3af71db1836bfc8e9df94585189490da
9b6600a1cd6443af139af3a64d6e53fc1e0db1d4
2034 F20110115_AADHRG martin_j_Page_18.txt
f3f91d25a875c6e6153cfd5ee07a8054
560539d7951c3d21c48b3022a78e59328ab9a56d
1884 F20110115_AADIKX martin_j_Page_62.txt
bcf546e41108e7b2adc99865562c86d9
b290e96868c36357e0f69499cf8b9af43b723372
105918 F20110115_AADIDC martin_j_Page_76.jp2
c9f242a69b8e370824a94614971e46cd
0868570a291b67dfc84b06f8f0ad291554f63545
92565 F20110115_AADHWE martin_j_Page_56.jp2
fdc86dc4580533a6d0a14a3ce1b11384
6d8c713b78a4fc725f5f0e34d11c126806ee01a7
108938 F20110115_AADHRH martin_j_Page_63.jp2
b00d53ff7be785c13991f76d84fc6e88
15c90a60e526db700331a5b01d0b8fa1dab6e862
2021 F20110115_AADIKY martin_j_Page_63.txt
17459d12e0463b97cb859a35cacafa61
dffb952262c73727fdb9fcec67a632465899ddd7
F20110115_AADIIA martin_j_Page_52.tif
342187c0a0fefb8fa9e48b0fe9c646c5
a35a304d8476ede6c37bf27e9125d869fa98a7a2
130926 F20110115_AADHWF martin_j_Page_73.jp2
c85635055ec74d4ef27815d85cba3ea2
6f19a158d4b6ea7f02e09e31c9d055884b9d7603
558466 F20110115_AADHRI martin_j_Page_55.jp2
77e4e6c68c859a0497ec1a44232c5743
71806e8eebef311a7e5c77bf20d05ff476ac5b8a
2061 F20110115_AADIDD martin_j_Page_17.txt
10e0804842d6a71dff9394d3591d4051
3f8fbb7c641d1467608aa3c5579c0d07d2e85daa
F20110115_AADIKZ martin_j_Page_64.txt
be2e453fbd20d6a5863b3dfe4b96b8be
c8c9510475b8927771ec0714add5711a12b8390e
F20110115_AADIIB martin_j_Page_53.tif
6cdaefba6014b2582f789dfd07774b72
f1a90a1b29862f69ee1f5692eba5dc9bfe18f2f6
12720 F20110115_AADHWG martin_j_Page_21.jpg
9d85fc8ec2b3422418eb0521e0bef013
0749b0145ba5847e90d1af0effae90ad5c923ac6
76076 F20110115_AADHRJ martin_j_Page_05.pro
bb520f6306137a114370d8fcc0b26f1d
2f03f6075a1e6bc46e4fbf0c7686afa64946c942
10549 F20110115_AADIDE martin_j_Page_37.jp2
4da36d6151c47ec4ead51892b0db7076
989da72beaae4cd3b9c4c478ef0d7de66ed43931
F20110115_AADIIC martin_j_Page_56.tif
f988fdd01efb7abed9713ea1324797bc
5cac801abf05a46f4e6af4ac1996f2b1443776da
1925 F20110115_AADHWH martin_j_Page_44.txt
0a10ea5e098059ebfb6628f813c9eecf
78cf5783520f5e1af24f8c2fe393c86576a9736d
22695 F20110115_AADHRK martin_j_Page_44.QC.jpg
da1618f49ca0cc11a2f5c31e5b523257
afc2140cb590a3acf9c41a35a8ed5f681acfd4e9
5403 F20110115_AADIDF martin_j_Page_02.jp2
562bd6355f22fa5952004a5ff4f4896d
e9b85448cf1317b60008f4d07d718963ab1fe6ce
20323 F20110115_AADINA martin_j_Page_56.QC.jpg
8d220886fc2e50f881a4c3681ea5a9a8
d50e67c7a6537e852ef1e45a48f6f3842bb7e87d
F20110115_AADIID martin_j_Page_66.tif
478a1b8e6051c65c867d42471d8c532d
aa53c54dce02b98bc43bc595bc878b6df5e611c6
1835 F20110115_AADHWI martin_j_Page_36.txt
40deba9b593e763f6abaa01dcfb1f3ff
654b864099ddeb308c31cce083c26e2674a4912b
114152 F20110115_AADHRL martin_j_Page_33.jp2
430d123eef073f5a779c7395058f383d
4300c6eec43b71fddbd3e81ea68945cde4cb97eb
2252 F20110115_AADIDG martin_j_Page_81.txt
a1d2db9a20dee230bdbc845493c38c18
c0ad24cfbe1acee87a84b8a04f9b83fe07ef8ce3
23678 F20110115_AADINB martin_j_Page_58.QC.jpg
bf03f2f1d3e976fe025a84e775ccc023
bbb3e377a2a6904538c433b0fe22eb83d78f85ef
F20110115_AADIIE martin_j_Page_67.tif
bcc5b617bf9e96a4147b4f9ff052bbea
65a9dc7680941b3ffca1a2b3a496e5067346a27e
1893 F20110115_AADHWJ martin_j_Page_24.txt
7f0a8ca4ecc934a6e7bdd5dcaa39d88d
894dcc421072d8bcdeddd79be945ed2183451daf
68822 F20110115_AADHRM martin_j_Page_24.jpg
003c62eabe435a99112ddc0761fc9a44
9808084daf0fa8e50d4231fca3e139312f997319
6772 F20110115_AADIDH martin_j_Page_78thm.jpg
74883fac9bd5512a3d559ea8a1ab028c
78495a6255f2e87ffc85adeaf7724024ba5e361c
22571 F20110115_AADINC martin_j_Page_60.QC.jpg
ac0309a0ae78ec3c17bc7d5eb72cbf90
1ead8b5d68d1d5cb676a0c1bc636adf8e6df9e84
F20110115_AADIIF martin_j_Page_72.tif
01ab5a80d5777c4aae8860fe444f6a9f
e5f9918b6450312f4fe3b981a7fcf24d7b0391f9
24667 F20110115_AADHWK martin_j_Page_73.QC.jpg
abb24ac8bad514c02b7010f987e85fcb
b0f8841515424d5572242a5ab18cf085819cba11
104169 F20110115_AADHRN martin_j_Page_19.jp2
6b0ce23fb807ed75eea5f77745ce41d3
18ac605909347eb91b2e549ead65def954789c39
6540 F20110115_AADIND martin_j_Page_60thm.jpg
8aedb13469ed771880498d9362800db9
d601d3c607e498c469309d949c66cd8a06917718
F20110115_AADIIG martin_j_Page_73.tif
16114a9c025add82630349b745a47811
ca55e89cc2492b33a7ad336267047a3b8b9ff8b7
111686 F20110115_AADHWL martin_j_Page_39.jp2
7a776b8741b0cc00c056dbfe3ef21e3a
241280820cd29153ae74ab875caacdd866958d24
42741 F20110115_AADHRO martin_j_Page_22.pro
4ba80a16fde8fc3a10307f7cac27d142
71e74976f8ded4366792e14d3c97805aeed56885
F20110115_AADIDI martin_j_Page_20.tif
4087e986846d5533a4b795a5211d85c3
5dbfff637070a7cdc66e074dd68dea96dde05efc
23288 F20110115_AADINE martin_j_Page_63.QC.jpg
0a4d10e4f5bbdd070fc0535c703df225
12e4e9937f4d1f3aa0007d98b15a9b7b3525cbb6
F20110115_AADIIH martin_j_Page_74.tif
f9297d98ad89ab911d5d283f88e110f3
6d71e479af18184e4e0cc6f1aebd4b6db185108d
F20110115_AADHWM martin_j_Page_26.tif
5cfd8def15d26d5f9234e7c9baa1ef18
408366daeca9a941c259a6dd94e8a302b4e14a1a
F20110115_AADHRP martin_j_Page_35.tif
a18fb730e77cd4d7f75a39ee560de880
d9b059685a4ee42e516e41778e514a2562c28f25
23819 F20110115_AADIDJ martin_j_Page_33.QC.jpg
c0db787e3cd6ca7a08b50f4feb6e4a4d
aa2f03cca1857ca8d389c0a43fca80681f8d7149
6408 F20110115_AADINF martin_j_Page_64thm.jpg
4587a9ae551171f5e4c2c6589e2bf638
f1284a6e56db69a9104c727280d947864e94f816
F20110115_AADIII martin_j_Page_75.tif
fa96d46780f41dd4e91cd09fe614fc7d
189271ed6ec51b9b3954f8306293888246e2d79d
66349 F20110115_AADHWN martin_j_Page_69.jp2
61883668a48c1bf8242bb92c0f1f799b
ffdfb05017b715f10bfd6c0bbec0977b91addd97
7197 F20110115_AADHRQ martin_j_Page_75thm.jpg
737662dae1c5b6ac2aa7b4a1b15ccf1a
cea9a1f113740703497c63eb656a1781ca38606c
22107 F20110115_AADIDK martin_j_Page_61.QC.jpg
7dbc5f2431aada07b2680ea5c11549f4
5361e8592f2154da5bdc7cb6bad0de45554d12f9
24709 F20110115_AADING martin_j_Page_65.QC.jpg
7228aaa2ed6ca266d013e4c92fde1c1b
82735b4450a7202bee430d65ca2ae568c948a520
F20110115_AADIIJ martin_j_Page_76.tif
14541b1817ad1f92e4c0276648571f3b
0f0a9391ad271940da3d35c7172e68c90f679d95
459354 F20110115_AADHWO martin_j_Page_06.jp2
7caa3df4d39adb834412390b7d2fd42a
2129e94644580bbf0274e4a6647c1cd25709e011
20253 F20110115_AADHRR martin_j_Page_40.QC.jpg
b048bd771c4ef988182d0b551d6cebc2
78915e8e5329517634687c06ace86f0252f772bf
F20110115_AADIDL martin_j_Page_01.tif
81a77532da4bd5b137900afaaf9ca601
ec8c2392db08774d57908630c6ca69bc28f1a622
6838 F20110115_AADINH martin_j_Page_65thm.jpg
2d46e0367cb227c26ee33c3c0c907113
e8761b8034422da6ebaa32d6842cbb7d145c7cf6
F20110115_AADIIK martin_j_Page_79.tif
2b7c7785e27c344c1f4f7369c41958d2
97a53bea94566da12aa1aead1b7fea1966b90a29
5564 F20110115_AADHWP martin_j_Page_56thm.jpg
5bb12c1b1774832e449c02984b83df91
46d3fbf338b61804e91adc564a1ff535e383bd1c
24342 F20110115_AADHRS martin_j_Page_83.QC.jpg
2b8cfc432dd28f1f6721e9ff7cb0977b
aaf45ac27057426edbb641bb8b50c7fd7a82e502
111627 F20110115_AADIDM martin_j_Page_28.jp2
d72d110ddfbc02943589645a72018d02
25a5f981f9d92b5148c7aeffba1bba39c430b802
23731 F20110115_AADINI martin_j_Page_66.QC.jpg
29c4f93a74c5029acbb901a65ca73735
dcad8583679236efe5ff81b3c0811f2091c745df
F20110115_AADIIL martin_j_Page_80.tif
bfef17bbaace09a2db2c06d8a02eeac3
0cc34745e0de0b41011c925b071dc99f1e0372df
9959 F20110115_AADHWQ martin_j_Page_46.QC.jpg
127c978a093df4bcfde9eced03dfc19f
ef7c28ca255d7f85fce33b08d771eea517aa6750
1772 F20110115_AADHRT martin_j_Page_41.txt
acd1da73024cbedf32f1631ead0e319f
99f9ec27359e4f759d3c24af5abcdbe3fc034a90
F20110115_AADIDN martin_j_Page_68.tif
de84c107e7c08558a191f675a609eabe
4cb969fee32f4fda6726953e8627a360fff46fcb
4581 F20110115_AADINJ martin_j_Page_67.QC.jpg
ec32a8807d6c30a06ae3800ffa8096f4
a8542c293c35bc79939cfce98a4fa288cd78a475
F20110115_AADIIM martin_j_Page_83.tif
ea366747100fc5eca6da4a1d8d502010
ad98816241223fb81de6ed3ba777bf7a10200db8
9047 F20110115_AADHWR martin_j_Page_52.QC.jpg
201d122eb5d4360cbc357db837cdec58
a9810338884dfad8e3759b36451ad042b972e32f
3330 F20110115_AADHRU martin_j_Page_54thm.jpg
e330d443a77d03bdaec3069c759e96ee
6de20a11de5291e337a3d3fdec3eb1939d9176ef
1642 F20110115_AADIDO martin_j_Page_21thm.jpg
b60515461faf83119acb266e8f1df326
b0cf11a330ff0fca5c02dd2f7bff8e37363dfa18
4283 F20110115_AADINK martin_j_Page_68thm.jpg
816bfeb8c5e1a17e2da84bb51330f3f6
148da980e6ea6b19bd3dbea6fd6922ba75ef555b
23627 F20110115_AADHWS martin_j_Page_57.QC.jpg
d4c1e512fd1f0ad6b798b5ef3e8445a2
4a16c845a10710c81978406fa93de907680206c5
6555 F20110115_AADHRV martin_j_Page_16thm.jpg
e1b9879fcfd6df5787105c65920e2d27
60020c3e184e8fb0e007b3414e7a11368b4b6dfe
51339 F20110115_AADIDP martin_j_Page_64.pro
21b382e8fe2cf8942593dbe35e6c72ac
b853e6ae1626eaad341b14a90cc2c7279b46c925
13993 F20110115_AADINL martin_j_Page_69.QC.jpg
b877e702c1838c0c853634f9d9729296
c815636a945fb1deb96b5b2c68952a07131aa5f0
3940 F20110115_AADIIN martin_j_Page_03.pro
c057643616377a01c83df1e6c13ed879
f9cbdf0c5192bdb42162258e364fc34d3feea5d4
66154 F20110115_AADHWT martin_j_Page_05.jpg
979c716c8a86fe7c5260b0997e55c120
68f29d26d903ee25b6b41138785c691d08c10c2e
23896 F20110115_AADHRW martin_j_Page_81.QC.jpg
74937f81dd26a39701f98b9021b169b6
f554798f53d7a37eb16849ad5c81e3a159a4eb3c
2480 F20110115_AADIDQ martin_j_Page_01thm.jpg
700248f9c6482cc03918df1e8b71fdc8
8ad1a9c82d32c3dfeb0a008784c395ca7227e5c8
2622 F20110115_AADINM martin_j_Page_71thm.jpg
cac3f2936243c30174fda667f237a544
2309084214f54afb72a4215f6f8068fff7ca2364
11514 F20110115_AADIIO martin_j_Page_04.pro
2e407636f873dac2ff42a10435d4a567
ea5abc825a4262ab28085b4507b5ddd1081aeae3
110302 F20110115_AADHWU martin_j_Page_16.jp2
63736d2770674a43ba2b02fe25b58dbc
3b7c47c43ae9f19ed674e7dc58a2eb667f9573a6
2038 F20110115_AADIDR martin_j_Page_14.txt
1529d21f3c8ec6114d9838ac4b47650c
d8b465ccc3d65c8f86af790f54be917838245e25
27772 F20110115_AADINN martin_j_Page_74.QC.jpg
cc3a23969bd9a2ad028445a0cf2f12da
1330673a6349968ff6c01a487cedaeb8f9c69d37
44672 F20110115_AADIIP martin_j_Page_09.pro
20c92ab8ed7069c0e4d703fb6f9ed07c
d1034f4779f71810ea9d50bc21b43818c2a1a00e
F20110115_AADHWV martin_j_Page_86.tif
7e1092d1371d3969ae0adddaecce71c5
fcf17e83bc44c7975647cb460d57606ce9925039
110079 F20110115_AADHRX martin_j_Page_14.jp2
5faae7ef8aa3db05691d62d98ba18e8a
3ded6fd1bb87ae267f5f478974fb972cd318b931
2767 F20110115_AADIDS martin_j_Page_52thm.jpg
e0bec259be73920f2966b196f9c80671
62ed2a598ee255ff6762a617968108531b17cd59
6494 F20110115_AADINO martin_j_Page_77thm.jpg
a49a98d5c2fc869ffadfae76631b425d
41cedeb89ed6488f931a266228dddfbec5c60b77
50160 F20110115_AADIIQ martin_j_Page_10.pro
49ba46d72ceaf1c6eae2a9616020a57f
8db41de87169eec4d04ee519fc2810b6da3dbdae
382330 F20110115_AADHWW martin_j_Page_54.jp2
16a05d47bed9d7cd537cdffd08c2b6f3
aa3b0d21a9f55c616f41d4a7476920287147bf2b
F20110115_AADHRY martin_j_Page_42.tif
1d8f0acf1bf28d547b48c9588bd7a40f
d88d7a9fd79914cff4c4840cc8c8c68095168175
6498 F20110115_AADIDT martin_j_Page_30thm.jpg
4e1bb4b8c8a67c82ff1ac137e9a1b499
99846c3a0a307a13bddd969067dcc80db58fe118
23274 F20110115_AADINP martin_j_Page_79.QC.jpg
67905dd646b76cad9bc9d61e054ce783
e0ca0c4b170691f3f042b859534d6af1c58c104e
50849 F20110115_AADIIR martin_j_Page_11.pro
6d82a38eed98c2a9c2e50640b056bfc1
cc81b7baad5bc8be0cdad0f6cca533bacc9a4a3e
48241 F20110115_AADHWX martin_j_Page_44.pro
182e377228d75265cad760947a9c3653
e2c510007af597d0158064f5dbf28c92a5a56267
105266 F20110115_AADHRZ martin_j_Page_75.jpg
f7cb3ab9b009afaa74b18639ceb44ca1
73ba8c5bd3af41157b6e7dce2f344553c7178055
23872 F20110115_AADIDU martin_j_Page_39.QC.jpg
7a205bf371e8146e16579643366d0d8f
2073f4fe20c1d55b3266eb92e1e221d977069445
23048 F20110115_AADINQ martin_j_Page_80.QC.jpg
511e4524f31902e1402d4945fae8a52f
6cb52100ee33d7e87a0d5b07f51814049f163388
49396 F20110115_AADIIS martin_j_Page_12.pro
5aaf15feebadfb16c29f68d1bad83fce
6582e0e01b8cec79992c18dc362f5b967763c5fb
F20110115_AADIDV martin_j_Page_88.tif
3ab9685c95f631b40eb30a432b815dc9
3cf9077211681db9bf9a30c8ea76afca5a380cd0
2219 F20110115_AADHWY martin_j_Page_82.txt
dc91c74fec831d65020c72310cc33782
bcab65a0a0814e7d5dc07130efc917d0e2ddd2f8
6466 F20110115_AADINR martin_j_Page_80thm.jpg
b75c88190a7e7e6b9c6d009c70dbaa6a
c7886ef5fe0b43661ded10d154d7cb4bf278f4cd
50500 F20110115_AADIIT martin_j_Page_13.pro
11c793360a69420c3531615c65240010
28e6e696488a0960343d3434548dfa48fb09a7ce
25098 F20110115_AADIDW martin_j_Page_78.QC.jpg
c3c0eba52854bc6c2e6f79321f97eac5
6c96d682eb94282eb5dd8d0024a2a1d453175d46
6003 F20110115_AADHUA martin_j_Page_36thm.jpg
2d31fba556be0f93b3a8ed920fed2293
18aef8f0846f482ba69e567a156c1fbb034b704a
1980 F20110115_AADHWZ martin_j_Page_12.txt
43c192e33834cb24bfea4ae0c2cc7bc6
20ff9479ec604953c8e35ac215bf98a092c6c442
50319 F20110115_AADIIU martin_j_Page_15.pro
a47fbf6da29882257533b2fe593211e2
87c9d763025ecff10d188b58f099602d82416990
6562 F20110115_AADIDX martin_j_Page_66thm.jpg
bea6f4857466b44c8d229c9b1a3ebdb3
a45c8696bb2b99ba8df9d2ee73a5abb84e787170
74320 F20110115_AADHUB martin_j_Page_33.jpg
1e098d99bb51047ed27291777fa2a561
dd49f69cff3e4ab3712d1fdc6e1558242b3988d2
23859 F20110115_AADINS martin_j_Page_82.QC.jpg
f52301e2bb3966bd561853821ed5c9fb
eab9145979acf85f9971d274a971b52332fee1d9
52563 F20110115_AADIIV martin_j_Page_17.pro
bc09644129fdea941030cbecc43cdd43
ead83b93c6aaa4c8b8c3b5eb4783b84c5035d074
40563 F20110115_AADIBA martin_j_Page_41.pro
7d69f31fc04677c816bd02d61bb13973
2f73acd0ad29e7cc8eb581943c8aa2e71366bca0
6515 F20110115_AADIDY martin_j_Page_83thm.jpg
bc4a379573ec1ae31a8a93f4428299d9
f2f0e8cd4b16fa21e8d1347677a00badef31e1df
74229 F20110115_AADHUC martin_j_Page_17.jpg
9eab1a4a632c0960c4925ea0241bcb64
dd54827c3df5e02a069f1045e911ae32fb5c0514
F20110115_AADINT martin_j_Page_82thm.jpg
096e3ed0e002d0cf1ecf04b5f3b60475
f2e2e3181a9336e0aa252bed3cbaf22f783db58e
52042 F20110115_AADIIW martin_j_Page_27.pro
416d06967c138c164289a0220945434c
10c142ccfc25faa743e9f86b73340792ba2417e2
71957 F20110115_AADHZA martin_j_Page_25.jpg
b8da8ce339727ba8ba77a3ffed7899cf
cfe33a13eaeceb9c1e7a1da01cdd799c85ccd539
21182 F20110115_AADIBB martin_j_Page_76.QC.jpg
08917bdf5423b20bf2734bbe54ad882b
e2e7e6895f10986adf5810f9223051e58a69caf6
75313 F20110115_AADIDZ martin_j_Page_65.jpg
346a1508b3dc024934641a1d05bdcffe
752f53d14a4d79e7b647ca96ddd5fa64de14b9ee
22023 F20110115_AADHUD martin_j_Page_62.QC.jpg
d1c29c8665aa1216b01424fe67c0e29f
0b63c67cb59551ced523a88c12e3fc9c47ade46c
11347 F20110115_AADINU martin_j_Page_87.QC.jpg
3b3dbc8cf871771f7ec0ddd35b915017
efa74e00b35f40a25619ffe185f3061ce268a02d
49415 F20110115_AADIIX martin_j_Page_31.pro
c0f8a6f12de5a702ea6378d0db801b7f
898d1a9aeeeeebdbed6254c230f446a988a19c0b
5826 F20110115_AADHZB martin_j_Page_22thm.jpg
25ca98112f61e1df09f42478bc2662eb
bd1ef5c8f36e7929b3c33cc6ac331edcb1b6dcc3
51212 F20110115_AADIBC martin_j_Page_63.pro
73a84ffeb332f27f64608706c3fd4370
2104cc0f01961749423872bd9f72dcb7355999b9
50981 F20110115_AADHUE martin_j_Page_16.pro
0f84fa19350c82775975495304ec6445
07db0abf5ef59e4335f7ee1beae8628912c4ffe0
8266 F20110115_AADINV martin_j_Page_88.QC.jpg
a79daf7d436b1a358d6b58aae978a91d
4ae89bb83b01e857b59dfc17e86cb17c091fbbea
52084 F20110115_AADIIY martin_j_Page_32.pro
5257ba42c7a24713b70686a30d5a99e5
1d91b6600244fc6495d51adab633e47ccb9523d7
113325 F20110115_AADIGA martin_j_Page_27.jp2
d4aaf4938710b2ccf70d78b339821e9f
27fd4c816e3ff793c1b26e519c37851e75da3b4f
102881 F20110115_AADHZC martin_j_Page_59.jp2
c6b6ae2f91534f94afc0f4ed464b2ec5
47d1c49a7ddbfe3911232139816561eed5db8f0d
54828 F20110115_AADIBD martin_j_Page_79.pro
54c7d024cf7e05c79557c00a4fda2aec
185700cc2981c798ed16133344cc6db8da1948e3
51004 F20110115_AADHUF martin_j_Page_39.pro
e835bc90c5211577da9d59c3ac3ac6bc
eed5961190f118d5aad05a8ed0af3b41ae76b891
102524 F20110115_AADINW UFE0008950_00001.mets
56573102dbab0395dc054655e8e6b2e9
1900954b9b2a0a4cdf093ed4ee4cf5b3febf12b2
51672 F20110115_AADIIZ martin_j_Page_34.pro
775776879ffab4f0f0df62560908d741
e0d25fdf680d11b5bc242c58eb72f837903404c6
111922 F20110115_AADIGB martin_j_Page_29.jp2
1ece837bdc4418303a1ea88935df256a
f1e38579e674a211152fc6c483e50d1c5733287c
23074 F20110115_AADHZD martin_j_Page_15.QC.jpg
63867fd1fd43c4056e1a78b2d16e9876
f04fc0c04e0c49710045939695a2d20378b1062d
38156 F20110115_AADIBE martin_j_Page_87.jpg
0ce153ad9a6cb604ce3f77ac8145c349
3288eaec57ec594f6c4abda5cc1fcc7868cb4d61
103133 F20110115_AADHUG martin_j_Page_61.jp2
0c059daf249b4b5a1a3c0cf10f5af0e4
9ba3a3b10fd94e204bb0d49683688b00ec2d935b
105633 F20110115_AADIGC martin_j_Page_30.jp2
81a4deb0d51bcfbef92978f34f0aad4d
b39bf19cd2c29123b8164d206e693eb758d8b536
F20110115_AADHZE martin_j_Page_09.tif
0f6567af035da241825f63f604da976c
5ef4e1771fd5b013c9c76cb9e58e14b8ee2da2df
25063 F20110115_AADIBF martin_j_Page_88.jpg
ae197fcde0fe55f4b6bf0641c6363eb7
5de3e954d7bf17261afdd96f33be726e284fc271
2259 F20110115_AADHUH martin_j_Page_72.txt
f87d1682bca9aa52e47c2ce3596ec342
0402a7303f3faa0e05a1be4af5f8c3d66b63c943
2121 F20110115_AADILA martin_j_Page_65.txt
67789a18f99b53a3f257344085f1a902
bc2ae8c8be24f6a0a8d75e00a4bf2fe916228017
113593 F20110115_AADIGD martin_j_Page_32.jp2
dccc3807ea5f3b3b827ad2ad817a3891
e3c62ac2600e227631d284143996a790507c6c1f
6605 F20110115_AADHZF martin_j_Page_84thm.jpg
9496af33327c4f95c290f99a59f5dca6
3022cb43819b8f03221450c55966217f0b704dbf
63898 F20110115_AADHUI martin_j_Page_40.jpg
34ea9099c15e7bab1d0ccb289bfa0e6a
9dc43f8dbbfd4cb529b8689114a548eb312f3b9b
205 F20110115_AADILB martin_j_Page_67.txt
b861cf4d06fb01b8cd03f5989dea6da6
77b4dbff3b11c187b16c362f82fe92438b51e442
101821 F20110115_AADIGE martin_j_Page_35.jp2
e014f125a929604d7a8b07c574c11cab
349ab8a2bd3faebbc4fab311031093d190bc0d2e
22171 F20110115_AADHZG martin_j_Page_35.QC.jpg
92a964c4b54f62378ec8a656968e5b3f
1293e7a0aacb249f8dcc833a725f7b9a5cb2ac95
38740 F20110115_AADIBG martin_j_Page_47.jpg
941292ed4d0c0cf644e717bb13508c23
a79e4310f0e7be382925038534236bcd203b537d
7213 F20110115_AADHUJ martin_j_Page_74thm.jpg
45cd197dce23ffddb4a531bba7777a16
ade4e4be7b8cde3cb5ba61fd26198bbdd535d186



PAGE 1

RELIGION, SCIENCE AND PUBLIC EDUCATION: NEWSPAPER COVERAGE OF THE ORIGINS DEBATE IN OHIOS PUBL IC SCHOOLS By JUSTIN D. MARTIN A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2004

PAGE 2

Copyright 2004 by Justin D. Martin

PAGE 3

This document is dedicated to my parent s, William and Sandy Martin; my success in higher education would not have been possible without you.

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my committee members (Dr. Lynda L. Kaid, Dr. Spiro Kiousis and Dr. John Wright) for demonstrating an immeasurable fondness of teaching, love of learning and commitment to excellence. It is a privilege to work among talented and personable scholars. I thank my parents, William and Sandy Martin, whose gentle but unshakeable support instilled in me a love of truth and the courage to seek it. iv

PAGE 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................vii ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................................viii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 Religion in American Public Life.................................................................................2 The Emergence of Intelligent Design...........................................................................4 Criticism of Intelligent Design.....................................................................................6 The Controversy in Ohio..............................................................................................8 Intelligent Design and the Structure of Scientific Revolutions..................................10 Intelligent Design and Social Capital.........................................................................11 2 BACKGROUND........................................................................................................14 Journalists and Religion..............................................................................................14 Journalists and Science...............................................................................................18 Framing.......................................................................................................................21 Framing Religion........................................................................................................25 Hypotheses and Research Questions..........................................................................26 3 METHODS.................................................................................................................30 Sample........................................................................................................................30 Coding Instrument and Coding Scheme.....................................................................30 4 RESULTS...................................................................................................................33 Article Tone................................................................................................................33 Frames.........................................................................................................................33 Creationist and Fundamentalist Terms and Descriptors.............................................34 Location of Publication and Treatment of the Intelligent Design Controversy..........36 Scientific Uncertainty, Scientific Acceptance and Scientific Denial.........................37 Scientific vs. Religious portrayal................................................................................38 v

PAGE 6

5 DISCUSSION.............................................................................................................48 Limitations..................................................................................................................57 Future Research..........................................................................................................58 APPENDIX A CODESHEET.............................................................................................................60 B CODEBOOK..............................................................................................................64 LIST OF REFERENCES...................................................................................................68 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.............................................................................................80 vi

PAGE 7

LIST OF TABLES Table page 4-1 Frequencies...............................................................................................................39 4-2 Tone of Article across Type of News Article..........................................................41 4-3 Presence of Creationist Terms across Article Tone.................................................42 4-4 Presence of Creationist Descriptors across Article Tone.........................................43 4-5 Location of Publication across Article Tone............................................................44 4-6 Location of Publication across Presence of Creationist Terms................................45 4-7 Location of Publication across Presence of Creationist Descriptors........................46 4-8 Scientific Acceptance/Uncertainty across Article Type...........................................47 vii

PAGE 8

Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Master of Arts RELIGION, SCIENCE AND PUBLIC EDUCATION: NEWSPAPER COVERAGE OF THE ORIGINS DEBATE IN OHIOS PUBLIC SCHOOLS By JUSTIN D. MARTIN December, 2004 Chair: Lynda Lee Kaid Major Department: Mass Communications Broadly, this project analyzed journalistic treatment of religion and science. Specifically, this thesis analyzed the treatment of a discipline called Intelligent Design and a surrounding controversy that took place in Ohios public schools. Intelligent Design is a notion which challenges Darwinian evolution through the claim that life is too complex to have originated by chance variations. The decision of whether or not to include the concept of Intelligent Design in Ohios public school science curricula sparked a flood of newspaper coverage both inside and outside the state of Ohio. This thesis examines this newspaper coverage in terms of the overall tone of the coverage, various frames or central themes that organized the coverage, the presence/absence of certain descriptors of the Intelligent Design movement, and also the treatment of Intelligent Design as science or non-science. viii

PAGE 9

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Media mold and influence our understanding of the world. Religious issues are, for most people, a part of that world. Because of increasing media coverage of religious issues, my study examined media coverage of a religious debate. The debate over the merits of a discipline called Intelligent Design (ID) the idea that life is far too complex to have developed randomly and without purposeis a unique one, in that it is a religious debate taking place across the entire country, from Nebraska and Texas, to Minnesota and Pennsylvania. Few if any religious issues are more debated, covered in the media, or hotly disputed than the theory of intelligent agency in the universe, and the challenge it poses to naturalistic evolution. One study on newspaper coverage of ID showed that articles on ID frequently elicited a flood of letters and responses from readers, sometimes lasting for a week or more after a specific article was published (Martin, Trammell, Valois, Landers & Bailey, 2004). This public interest in, as well as opposition to, the ID discipline has fueled a panoply of media coverage of the topic. One need only type in the words IDto search engines (such as Google and Yahoo) or databases (such as Lexis Nexis and Ebsco Host) to recognize the volume of resources and criticism available on this topic. Much of this coverage involves controversies in public school districts, and their deliberations and decisions on whether to include ID in public-school science curricula and, if so, to what extent. My study examined newspaper coverage of one such ID controversy in and among the school board and citizens of the state of Ohio. 1

PAGE 10

2 Religion in American Public Life By the middle of the 20th Century, many western scholars believed religion was a fading aspect of public life, but that belief soon passed (Armstrong, 2004). The phenomenon of religion has reemerged in recent years in liberal democracies, as well as in the rest of the World, and media coverage of religious issues and scholarly analysis of media and religion have paralleled this trend (De Vries, 2001). Unlike the general interpretation of the theory of secularization, religion is not a moribund influence in society (Silk, 2000). Even in places like Great Britain, where weekly church attendance is an apathetic 7% of the general population, Internet churches are sprouting up in an attempt to interest young worshipers (Radcliffe, 2004). Christian books have been penetrating bestseller lists worldwide. One such book, Rick Warrens The Purpose-Driven Life (2002), has sold nearly 11 million copies. This reemergence of religion is perhaps even more prominent in the United States, because the incumbent president is a born-again and vocal evangelical Christian; and also because of religious overtones inherent in the gay-marriage and pledge-of-allegiance debates taking place in states across the country, and in Congress (Winston, 2004). Mass communication scholars have seemingly taken notice of these trends. Since the mid-twentieth century, the relationship between religion and the mass media has come into scholarly focus (Hoover, 2002). In the last twenty years, communication scholars have increasingly studied this relationship (Mitchell, 2000). The Journal of Communication and Religion was founded in the late 1970s, but more in-depth analysis did not proceed until later (Hatcher, 2003). Indeed, it was not until 2002 that the Journal of Media and Religion began publishing quarterly periodicals addressing this relationship.

PAGE 11

3 Still, some scholars favor more study of religious issues and the media (Stout & Buddenbaum, 2002), and this may be due to a recent increase in media coverage of religious issues. During roughly the past 10 years, religion journalism has grown, and more journalists are now willing to step into the fray and report on religious controversy (Ward, 2002, p12; Newspapers get religion, 1999). In December 2003 and January 2004, for instance, all three major American news magazines (U.S. News & World Report, Time and Newsweek) published cover or major articles critiquing author Dan Browns (2003) theological and fictional book The Davinci Code (Kulman & Tolson, 2003; Kantrowitz and Underwood, 2003; Grossman, 2004). In the same year, U.S. News also published two more cover articles covering major religious trends: one involved dominant perceptions of Jesus in America, and the other involved the increasing size of American evangelical congregations (Tolson & Kulman, 2004; Tolson, 2003). In the summer of 2003, Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore made national headlines when he refused to remove a monument bearing the ten commandments of Judeo-Christianity, an event that sparked national dialogue about religion in the public square (Hoffman, 2004). In an even greater example of media frenzy over religious issues, on February 25, 2004, Mel Gibsons anticipated film The Passion of the Christ, began playing amid enormous fanfare and in movie theaters nationwide (Goldstein, 2004). Also, recent scandals involving the Catholic Church have ignited a flood of media coverage of the role and effects of organized religion in and on contemporary society (Wirth, 2002). The large amount of extant media coverage of religion, according to some scholars, warrants study of such coverage (Buddenbaum, 2002). This study addressed that need; and in analyzing a specific religious controversy, builds on prior

PAGE 12

4 communications research about media and religion in general, as well as upon research on newspapers and ID in particular. The Emergence of Intelligent Design American theists (and more specifically, religious conservatives) are highly concerned with culture and values (Kintz & Lesage, 1998). Many Americans have rejected the secularization of the countrys public schools, and advocate a return to Judeo-Christian beliefs (Mattheis, 1981). Many of these values spring from certain beliefs about the universe and its origins: beliefs that have spawned a new era in the Creation-vs.-Evolution debate. In 2002, Mason Dixon polling surveyed 1,500 Ohioans and found that 59% favored teaching ID and the theory of evolution by natural selection in the states public schools (Viadero, 2002). By this time, most Ohio residents were familiar with the argument of ID, and more than half felt Ohios schoolchildren should consider it. Other similar debates have taken place in school boards across the country, and most recently in Georgia. Before the early 1990s, the phrase Intelligent Design was not well-known. By the end of that decade and the beginning of the next, though, the phrase and its acronym were appearing in books from university presses; and newspaper and magazine articles, refereed, academic journals. Discussion of the movement appeared on public television networks like PBS (Beckwith, 2003a). The journal Natural History (Intelligent Design?, 2002) devoted space in one volume to arguments from three proponents and three challengers of ID. Searching LexisNexis or other academic/journalistic databases yields thousands of articles on the topic of Intelligent Design. In general, ID is a scientific research program that investigates the effects of intelligent causes, an intellectual movement that challenges Darwinism and its

PAGE 13

5 naturalistic legacy (Dembski, 1999, pp.13). Intelligent Designs scholars hale not only from fields such as theology and philosophy, but also from biology, mathematics and law and are accomplished scientists (Not Your Daddys Fundamentalism, 2004). Followers of the movement distinguish themselves from their creationist predecessors mainly through a higher level of scientific literacy (The New Scientist, 2002), and their popular presence and political influence is increasing. Much of this coverage was due to debate of science standards in various school districts across the country. In places like Kansas, Alabama, New Mexico, Kentucky, Ohio, Michigan and Minnesota, school boards debated future standards for teaching the origins of life, whether to use certain evolutionary terminology, and whether to include ID theory in their curricula (Moore, 2002). The first successes of IDs penetration into the public awareness are largely credited to University of California, Berkeley professor of law Phillip Johnson. In 1990, while on sabbatical in London, England, Johnson wrote Darwin on Trial, a book largely credited as the precursory text of the ID movement (Woodward, 2003). The book argued that for reasons such as large gaps in the fossil record, Charles Darwins theory of common ancestry through successive, slight modifications was untenable. The book created a stir in scientific communities and encouraged some like-minded scholars to join efforts. In the years after the release of his 1991 bestseller, Johnson and colleagues both for and against design theory arranged academic conferences and symposia on ID at such institutions as Stanford, Cornell, the University of Texas, Harvard and the University of Chicago (Beckwith, 2003). On the ID side of this debate, design theorists claim Darwinism and the biological sciences are driven by philosophical naturalism; on the

PAGE 14

6 Darwinist side of the controversy, evolutionists tag design theory as Creationism in disguise and its proponents as academics with an agenda. Broadly, ID proponents submit that intelligent agency, as an aspect of scientific theory making, has more explanatory power in accounting for the specified, and sometimes irreducible, complexity of some physical systems, including . .the existence of a universe as a whole, than the blind forces of unguided and everlasting matter(Beckwith, p.xiii, 2003b). These blind and unguided forces are what Johnson (2000) claims embodies the philosophy of naturalism, and he argues that the scientific community is faced with two choices when confronting ID: scientists can entertain the possibility of supernatural creation or dismiss it outright. IDs proponents do more than critique and call into question the philosophy of scientific naturalism; according to Beckwith (2003a), these researchers are publishing books in academic presses and articles in refereed journals. Unlike some Creationist adherents, ID advocates offer scientific, technical and empirically grounded arguments to promote and support theism (Beckwith, 2003b). ID researchers are generally more subtle than Creationist theologians; the former claim that natural selection cannot explain the complexity of life, and suggest intelligent agency, but say very little about who or what that agent may be (Greenwalt, 2003). Criticism of Intelligent Design That the ID movement is growing in recognition and influence need not imply that it is without its critics. Some scientists argue simply that ID is not a scientific discipline, because the complex nature of human life does not necessarily imply Creation (Shermer, 2004). Some of the most heated political controversies in the last four decades involved the teaching (and not teaching) of evolution in public schools (Lugg, 2004). The notion

PAGE 15

7 of ID elicits strong responses in many academics; according to The London Times, shortly after turning 100 years of age, Harvard biologist Ernst Mayr is putting final touches on a research publication critical of design theory (Henderson, 2004). Modernization, or secularization, of American life, such as that in public schools, has been wrought with conflict and harsh words from both the religious and secular camps (Smith, 2003). American Institute of Biological Sciences president Judith Weis (2001) encourages biologists to counteract the efforts of ID with perpetual determination. While some survey data suggests most Americans favor teaching design theory alongside evolution, many academics dispute the notion that ID is a scientific discipline. Some scholars feel that ID should be addressed in religion classes and evolution in scientific ones (Wexler, 2003). Cracraft (2004) goes further by saying that ID in science classrooms poses a danger to students scientific literacy. Physicist Adrian Melott (2002, p.48) claims that ID is Creationism in a cheap tuxedo. Other scholars feel ID proponents are plainly ignorant or deliberately spurious when it comes to scientific objectivity (Milner & Maestro, 2002). Just because an entity exhibits complexity does not mean it was intelligently designed, some say. A termite mound, says Peterson (2002), is complex and beautiful, but that does not necessary lend itself to the work of an intelligent agent. In a similar vein, Eller (2003) criticizes ID proponents for basing their theory on unexplained aspects of evolution. He uses the example of macroevolution (species evolving into an entirely different species). ID researchers are quick to note that, says Eller, not one example of macroevolution has ever been proven either in or outside of the fossil record, an assertion he claims does not prove intelligent agency by default.

PAGE 16

8 Campbell (2003), however, feels that the goal to preserve the integrity of science is compromised when competing theories of lifes origins are dismissed outright, and he hints that the only way to increase the plausibility of naturalism is to defeat such competition in classrooms and lecture halls. The Controversy in Ohio This study analyzes newspaper coverage of a religious/scientific debate in Ohios public school board. While controversies over ID in public schools have raged in other states, Ohio was chosen for analysis for specific reasons. Ohio is not part of the group of states frequently referred to as the Bible Belt, and is therefore indicative of IDs influence in middle America and outside of so-called evangelical strongholds. Furthermore, Ohio offers an interesting duality: according to polling data, the general population of Ohio supports the inclusion of ID in the states public schools (Viadero, 2002). Academics, however, are generally less accepting of ID (Johnson, 2002), and the state of Ohio has within its borders some of the most prestigious academic institutions in the United States: the University of Cincinnati, Case Western Reserve University, The Ohio State University, etc. Perhaps this is why the controversy in Ohio raged for a considerable period of time. Newspaper coverage of the Ohio controversy is extensive and suitable for analysis (news coverage ranges roughly from mid-2000 to early 2004). This study builds on prior research on ID in the media in particular, and journalism and religion research in general. Education becomes religious in a formal sense, wrote Hunt (1960, p.90), when instruction is given in the tenets of one of the organized faiths. Hunts words might have been uttered by one of IDs challengers in Ohio some 40 years later, as the controversy in that state was essentially this: evidence challenging Darwinism was proposed for

PAGE 17

9 inclusion in the state science curriculum, and opponents claimed such an inclusion was honoring tenets of organized faith. The debate in Ohio over public-school science standards was long and fierce; at times, rumors promised that evolutionary proponents would file lawsuits against the school board if challenges to evolution were allowed in public classrooms (Galley, 2004). The crux of the debate centered on whether or not to allow teachers to criticize aspects of evolutionary theory they deemed lacking. Critics of these efforts and of Intelligent Design, though, claimed the campaign challenging evolutionary standards was an attempt to sneak religion in the classroom (Durbin, 2000). The controversy began in 2001, shortly before the Ohio Board of Education was poised to ratify the states science standards for its 1.8 million public-school children, something the board does every several years (Mangels & Stephens, 2002). The board of education initially rejected the request (Evolution solution faith: science must part at school door, 2001) and the controversy remained relatively static until 2002 when the Ohio Board of Education voted 17-0 to endorse a resolution of intent expressing their plan to alter the state science standards to include evidence challenging Darwinism (Winnick, 2002). The controversy was settled with the passage of the Academic Freedom Act of 2004, which provided public school teachers "the affirmative right and freedom to present scientific, historical, theoretical, or evidentiary information pertaining to alternative theories or points of view on the subject of biological or physical origins" (Goldacre, 2004, p.3). The law stopped short of requiring teaching of Intelligent Design, and did not specify design theory as one of the alternative theories or points of view, but ID proponents hailed the law a major victory in the challenge to Darwinism in public classrooms. The passage of the law was a victory for

PAGE 18

10 ID adherents, because supporters of the theory were not asking for inclusion of ID in the first place. Such supporters were not asking the state to require the teaching of evolution and intelligent design, according to one Columbus Dispatch article. Instead, they want guarantees in the standards that arguments or materials critical of the theory of evolution can be introduced, (Lore, 2000, p.1). Intelligent Design and the Structure of Scientific Revolutions Most scholars who have praised or critiqued tenets of Thomas Kuhns (1962) famed essay The Structure of Scientific Revolutions discuss Kuhns notion of paradigm shift and paradigm change. Kuhn devotes significant space in his essay, however, to discussing the difficulty many scientific historians encounter when they attempt to chronicle and to capture the nonlinear accumulation of scientific knowledge while using linear language. Part of the problem historians face, of course, involves the panoply of articles, books and letters they must sift through in order to document the progression and, ultimately, the success or failure of scientific ideas and movements. Perhaps science does not develop by the accumulation of individual discoveries and inventions, writes Kuhn (p.2). Kuhn goes on to argue that this results in historians asking nonlinear questions; instead of asking about the relationship between revolutionary scientists of the past and those today, for example, many historians may now ask questions regarding a revolutionary scientists relationship with his or her contemporaries. For historians, quantitative content analysis makes possible generalizations from large amounts of resources and references to the scientific climate of the period under examination. This study seeks to examine the taproots of what just may be the sprout of scientific revolution, by analyzing coverage of the IDdebate within Ohios public school system.

PAGE 19

11 Not only do social scientists experience resistance and criticism in the difficulty of examining the massive amount of historical documents, but social scientists have also been strongly criticized for their frequent inability to predict the future (Machlup, 1961). For social scientists in communications, content analyses make predicting the nature of future mass media messages less arbitrary. One of the primary uses of framing theories, for example, is the ability to conjecture in an educated way how future coverage of an issue is likely to be presented. This study, then, may provide some cohesion for future historians who wish to chronicle the success or failure of the ID movement, and may also add logic to predictions of future coverage of religious and/or scientific movements and revolutions. For better or worse, ID may be poised for scientific revolt. ID is gaining steam in academic circles. The vast majority of Americans believe in a supernatural creator of the universe (Huntington, 2004). Scientific revolutions, one could argue, cannot subsist without a newly developed concept of social force called social capital, which is discussed below, as is the concepts relationship to Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design and Social Capital Much ink has been spilt on the concept of social capital in the academic literature of the fields of political science, sociology, economics, to name a few, and also in the field of education (Horvat, Weininger & Lareau, 2003).The notion of social capital, generated by Harvards Robert Putnam in the early nineties (Holm, 2004), is defined as social forces that inspire trust, action, awareness and reciprocity in and among communities (Leyden, 2003). Requena (2003) defines social capital as cooperative, social partnerships that spur collective action.

PAGE 20

12 As seen in Ohio, ID appears to contribute to social capital, in that it spurs collective action in the areas of education, local and state politics, and in the interpretation and questioning of scientific paradigms. Examples of IDs influence on social capital come from some of the articles on the topic. Perhaps the most glaring example of IDs influence on social capital appeared in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy by Beckwith (2003), who argues that design theory has reignited interest and awareness of a debate that was considered by many to be over. Another such example comes from Londons The Guardian. Burkeman and Jha (2003, p.4) reported that, in terms of IDs influence, one of the first signs that something was changing came last year in the suburbs of northern Atlanta, when people started talking . about mousetraps. The mousetrap was adopted by ID proponent and author of the bestselling Darwins Black Box (1996) Michael Behe to explain a characteristic of living cells he calls irreducible complexity. While the specifics of irreducible complexity are not important here, Burkeman and Jhas observations are noteworthy. These two journalists recognized that ID had spurred in Georgia widespread debate about biochemical machinations. Not only did ID principles spur discourse on the science of lifes origins, but The Guardian also reported that ID was impelling scores of Georgian parents to challenge the material their children were learning in school by confronting governing officials. If ID expands public awareness, interest and concern with broad issues like education, public policy and traditional scientific paradigms, as Marske (1996) argues are the indicators of influence on social capital, then mass media coverage of such an impetus should be studied. This study analyzed more than 250 newspaper articles

PAGE 21

13 covering the burgeoning movement and influence of Intelligent Design, borne out in controversy in Ohios public schools.

PAGE 22

CHAPTER 2 BACKGROUND Journalists and Religion The very first newspapers printed information published on a consistent basis were published in Reformation strongholds like Augsburg and Amsterdam and were religious in nature (Olasky, 1991). While newspapers and journalism in general are wholly different today than in the 17th Century, religion is once again becoming a staple of mass media. Like religions ostensible reemergence into public life, religion has, in the past quarter century, become newsworthy. According to Keeler, Tarpley and Smith (1990), religion became news again in the 1970s, because journalists realized religion had an impact on presidential elections, foreign policy and Supreme Court rulings. Criticism of this increased coverage, though, became no less common than the religious content itself. In his book Unsecular Media, Silk (1995) notes that anyone knowledgeable about a particular topic will likely express dissatisfaction with the way that topic is covered in the mass media. Indeed, in their analysis of media framing of feminism/the womens movement, Ashley and Olson (1998) concluded mainly that media coverage of feminism served to de-legitimize the movement. Religion, similarly argues Silk, is no different in this regard and, by the standards of theologians and others, media coverage of religion frequently demonstrates errors, improper slant or inadequate contextualization (see also Engstrom and Semic, 2003). These sentiments led The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs to complain that mainstream American journalists have not done enough to 14

PAGE 23

15 encourage an understanding of Islam and of Muslims living in the U.S. (Scarves of many colors, 1997). Traditionally, religion reporting has been considered less than a top assignment and, for quite some time, was marginalized in American journalism (Buddenbaum, 1986; Moses, 1993). Hubbard (1988) claims that some journalists view themselves as liberated from having to report on religion and, for some time, have chosen to report on issues of the nation separate from faith. Hubbard goes on to argue that some journalists view religion as a private aspect of life, and avoid it, choosing instead to report on issues they deem public. Soukup (1996) feels that religious individuals hold distrust for the media, and might even partly blame mass communicators for corrupting society with objectionable content. Perhaps this is why Buddenbaum (1998, p.1) feels mass media demonstrate that religion is the greatest story thats never told, or, at least, the greatest story thats never told very well. According to Ward (2002), journalists experience difficulty covering religious stories because such issues are typically sensitive and often polarizing, and they dont want to appear to favor one stance or another. For this reason, he claims, editors have historically avoided many religious stories in favor of other current events issues. Within roughly the last decade, however, religion stories have been too important for some editors to ignore and journalists are being sent out regularly on religious assignment (Buddenbaum, 1990). Religion reporting is hot, writes Alice Shepard (1995, pp.18-19) in the American Journalism Review. More and more people are looking for spiritual elements in their lives. People are also looking for more spiritual elements in political candidates, a phenomenon which could be partly responsible for

PAGE 24

16 increased coverage of religious issues in the presidential campaign year of 2004, according to one New Yorker article (Hertzberg, 2004). U.S. News & World Report columnist John Leo (2004) also pointed out the focus on religion at the 2004 Democratic National convention, which led to increased dialogue about religion in the media, something self-evident in his very column, which was titled Talk about getting religion! Perhaps because religion journalism is an increasingly prevalent phenomenon, some researchers feel communication scholars know little about the relationship between mass media and religion (Stout & Buddenbaum, 2002). Communication researchers tend to study both religion and the mass media, usually in isolation and rarely together (Buddenbaum, 2002). This is also true according to Hoover (2002), who feels that some mass communication scholars deem religion as a fading and insignificant aspect of cultural life, although such a suggestion is weakened by the fact that 83 percent of Americans identify themselves as either practicing Catholics or Christians (Florio, 2004). Moreover, a study by Nieman Reports suggests that Americans favor more and a wider range of media coverage of religious issues (Hoover, 1993), even in the face of evidence suggesting that religious stories in the media are now more in-depth and detailed than in the past (Buddenbaum, 1986). This sought to shed light on the relationship between mass media and religion by studying print journalism coverage of a religious/scientific controversy. When reporting on religion and its role in American life, the media frequently portray religious issues as a conflict between fundamentalists and the mainstream. For instance, the coverage of Muslims in America, according to an analysis of seven major

PAGE 25

17 news dailies conducted by The Christian Science Monitor in the mid-nineties, frequently demonstrates journalists tendency to emphasize fundamentalist and extremist characteristics (Marquand, 1996). In doing so, media practitioners often ignore the erasure of denominational borders (Bolce & DeMaio, 2002). And because antipathy toward Christian fundamentalism exists among educated and secular elites (Bolce & DeMaio, 1999; Kerr, 2003), some media scholars argue coverage of religious issues generally, not just particularly those stories fundamentalist in nature, is negative or critical. Hoover (1998, p.57) admits that a media cohort explanationthe idea that, as a group, journalists are less religious and more politically leftist than mainstream America of such coverage is a compelling one. Such cohort reporting may have been evident in coverage of the 1980 presidential election, in the way journalists presented American evangelicals, The Christian Right, as they labeled them. These American voters were portrayed as a powerful political development steering support for Ronald Reagan, although follow-up analyses of voter choice did not recognize such mobilization (Johnson & Tamney, 1982). Coulter (2002) claims that supposed political power of the so-called Christian Right is something journalists claim but inaccurately define. In the case of Intelligent Design, the primary debate is not simply one between Creationists/fundamentalists and the mainstream. There are differing schools of thought within the discipline: under IDs auspices exist agnostics, northeastern Catholics, southern Baptists and liberal Episcopalians, and not all agree on an intelligent agents role in the origins of life. Not all media scholars, however, agree that coverage of religious issues and individuals is definitively negative. Although many religious Americans accuse the

PAGE 26

18 media of being hostile to religion in public life and for harshly reporting on religious issues such as church and state separation (Gedicks, 1992), it may be unfair to instinctively disdain religion reporting if only because one dislikes the message (Neuhaus, 2003). Lichter, Rothman and Lichter (1986) found that more than half of elite journalists expressed no or minimal religious beliefs, but other research challenges the generalizeability of the findings and points to evidence claiming that three-fourths of journalists exhibit religious interest (Weaver & Wilhoit, 1996). Some research suggests that the media have an overall positive orientation with religion and, in particular, with Christianity (Underwood & Stamm, 2000). While not challenging the notion that the media demonstrate attitudes toward religion disparate with the American public, such research posits that journalists are satisfactorily objective toward religion in hard news coverage (Kerr & Moy, 2002). Religion reporters do not exist solely to cover religious conflict, but also to examine religions relationship with, and influence on, public life (Strupp, 1999). Journalists and Science Along with reporting on religious issues, the media play a monumental role in public understanding of scientific issues and concerns (Lewenstein, 1995). For not a small number of years, though, journalists and scientists have had a rocky relationship; journalists view themselves as entertainers, informers and challengers of ideas, while many scientists see themselves as the originators of important and useful information which should be communicated by the news media to the public in certain ways (Reed & Walker, 2002). This conflict may be evident in the relationship between the mass media and environmental scientists; the former view themselves as entertainers in the way of

PAGE 27

19 environmental conflicts and current event issues, while the latter view themselves as public educators of certain scientific evidence (Roll-Hansen, 1994). Although many researchers do not attempt to publish their work outside of the academic community, some scholars stress the importance of scientific reports in the mass media, especially in order to foster a dialogue between academics and mass media consumers (Ben-Ari, 1998). Priest and Eyck (2003) argue that discussion of the latest scientific developments often take place in elite circles and away from public light and feel that the mass media are in a position to influence more public interpretation of scientific issues than other issues of interest. Many researchers do not write press releases on their academic work, perhaps because journalists have been criticized time and again for their coverage of science. The beat of science journalism continues to grow (Fayard, 1997) and, it appears, so does criticism of the genre. According to Shaw (2000; see also Condit, 2004), much science learning takes place outside of academic classrooms and in the mass media and, therefore, scholars should investigate such coverage. In their book Communicating Uncertainty (1999; see also Testing a radical theory, 2004), Friedman, Dunwoody and Rogers suggest that in some ways, journalists could do better in their coverage of new and uncertain science. Specifically, they posit that journalists frequently portray emerging scientific movements as more certain than may be warranted. One reason for this might be that journalists tend to minimize and play down scientific uncertainties when reporting on new scientific developments (Singer & Endreny, 1993). Science reporters have also been criticized for frequently neglecting to fully explain underlying scientific processes and effects which, if true, could be a reason why many scientific uncertainties are not thus described (Gilbert, 1997).

PAGE 28

20 Journalists sometimes exaggerate the importance of new medical developments/procedures, for example (Wilkins, 1999). Murray, Schwartz and Lichter (2001) similarly maintain that journalists can either highlight or ignore certain aspects of scientific reports. They note that many preliminary and/or incomplete research reports receive absolute-truth treatment in the press. Incomplete scientific reports may also result from the fact that the medias overriding goal is to engage readers/listeners/consumers with their content and providing new and exciting scientific information may be one approach to this, despite whether or not journalists gave more than a cursory nod at the data. Also, journalists work on tight deadlines, so in-depth analysis of scientific reports and their flaws becomes difficult (Barker, 1995). In their analysis of media coverage of breast cancer in the 1990s, Andsager and Powers (1999) similarly found that space constraints and other pressures presented problems for reporters covering scientific developments regarding this disease. While the best science reporting usually includes detailed background information on the subject, lengthy and informative quotes from the researcher(s), and comments from other scholars in the same field (Lewis, 1999), many science articles simply are not that detailed or carefully written. Scientific reports are sometimes rushed to the press, regardless of whether the truth of the reports is certain among journalists (Pollard, 1996). Journalism schools, though, are frequently intimating to students the importance of detailed exposition of science in their copy (Starr, 2002). Following scientific developments and breakthroughs, journalists are the first people to communicate such science to laypeople, and they must do so with sharp details written in common language (Friedhoff, 2002). Lewenstein (1995) argues that, with increasing technologies available

PAGE 29

21 to reporters for communicating and understanding science, scientific reporting is changing and improving. Framing When evaluating news coverage, whether that coverage deals with issues scientific, religious or otherwise, the organizing presentation of such issues is important to consider. As we humans navigate our lives, we are forced to sort through and organize enormous amounts of information. Much of this information, of course, reaches us via the mass media, and media frames are credited with helping us manage the panoply of messages to which we are exposed. Commonly described as the second level of a theory called agenda setting, frames provide a coherent way to decipher and archive these mounds of information (Cohen & Wolfsfeld, 1993). In the past quarter-century, communications scholars have concentrated research efforts into study of agenda-setting, framing, and effects thereof. Shifting away from a somewhat stringent view of the audience as passive recipients, scholars have focused on the medias potential and deliberation in shaping coverage of current events (Goffman, 1974; McCune, 2003; Davis, 1995). Much research has been conducted on media framing as a theory of media effects. Framing, which involves details as subtle as diction and nuance as well as larger influences such as source selection, has been used to analyze media bias and mass media influence on public opinion (Jasperson, Shah, Watts, Faber & Fan, 1998). The cognitive process of interpreting media frames, regardless of how complex or basic those frames may be, involves low levels of cognitive attention and are thus shortcuts which help media consumers understand a story or issue (Bryant & Zillman, 2002). That frames are described in the literature as cognitive shortcuts, however, need not diverge from the argument that such frames are persuasive to some degree. McQuail (1994) argued that

PAGE 30

22 the study of mass communication exists upon the assumption that mass media messages exert effects on people, and framing has been studied to this end. Scheufele (1999) argues that theoretical understanding of frames should take place within the larger context of media-effects research. Frames are central organizing themes and supporting points within which news packages are delivered (McLeod & Detenber, 1999). Similarly, Gamson and Modigliani (1987) argue that frames are organizational tools that provide meaning and weave related points of an argument or story together in a concrete way. More than that, though, Benford and Snow (2000) argue framing processes are so important that they must be examined in order to understand the root of social movements. At their best, frames make our world more knowable and more interpretable (Durham, 1998), and journalists should be credited with the usefulness of such organization (Tuchman, 1979). At their worst, though, frames may have the capability to perpetuate old stereotypes or create new ones. In her analysis of media frames of mental illness, Sieff (2003) found that media frames in such stories often maintained and/or worsened negative stereotypes toward people with psychopathologies. Similarly, Iyengar (1990) argues that frames of poverty and of the poor shape public perception of the movement and of the destitute. Baylor (1996; Debono-Roberts, 2003; Terkildsen & Schnell, 1997) found that, depending on the particular frames used to present a movement, media coverage can often hinder the movements success. And, depending on their presentation, frames can either increase or impede cognitive responses to a given issue (Shah, Kwak, Schmierbach, & Zubric, 2004). Other research suggests that media

PAGE 31

23 frames have the capacity to perpetuate and increase, if not create political cynicism among American news consumers (Cappella and Jamieson, 1996). McCombs (1997) suggests that media frames are not necessarily deliberate, and that in free societies the news media do not intentionally slant the news one way or another. Entman (1991), however, feels that media practitioners frame news in order to elicit a favorable response from their audience which, if true, shapes media coverage in significant ways. Like Entman, Olasky (1988) also argues that mass media shape public agendas and often unevenly bestow legitimacy on one group or another. Brewer (2003) feels that, in their coverage of polarizing issues, media practitioners often present compound frames, offering both sides of the issues and leaving news consumers to decide for themselves which frame makes more sense. In this way, it is not uncommon to notice camps on opposing sides of an issue trying to influence, define and help frame the issue at hand (Severin & Tankard, 2001). All frames are not equal, though, and frames can steer an audience toward a certain interpretation of an issue and do not necessarily allow for an egalitarian interpretation of all points of view (Tewksbury, Jones, Peske, Raymond, Vig & 2000, Ball-Rokeach & Rokeach, 1987). The publics reasoning about an issue often relies on frames used to organize and package the issue (De Vreese & Boomgaarden, 2003; Andsager & Powers, 1999; Nelson, Clawson, Oxley, 1997) because, often, the presence of one frame often equals the absence of another, competing frame (Gamson, Reese, Gandy & Grant, 2001; Haller & Ralph, 2001). Similarly, Zoch and Turk (1998) argue that one of the most powerful ways journalists frame an issue is through source selection, and the presence of one source can preclude the inclusion of another.

PAGE 32

24 Such framing effects are manifest in changes in peoples choices about an issue (Iyengar, 1987). Frames can affect the level of consideration that people give to one side of an issue and, in so doing, affect the balance of opposing stances/arguments (Nelson, Oxley and Clawson, 1997). People often arrive at one conclusion instead of another, depending upon how an issue is framed. This may be a problem, according to Bullock, Wyche and Williams (2001), because the presentation of a main frame and a few supporting points may reduce the depth of the coverage of certain issues, leaving consumers with little to take away from a story regarding an issues underlying causes. Similarly, Watkins (2001) found that media framing of the Million Man March in the mid-nineties focused less on the specific issues that generated public interest in the event, and more on framing the controversial stories about march organizer Louis Farrakhan. Entman (1993) argues that the choices media consumers make about an issue depend largely on the choices of individual journalists, who frame issues in a two-step process. He claims that journalists first select certain aspects of an issue/event and then make these aspects salient. Entman (2004) also identifies four major steps journalists climb in organizing media content. First, he argues that certain aspects, developments or conditions surrounding an issue are identified as negative. Next, possible causes are presented for consideration. A moral judgment (whether deliberate or otherwise) of some kind is then passed. Finally, various potential remedies or solutions are presented. So much research has been devoted to defining and understanding frames that some scholars argue that, by some definitions, any characteristic of a news story can be an organizing frame (Chyi & McCombs, 2004). Other researchers choose to analyze smaller numbers of widely researched frames. Perhaps in the interests of parsimony,

PAGE 33

25 DeVreese (2004) examined just two political frames in his content analysis of Dutch television news. In the same vein, and to avoid a cumbersome or unwieldy interpretation of media frames, the few frames analyzed in this study are only those essential to the topic under examination. Although examining 20 or 25 frames of a media subject may be warranted by some of the extant framing literature, examining fewer frames may yield more interpretable results. This study examined the presence and tone of five different frames: science, religion, educational consequences, political involvement and legal consequences (for conceptual descriptions of these frames or to see how such organizing themes were operationally defined, please see the codebook in Appendix B). Framing Religion Durham (1998) claims that successfully framing a news story is not easy and is, sometimes, impossible. When analyzing the ways media practitioners frame religious coverage, we must again remember Silks (1995) assertion that anyone who studies religion or the relationship between the mass media and religion will probably dislike in some way journalists coverage of it. Chen (2003), for instance, did not deem objective mass media presentation of Mormons during the 2002 Winter Olympics in Utah. That said, however, some communication scholars interpret differently the ways the mass media frame religious coverage. Some researchers claim such coverage provides secularized frames of religious issues, while others argue maintain that religious issues are framed within a context of positive values (Stout & Buddenbaum, 2003). If the media are criticized for framing coverage of religion in a certain way, such coverage is not the only hot topic to draw fire. In her exploration of how the media frame the feminist movement, Beck (1998) found that journalists have a difficult time objectively framing womens issues. Other research has looked at how debate over

PAGE 34

26 animal experimentation has been covered in the mass media, suggesting that coverage of the debate is less than perfect, particularly on television (Kruse, 2001). Perhaps issues such as the origins-of-the-earth debate, feminism and animal experimentation are simply controversial, whether discussed in the media or in social discourse. Hypotheses and Research Questions The following hypotheses and research questions were written in consideration of the literature reviewed in the preceding two chapters. Some of that research, as well as additional and pertinent justification for the following statements, is cited prior to each question/set of questions. Due to prior research suggesting that newspaper coverage of religious issues tends to be impartial in hard news, critical in columns and editorials, and favorable in letters to editors (Kerr & Moy, 2002; Martin et al., 2004), hypothesis one predicts the following: H1: The overall tone of newspaper coverage of the Intelligent Design debate in public schools will be negative, although tone will differ across news type. Specifically, hard news will tend to be neutral, columns and editorials will more often be negative, and letters to the editor will tend to be positive. Research question one deals with the presence of five frames: science, religion, education, political involvement and legal consequences. Martin et al. (2004) analyzed the presence of five such frames in their analysis of newspaper coverage of ID. Inclusion of several of these frames, however (science, religion, education and legal consequences), is perhaps even more intuitive in the current study, given the nature of the controversy of interest. Intelligent Design is a theistic discussion of a Designer in science and the earths origins, and the controversy under examination took place in an educational setting. Justifying the possibility of a political involvement frame, Kintz and Lesage

PAGE 35

27 (1998) argue that the political influence of religious Americans is hard to deny. The fifth frame is a legal consequences frame. According to Gedicks (1992), many Americans who cherish religious values in public life decry what they claim to be hostility toward religion in both Americas mass media and judicial systems. Gedicks further points out that such Americans cite Federal District and Supreme Court rulings on the separation clause as evidence of such hostility. For this reason, and because this study analyzes media coverage of what many consider to be a church-vs.-state issue, a legal consequences frame is included in research question one. RQ1: Will newspapers frame the Intelligent Design debate in school boards more as science, religion, educational consequences, political involvement, or legal consequences? Which of the five will be the dominant frame? Intelligent Design proponents typically shy away from Creationist and Fundamentalist labels to describe the movement in general, and themselves in particular. Martin et al. (2004), however, found that more than half of newspaper articles covering ID used such descriptors at least once. Research questions two and three deal with this nomenclature. RQ2: To what extent will journalists use Creationist and Fundamentalist terms and descriptors in portraying the Intelligent Design debate in Ohios school board? RQ3: Are use of Creationist and/or Fundamentalist descriptors/terms frequent predictors of tone? Since the Scopes Trial in Dayton County Tennessee took place in 1925, controversies involving evolution and Creation have received large amounts of national media coverage. Perhaps most famously, journalist H.L. Mencken traveled to Tennessee

PAGE 36

28 during the Scopes Trial and wrote columns highly critical of the lifestyles and education of those opposing evolution (Ingraham, 2003). Similarly, when the Kansas school board voted to de-emphasize evolution in 1999, criticism rained on the Midwestern state from publications the country wide (Byrne, 1999). Much of this negative coverage came from sources outside of Kansas; one headline from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette cautioned Dont let Creationists Corrupt Science Standards (Kristalka, 2001, p.1). Research questions four and five deal with differences in coverage between Ohio-based sources and those located elsewhere. RQ4: Is the location of the news source a frequent predictor of overall article tone? In other words, are news sources outside of Ohio more likely to publish negative, positive or neutral coverage of the school board debate? RQ5: Are sources outside of Ohio more or less likely to use Creationist and/or Fundamentalist descriptors? One of the criticisms of scientific coverage in the mass media involves journalists tendency to present new scientific developments with unwarranted acceptance and validation (Friedman, Dunwoody & Rogers). Research Question six involves scientific uncertainty vs. acceptance in newspaper coverage of Ohios school-board debate. RQ6: Does newspaper coverage of the Ohio school board controversy present Intelligent Design more with scientific uncertainty, scientific denial or scientific acceptance? One of the central debates of the Intelligent Design movement is that of religion vs. science. In fact, many books and journal articles written on the topic of ID serve to debate this very tandem (Peterson, 2002). Research question seven addresses this debate.

PAGE 37

29 RQ7: Is the Intelligent Design debate in public schools portrayed more as a religious issue or as a scientific issue?

PAGE 38

CHAPTER 3 METHODS This study analyzed newspaper coverage of a public school board debate on Intelligent Design, which took place from 2000 to 2004; these dates ranged from the beginning of the school board controversy in Ohio to its completion, signified by the boards passage of the Academic Freedom Act of 2004. Methodology consisted of quantitative content analysis. Sample The entire newspaper article was the unit of analysis for this study (N=268), except when the tone of each frame was analyzed. In those cases, the unit of analysis was an individual frame. The sample consisted of hard news articles (n=125), columns (n=42), editorials (n=24) and letters to the editor (n=77), while book reviews and community calendar items were pared from the sample. Full text articles were garnered from the LexisNexis database using the following search terms: Intelligent Design paired with the term Ohio. Articles were collected from the major newspapers designation under the General News category under the U.S. News heading of the LexisNexis archive. Impertinent articles (such as those dealing with intelligent design in architecture) were not included in the sample. Articles in the sample ranged from April 14, 2000 to April 8, 2004. Coding Instrument and Coding Scheme The coding instrument was constructed from categories used in prior literature examining the relationship between religion and science in the media (Martin et al., 30

PAGE 39

31 2004;Kerr & Moy, 2002; Huckins, 1999; Friedman, Dunwoody, Rogers, 1999; Silk, 1995; Kelstedt, Lyman, and Smidt, 1991). Considering such research and the current research questions, categories were developed to analyze the units of analysis. The codesheet (Appendix A) consisted of the following categories: (1) Coder name; (2) Article number; (3) Article date; (4) Publication of article; (5) Location of publication; (6) Word Count; (7) Type of Article (hard news, column, editorial, etc.); (8) Location/Section article appeared in; (9) Article Headline; (10) Overall tone of article; (11) Use of Creationist terms (presence of words Creationist or Creationism); (12) Use of Creationist descriptors (specifically using the word Creationism or Creationist to refer to Intelligent Design proponents); (12) Creationist count (number of times Creationist terms and/or descriptors were used); (13) Use of Fundamentalist terms (presence of words Fundamentalist or Fundamentalism); (14) Use of Fundamentalist descriptors (specifically using the words Fundamentalist or Fundamentalism to describe ID proponents); (15) Fundamentalist count (number of times Fundamentalist terms and/or descriptors were used); (16) Scientific uncertainty, scientific acceptance or scientific denial; (17) Scientific vs. religious portrayal (whether the article generally treated the Intelligent Design movement/ID conference as a scientific or religious movement/conference); (18) Memorable quote (coders were asked to provide any sentence/statement from the article that was particularly grabbing, biting, poignant, etc.). The final categories addressed the presence/absence of five frames: science, religion, education, political involvement and legal consequences. Coders also indicated the tone of frames, when the frames were present in the story. Also, coders were asked to indicate which one of these five frames was dominant.

PAGE 40

32 Coders documented coding decisions on printed codesheets (Appendix A), whereby they coded the articles by hand, and the decisions were later entered into a statistical software package. The coders, two college graduates outside of the communications discipline, were given codebooks (Appendix B) containing all categories and specific instructions of how to code each article. Coders were instructed to work alone but consulted with the researcher when specific problems came up. Coders were told to read the article as many times as needed in order to analyze it accurately. Coders analyzed a random sub-sample of roughly 5 to 10 percent of the sample (14 articles) to test intercoder reliability, which was 0.86, and was obtained using Holstis formula. This sub-sample was randomly stratified in order to include hard news articles, editorials, columns and letters to the editors. Omnibus tests of significance were conducted using cross-tabulations of the categorical variables and subsequent Chi-square tests of independence. The Cramers V statistic was obtained to measure the strength of the association between categorical variables. Adjusted Standardized Residuals were obtained to determine where the most significant differences were in respective contingency tables. Adjusted standardized residuals (ASRs) act as z-scores and indicate significant differences between certain cells in a contingency table. ASRs greater than |1.96| are significant at an alpha level of .05. Intercoder reliability was calculated using Holstis formula: IR=2M/(N1+N2), where M is the number of agreements between the coders, N1 is the total number of coding decisions made by Coder 1 and N2 is the total number of coding decisions made by Coder 2.

PAGE 41

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS A total of 266 articles were published and then made available on the Lexis Nexis database during the roughly four years of controversy over public school science standards in Ohio. The sample consisted of hard news articles (n=125), columns (n=42), editorials (n=24) and letters to the editor (n=77). Table 4-1 contains basic frequencies. Article Tone Hypothesis one predicted that the tone of newspaper coverage of the Intelligent Design debate in public schools would be negative, and that tone would differ across news type. Hypothesis one was not fully supported, although negative coverage did outnumber positive coverage; the tone of the majority of the coverage was neutral (48.5%), followed closely by negative coverage (38.8%), and finally by positive coverage (12.3%). Also, the tone of the articles did not differ across article type quite as predicted. Please see Table 4-1 for these results. The tone of the articles differed significantly across news type (2 (6, N =268) = 153.207, p<.0001), and the association was moderate to strong (Cramers V = .536, p<.0001). Adjusted standardized residuals indicate that hard news articles tended to be significantly neutral (86.4%), letters to the editor tended to be negative (55.8%) or positive (32.5%), and columns (69%) and editorials (73.9%) tended to be negative. Frames Research question one asked if newspapers would frame the Intelligent Design debate in school boards more as science, religion, educational consequences, political 33

PAGE 42

34 involvement, or legal consequences, and also which of these five frames would be dominant over all. Overwhelmingly, the most common central, organizing frame journalists used to cover the ID controversy in Ohios public schools was science (present in 82.8% of the articles). Educational consequences was the next most common frame (present in 60.4% of articles), followed by Religion (51.5%) and Political Involvement (16.8%), and finally Legal Consequences (4.90%). In addition to listing all the frames present in the articles, coders also were asked to choose one of the five frames that was dominant overall. The most common dominant frame in the articles was Science (dominant in 48.9% of all articles). Educational Consequences was dominant in 25.9% of all articles, Religion in 16.5%, Political Involvement in 6.8%, and Legal Consequences was dominant in 1.9% of all articles. Religion frames were overwhelmingly negative (74.1% Negative; 8.6% Positive; 17.3% Neutral), as were Science frames (57.4% Negative; 12.6% Positive; 29.6% Neutral). Educational Consequences frames were mostly neutral (51.2% Neutral; 37.2% Negative; 11.6% Positive), and so too were Political Involvement frames (77.8% Neutral; 20% Negative; 2.2% Positive). Legal Consequences frames were mostly neutral (50.0% Neutral; 35.7% Positive; 14.3% Negative). Please see Table 4-1 for these results. Creationist and Fundamentalist Terms and Descriptors Research question two regarded the extent to which journalists used Creationist and Fundamentalist terms and descriptors in portraying the ID debate in Ohios school board. Creationist terms were present in roughly half (49.3%) of the articles in the sample, and Creationist descriptors nearly as often (43.3%). Fundamentalist terms were present in just 4.5% of all articles, and Fundamentalist descriptors were used in 3.0% of all

PAGE 43

35 articles in the sample. Please see Table 4-1 for these results. Creationist terms were present in a majority of hard news articles (53.6%) and editorials (66.7%). Such terms were present in exactly half of all columns (50.0%), and in a minority of letters to the editor (36.4%). Research question three asked whether Creationist and/or Fundamentalist descriptors/terms are frequent predictors of tone. The presence of Creationist terms differed significantly across categories of article tone (2 (2, N =267) = 7.78, p=.02). The association between these two variables was moderate (Cramers V = .171, p= .02). Roughly half (50.8%) of articles neutral toward ID contained Creationist terms, while more than half of negative articles (54.8%) contained Creationist terms. Adjusted standardized residuals suggest that the significant differences in this contingency table (see Table 4-3) lie in positive articles; Creationist terms were present in just 27.3% of articles positive toward ID. The presence/absence of Creationist descriptors in articles covering the Intelligent Design movement was associated slightly more with article tone [2 (2, N =267) = 10.97, p=.004); Cramers V = .203, p< .004] than was the presence of Creationist terms. Approximately half of all articles negative toward ID (51%) contained Creationist descriptors, that is, they contained specific references to the ID movement or its proponents as Creationist(s). Again, the most significant differences in this cross-tabulation (see Table 4-4) lie in relation to positive articles; Creationist descriptors were present in only 18.2% of articles positive toward Intelligent Design. Because Fundamentalist terms were present in only 4.5% of all articles, cross-tabulation of presence/absence of such terms and article tone was not feasible.

PAGE 44

36 Location of Publication and Treatment of the Intelligent Design Controversy Research question four asked if the location of the news source is a frequent predictor of overall article tone. The tone of articles on the school-board controversy over ID differed for articles inside and outside the state of Ohio, although the relationship between these variables is somewhat modest [2 (2, N=267) = 10.40, p=.006); Cramers V = .197, p = .006]. Forty-two percent of articles from publications outside Ohio were negative toward Intelligent Design, none were positive, and more than half (57.9%) were neutral. Regarding articles published inside Ohio, the distribution was somewhat more evenly divided; roughly half (46.2%) of articles published in Ohio were neutral, 38.1% were negative and 15.7% were positive. Please see table 4-5 for these results. Research question five asked whether or not sources outside of Ohio were more or less likely to use Creationist and/or Fundamentalist descriptors. The presence of Creationist terms differed between Ohio-based sources and those located outside Ohio (2 (1, N =268) = 8.78 p=.003) and the association between these two variables was modest (Cramers V = .181, p=.003). Sources located outside Ohio used Creationist terms in coverage of the Intelligent Design controversy 66.7 percent of the time, while sources inside Ohio used such terms in just 44.5 percent of the articles. Please see table 4-6 for these results. The relationship between the location of the publication and the presence/absence of Creationist descriptors was not as strong [(2 (1, N =268) = 4.875, p=.027); Cramers V = .135]. Articles from sources within Ohio contained Creationist descriptors 39.8 percent of the time, while Creationist descriptors were present in 56.1% of articles from

PAGE 45

37 sources outside Ohio. (Again, Fundamentalist terms and descriptors were not present in enough articles for contingency tables to be feasible). Please see table 4-7 for these results. Scientific Uncertainty, Scientific Acceptance and Scientific Denial Research question six asked whether newspaper coverage of the Ohio school-board controversy would present ID with scientific uncertainty, scientific denial or scientific acceptance. Newspaper articles covering the Intelligent Design controversy in Ohios public schools generally presented ID as scientifically uncertain (42.5%), while a substantial minority of articles presented ID with outright scientific denial (37.3%). A small minority of articles (10.4%) presented ID with scientific acceptance. Please see Table 4-1 for these results. Scientific acceptance vs. scientific uncertainty and denial differed across type of newspaper article (2 (9, N =268) = 88.896, p<.001) and the association between these two variables was substantial (Cramers V = .333, p<.001). Hard news articles generally presented the ID controversy in Ohio as scientifically uncertain (60.0%), but also presented the controversy with a substantial amount of scientific denial (17.6%). Very few hard news articles granted ID scientific acceptance (4.0%). Half of all letters to the editor (50.6%) presented ID with scientific denial, while a fourth (26.0%) granted ID scientific acceptance. Roughly a fifth (19.5%) of letters to the editor presented ID with scientific uncertainty. More columns presented ID with scientific denial (57.1%) than with scientific uncertainty (35.7%), and only a handful of columns extended scientific acceptance (7.1%) to ID during the Ohio controversy. Editorials were perhaps the most

PAGE 46

38 skeptical of ID, as 62.5 percent cast scientific denial toward the movement. More than a third of all columns (37.5%) presented ID with scientific uncertainty, and not one (0.0%) presented ID with scientific acceptance. Please see Table 4-8 for these results. Scientific vs. Religious portrayal Research question seven asked whether or not the ID debate in public schools would be portrayed more as a religious issue or as a scientific issue. Newspaper articles covering ID controversy in Ohios public schools generally portrayed ID as a scientific (41.4%) issue, but portrayed ID as a religious issue nearly as frequently (39.6%).

PAGE 47

39 Table 4-1, Frequencies Percent Number ________________________________________________________________ Type of newspaper article News Articles 46.6% 125 Letters to the Editor 28.7 77 Editorials 9.0 24 Columns 15.7 42 Article tone Positive Tone 12.3% 33 Neutral Tone 48.5 130 Negative Tone 38.8 104 Location of article Inside Ohio 78.7% 211 Outside of Ohio 21.3 57 Presence of creationist terms Present 49.3% 132 Absent 50.7 136 Presence of creationist descriptors Present 43.3% 116 Absent 56.7 152 Fundamentalist terms Present 4.50% 12 Absent 95.5% 256 Scientific Acceptance vs. Scientific Uncertainty Scientific Uncertainty 42.5% 114 Scientific Acceptance 10.4 28 Scientific Denial 37.3 100 Unable to Tell 9.7 26 Scientific vs. religious portrayal Scientific 41.4% 111 Religious 39.6 106 Unable to Tell 17.9 48 Frames present in articles Religion 51.5% 138 Educational Consequences 60.4% 162 Political Involvement Frame 16.8% 45 Science Frame 82.8% 222 Legal Consequences 4.90% 13 Tone of frames Religion Negative 74.1% 103 Positive 8.60 12 Neutral 17.3 24 Educational Consequences Negative 37.2% 61 Positive 11.6 19 Neutral 51.2 84

PAGE 48

40 Table 4-1, Continued Political involvement Negative 20.0% 9 Positive 2.2 1 Neutral 77.8 35 Science Negative 57.4% 128 Positive 12.6 28 Neutral 29.6 66 Legal consequences Negative 14.3% 2 Positive 35.7 5 Neutral 50.0 7 Dominant frame in articles Religion 16.4% 44 Educational Consequences 25.7 69 Political Involvement 6.7 18 Science 48.5 130 Legal Consequences 1.9 5 ________________________________________________________________ N =268

PAGE 49

41 Table 4-2, Tone of Article across Type of News Article Article Type Article Tone Hard News Letters to the Editor Columns Editorials Negative n=15 12.0% ASR= -4.8 43 55.8% ASR= 2.4 29 69.0% ASR= 3.1 17 73.9% ASR= 2.7 Positive 2 1.6% ASR= -3.4 25 32.5% ASR= 5.0 5 11.9% ASR= -.10 1 4.3% ASR = -1.1 Neutral 108 86.4% ASR= 6.0 9 11.7% ASR= -4.7 8 19.0% ASR= -2.8 5 21.7% ASR= -1.9 n = Total 125 100% 77 100% 42 100% 23 100% Chi Square (6, N = 267) = 153.207 p < .0001 Cramers V = .536, p<.0001 Adjusted Residuals (ASR) > |1.96| are significant at <.05

PAGE 50

42 Table 4-3, Presence of Creationist Terms across Article Tone Article Tone Presence/Absence of Terms Negative Positive Neutral Creationist Terms Present n=57 54.8%% ASR= 1.4 9 27.3% ASR= -2.7 66 50.8% ASR= .4 Creationist Terms Absent 47 45.2% ASR= -1.4 24 72.7% ASR= 2.7 64 49.2% ASR= -.4 n = Total 104 100% 33 100% 130 100% Chi Square (2, N = 267) = 7.78, p = .02 Cramers V = .171, p = .02 Adjusted Residuals (ASR) > |1.96| are significant at <.05

PAGE 51

43 Table 4-4, Presence of Creationist Descriptors across Article Tone Article Tone Presence of Creationist Descriptors Negative Positive Neutral Creationist Descriptors Present n=53 51% ASR = 1.2 6 18.2% ASR = -2.2 57 43.8% ASR = .1 Creationist Descriptors Absent 51 49.0% ASR = -1.0 27 81.8% ASR = 1.9 73 56.2% ASR = -.1 n = Total 104 100% 33 100% 130 100% Chi Square (2, N = 267) = 10.97 p = .004 Cramers V = .203, p = .004 Adjusted Residuals (ASR) > |1.96| are significant at <.05

PAGE 52

44 Table 4-5, Location of Publication across Article Tone Article Tone Location of Publication Negative Positive Neutral Total Publication Located in Ohio n=80 38.1% ASR = -.2 33 15.7% ASR = 1.4 97 46.2% ASR = -.5 210 100% Publication Located outside of Ohio 24 42.1% ASR = .4 0 0.0% ASR = -2.7 33 57.9% ASR = 1.0 57 100% Chi Square (2, N = 267) = 10.97 p = .004 Cramers V = .203, p = .004 Adjusted Residuals (ASR) > |1.96| are significant at <.05

PAGE 53

45 Table 4-6, Location of Publication across Presence of Creationist Terms Presence/Absence of Creationist Terms Location of Publication Creationist Terms Present Creationist Terms Absent Total Publication Located in Ohio n=94 44.5% ASR = -1.0 117 55.5% ASR = 1.0 n=211 100% Publication Located outside of Ohio 38 66.7% ASR = 1.9 19 33.3% ASR = -1.8 n=57 100% Chi Square (1, N = 268) = 8.783, p = .003 Cramers V = .181, p = .003 Adjusted Residuals (ASR) > |1.96| are significant at <.05

PAGE 54

46 Table 4-7, Location of Publication across Presence of Creationist Descriptors Presence/Absence of Creationist Descriptors Location of Publication Creationist Descriptors Present Creationist Descriptors Absent Total Publication Located in Ohio n=84 39.8% ASR = -.8 127 60.2% ASR = .7 n=211 100% Publication Located outside of Ohio 32 56.1% ASR = 1.5 25 43.9% ASR = -1.3 n=57 100% Chi Square (1, N = 268) = 4.875, p = .027 Cramers V = .135, p = .027 Adjusted Residuals (ASR) > |1.96| are significant at <.05

PAGE 55

47 Table 4-8, Scientific Acceptance/Uncertainty across Article Type Article Type Scientific Uncertainty Vs. Scientific Acceptance Hard News Letters to the Editor Columns Editorials Scientific Uncertainty n=75 60.0% ASR = 3.0 15 19.5% ASR = -3.1 15 35.7% ASR = -.7 9 37.5% ASR = -.4 Scientific Acceptance 5 4.0% ASR = -2.2 20 26.0% ASR = 4.2 3 7.1% -.7 0 0.0% ASR = -1.6 Scientific Denial 22 17.6% ASR = -3.6 39 50.6% ASR = 1.9 24 57.1% ASR = 2.1 15 62.5% ASR = -2.0 Unable to Tell 23 18.4% ASR = 3.1 3 3.9% ASR = -1.6 0 0.0% ASR = -2.0 0 0.0% ASR = -1.5 n = Total 125 100% 77 100% 42 100% 24 100% Chi Square (9, N = 268) = 88.896, p < .001 Cramers V = .333, p < .001 Adjusted Residuals (ASR) > |1.96| are significant at <.05

PAGE 56

CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION Overall, newspaper coverage of the Intelligent Design controversy in public schools was fairly balanced. Roughly half of all coverage was neutral, and the remaining half was either negative or positive. When Martin et al. (2004) examined the universe of major newspaper coverage of the ID movement, they found that the majority of the coverage was negative. The current study seems to suggest, then, that media coverage of ID is becoming somewhat more objective or, at least, was somewhat more objective in the case of Ohio. Hard news articles tended to be overwhelmingly neutral, editorials, columns and letters to the editor tended to be more negative than positive. Martin et al. found similar results, although letters to the editor in their study tended to be strongly positive toward Intelligent Design, a trend which possibly suggests public support for ID. In the case of Ohio, however, letters to the editor published in major newspapers did not seem to parallel public opinion as closely as one might have anticipated (after all, a Gallup poll cited earlier in this paper suggested that 65 percent of Ohioans favored the inclusion of ID in public school curricula). A seemingly large number of academics weighed in on the debate; one biochemist from Ohio State University said that there is no. . scientific literature supporting the concept of Intelligent Design, (Schoenberg, 2000, p.2). Another professor, one of entomology, proclaimed that Evolutionary theory receives virtually unanimous support among scientists in general, (Wenzel, 2004, p.1). 48

PAGE 57

49 Perhaps fewer Ohioans supported the idea of Intelligent Design in public schools than did residents of Kansas and Alabama, where similar controversies unfolded. Ohio may be less of a religious stronghold than these two states. Still, there was a marked difference between the tone of editorials and that of letters to the editor, suggesting a substantial difference between public support for ID and support from journalists. Since editorials are the collective views of newspapers, some researchers (see Hindman, 2003) have used editorials to gauge media opinion on certain topics. In the case of the Intelligent Design controversy in Ohios public schools, the collective, journalistic stance on IDs presence in public schools was noticeably different than that expressed in letters to editors of major newspapers. One Columbus Dispatch editorial (Dont Compromise, 2002, March 12) flat-out called Intelligent Design unscientific, while referring to Darwinian evolution as strict science. Another editorial in The New York Times (Darwinian struggle in Ohio, 2002, March 17) admonished that, No theory advocating the supernatural, belongs in public schools. A 2002 Gallup poll conducted in Ohio suggested that a majority of Ohioans supported the inclusion of Intelligent Design in public schools, yet the majority of letters published on this topic were critical of the movement. A greater percentage of letters to the editor, however, were positive than that of hard news coverage, columns or editorials. This likely represents the differences between Ohioans feelings about IDs inclusion in public school curricula and that of journalists. In terms of framing, Science was the central, organizing theme used to present the Intelligent Design controversy in Ohios public schools. One New York Times article (Glanz, 2002) devoted 708 words to describing the scientific arguments that one Case

PAGE 58

50 Western Reserve University professor and ID advocate makes. This was common in the articles; journalists frequently covered the scientific positions of advocates on either side of the controversy. Friedman, Dunwoody and Rogers (1999) complained that journalists present new scientific movements with unwarranted certainty. They did not, however, act as casually in the case of the Ohio controversy. So while journalists mainly discussed the scientific evidence surrounding ID, they did so with skepticism and without giving the movement undue credit. For example, in The New York Times article cited above, Glanz (p.1) discussed an ID proponents idea, but also criticized him by saying he drifted outside his field and began proposing radical revisions to some basic laws of physics. In this case, Glanz appears to have overstepped his journalistic role, but much of the coverage of the ID controversy was scientifically skeptical and harsh in this way. Starr (2002) argued that editors, as well as professors in journalism schools, have recently emphasized the importance of detailed and quality science reporting, a genre of journalism that is growing. The results of this study seem to support Starrs assertion in a mixed way; skeptical scientific exposition was evident in much of the coverage of the ID controversy in Ohio, but sometimes that coverage was harsh to proponents on one side of the debate. Educational Consequences was the next most common organizing theme present in the articles. This may help explain why the coverage was, overall, reasonably balanced; journalists tended to discuss the scientific pros and cons of the ID controversy in terms of scientific evidence. Journalists also discussed the educational implications of the scientific controversy in mainly descriptive, not speculative, terms. One Washington Post articles (2002, p.1) headline read, Ohio may debate evolution in schools; theorys

PAGE 59

51 flaws could be taught, and this article framed ID in terms of its educational consequences. Religion frames were also present a great deal in the articles. This makes sense; Intelligent Design is an inherently religious idea, and coverage of the controversy drummed up heavy questions. One article (Matters of fact vs. matters of faith, p.1, 2002, June 4, p.1) which contained a religion frame asked, Could a guiding force be behind evolution? Of course, but . the Intelligent Design theory merits discussion in a philosophy or religion class, where discussions of faith, belief and other nonscientific inquiries into lifes mysteries are appropriate. Journalists did not frequently employ Political Involvement and Legal Consequences as central organizing themes of stories. This may also be a good thing; journalists discussed ID in terms of its scientific merits and in terms of the educational implications of its inclusion in public schools. In terms of the tone of the frames, Science and Religion frames tended to be more negative than positive something that may again reflect the uncertainty with which reporters approached the ID controversyand Educational Consequences, Political Involvement and Legal Consequences frames tended to be neutral. That Religion frames were by far the most negative, central organizing theme used to present the ID controversy lends itself to the fact that ID proponents describe ID as a scientific discipline with scientific merits. ID adherent William Dembski (2004) argues that although ID is religious in nature, it is a scientific, not a religious, idea. It makes sense, then, that attempts to frame ID as a Religious movement would be negative. One column from The Columbus Dispatch (Lauritzen, 2002, p.13) contained Religion as the dominant

PAGE 60

52 frame and demanded, Intelligent Design isnt just bad science, it isnt science at all. Gitlin (1980, p.7) claimed that frames are largely unspoken and unacknowledged, and they organize the world for both journalists who report it and, in some important degree, for us who rely on their reports. The central organizing themes emphasized in the articles covering the ID controversy seemed to help organize this world for the journalists and possibly for consumers who were exposed to coverage of this world. Journalists do, however, tend to organize the world in different ways by selecting some aspects of an issue for presentation over others. In the case of ID, journalists tended to select scientific aspects surrounding the movement, as well as aspects involving the educational consequences of ID. While it appears that journalists did a fairly decent job maintaining balance in their coverage of the ID controversy in public schools, they managed to do so without using the most ostensibly neutral language to describe ID. Half of the articles under examination in this study contained Creationist terms, and more than 40 percent of articles contained Creationist descriptors. An example of a Creationist term can be found in an article from The Columbus Dispatch (Lore, 2002, February 10, p.1), when an ID advocate was explaining his position: Were not a Creationist group; we dont want Creationism in the schools. Creationist descriptors, however, were more direct, like the following tag applied to ID in a Chicago Sun Times article (Public schools are no place for the 4th R, 2002, February 17, p.1). : Creationism . now going by the name Intelligent Design. ID proponents typically defy this nomenclature and, indeed, many of the articles mentioned the differences between ID adherents and their Creationist

PAGE 61

53 predecessors. More than four in ten articles, however, specifically described either ID advocates or the ID movement itself as Creationist. Fundamentalist terms and descriptors were much less common and were, in fact, negligible. One reason for this may lie in the common use of the term fundamentalist. This word is commonly employed to describe fundamentalist Islam, and journalists may be less likely to casually apply it to ID proponents. The whole of Intelligent Design coverage from the late 80s to 2003 contained fundamentalist terms in roughly 12 percent of its coverage (Martin et al., 2004), but such terms were far less common in the current study. One reason that ID proponents shy away from Creationist and fundamentalist labels is that they claim such terms are loaded and preclude journalistic balance. Cross-tabs of the presence/absence of Creationist terms and article tone seem to bolster this assertion. Articles containing Creationist terms were far more likely to be negative than positive. The presence of Creationist descriptors was even more strongly associated with article tone. When Walter Lippmann (1922) made common the word stereotypes as tools journalists use to classify groups of people and to avoid detailed descriptions of group members, he was referring to this kind of categorization. Many headlines of the articles in this sample which were negative contained categorical, Creationist descriptors, like the following headline from a Columbus Dispatch article (Durbin, 2000, April 15): Creationism doesnt meet criteria for science classes. Whether a large number of journalists are deliberately applying these labels to ID proponents to shed doubt on the movement or whether these labels are simply useful ways to convey the religious

PAGE 62

54 advocacy among IDs followers, such words appear to affect the overall tone of the coverage. Another aspect of major newspaper coverage of the ID controversy that apparently affected the tone of the coverage was the location of the publication. Newspapers outside Ohio were slightly more likely to publish articles negative toward the ID movement or, at least, treated ID negatively in terms of the Ohio controversy. Amazingly, one article from The Boston Globe (Falk, 2001, p.1) which was supposed to be hard news, had a headline describing ID as a pseudo-scientific challenge to evolutionary theory. Not one article from outside Ohio was positive to ID in terms of the controversy in Ohio. In Dayton County, Tennessee in 1925, when the Scopes trial brought the Darwinian evolution controversy taking place in public schools to national attention, many elite journalists traveled to Tennessee to cover the story. Many of these journalists were disdainful of the positions taken by Creationists in Tennessee, and one journalist in particular, H.L. Mencken, brutally ridiculed the Bible-thumpers in the land he would eventually dub the Bible belt. One imagines, although one cannot be sure, that coverage of the Scopes Trial by newspapers in Tennessee might have been somewhat more temperate than the coverage of outside journalists like Mencken and others. Proximity seems to matter in journalism. The closer journalists get to a given controversy, the more moderate and, sometimes, the more favorable their coverage of the controversy becomes. Take the stroke of brilliance exercised by Bush administration officials by embedding American journalists in Iraq during the first five weeks of conflict in spring 2004; these journalists saw up close the determination exhibited by American

PAGE 63

55 men and women in the armed forces. Coverage from these journalists was positive at times and, even sometimes, fawning. In the case of ID in Ohio, though, the influence of proximity on the tone of the coverage may have been mediated by the fact that a majority of Ohioans supported IDs inclusion in public school curricula. These Ohioans did, after all, write a great deal of letters to the editor expressing such support, while letters on the Ohio controversy were very rarely published, say, in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette or The New York Times. Whatever the mediating factors, though, articles outside of Ohio were harsher on ID and on its potential inclusion in public schools. One hard news article from The Australian (2002) offered a headline that snidely remarked that the Ohio controversy was unholy. In line with the findings on publication location and article tone, articles located outside of Ohio were much more likely to use Creationist terms and descriptors. This again suggests, albeit it indirectly, that Creationist terms and descriptors share an association with negative coverage of the ID controversy in Ohio. Journalists in Ohio were less likely to use purportedly loaded terms to describe ID and its proponents, while journalists outside the state were more likely to use such stereotypical terms that Lippmann (1922) decried in Public Opinion. In an article published in The Ottawa Citizen, one journalist used Creationist terms and descriptors six times in discussing the ID controversy. An article in The Observer used such terms seven times. The question of whether journalists presented ID with scientific uncertainty, scientific acceptance or scientific denial was mentioned a bit earlier in this discussion; journalists tended overwhelmingly to present ID with scientific uncertainty or outright scientific denial. This type of coverage consisted of just under eight tenths of the entire

PAGE 64

56 sample. Ten percent of the articles presented ID with scientific acceptance. The facts that journalists were highly skeptical of ID during the Ohio controversy and few articles seemed to extend scientific acceptance to the theory may suggest one of two things. First, it may suggest that, unlike the claims of Wilkins (1999) and others (see also Singer & Endreny, 1993), journalists are turning away from their old habits of lending undue credence to new scientific developments in general. These findings may very well, however, suggest that journalists were less accepting of the scientific claims of Intelligent Design in particular. Intelligent Design carries with it undeniably religious implications, and journalists are generally less religious than the average American. It may make sense, then, that journalists treated the ID controversy with less certainty than they frequently grant other scientific movements. While journalists presented ID in the Ohio controversy with perhaps more scientific denial that they should have, hard news articles, more than any other article type, presented ID with scientific uncertainty. This suggests again that journalists did a fairly good job of maintaining balance in hard news coverage of the ID controversy. Letters to the editor were much more likely to extend scientific acceptance to Intelligent Design during the controversy than were either columns or letters to the editor. This again indicates a rift between public opinion about the ID controversy and journalists sentiments about the debate. Thankfully and for the most part, journalists were able to keep these sentiments about ID out of hard news coverage. Newspaper articles covering the Intelligent Design controversy in Ohios public schools tended to portray the debate as one of science, and portrayed the debate as one over religion almost as often. This is interesting for several reasons. First, the actual

PAGE 65

57 debate that took place in the school board was largely scientific. In fact, according to some members of the Ohio school board and professors who testified before the school board, religious arguments and debate over religion were invoked somewhat infrequently during the hearings before the board. Journalists, though, portrayed the ID debate as one over religion as frequently as they portrayed the debate as over science. The controversy between Intelligent Design and Darwinian Evolution inevitably energizes almost viscerally some of lifes most fundamental questions (Why am I alive?; Who or what created me?; What process created me?) and, perhaps, is different from virtually any other controversy. Journalists could not seem to keep from proposing some of these religious and philosophical questions in their articles and, in so doing, portrayed the ID controversy as one of religious debate. What is also interesting here is the parity between the portrayal of the debate as one over science and religion. ID proponents cannot deny, and indeed do not deny, the religious implications of their theory. These advocates are, generally speaking, religious individuals who practice science both inside and outside of the academic community as a way to confront Darwinian evolution. They are, then, scientists who use evidence to oppose naturalistic evolution and evidence which supports the notion of a Creator, a religious argument. This parity journalists offered during the Ohio controversy, then, may be a somewhat accurate reflection of what the debate over lifes origins actually is. So, while portraying the controversy in Ohio as one over religion may not have perfectly mirrored reality in the Buckeye State, this portrayal may have been fair and realistic in terms of the ID debate as a whole. Limitations In a perfect world, this study would have been able to analyze TV news coverage of the ID controversy in Ohio as well as print newspaper coverage. One might predict that

PAGE 66

58 televised coverage would emphasize less the scientific and religious aspects of ID and instead discuss the movement in terms of educational consequences and public policy, but this is only speculation. It was not possible to examine televised coverage in this study because of financial and time constraints. In addition to coverage on the controversy in Ohio, it seems desirable to consider coverage from a similar controversy in Texas. It would be interesting to compare coverage of ID from a progressive state like Ohio with coverage from a southern, more conservative state like Texas. Again, time constraints precluded this comparison. Future research might also include a category on the codesheet that looks at the philosophy of the origins of life in some way. Many of the articles in this sample, particularly letters to the editor, exhibited philosophizing on the part of the letter writer or journalist. The origins of life debate forces many people to ask deep, philosophical questions, and I think the consistent presence of such pensiveness in the sample warrants investigation. The ID controversy is somewhat forceful as well as unique in the questions it raises, and it might be interesting to examine patterns of such deep questions in journalistic coverage of the movement. Future Research Future research should look at more than just newspaper coverage of ID and related controversies. Local news affiliates in Ohio likely covered the ID controversy on a consistent basis; the controversy did, after all, drag on for several years. Other research in the future may want to test some of the coverage of ID and related controversies using experimental designs. For example, because some of the current research on media and religion does not clearly demonstrate whether words like Creationist and Fundamentalist are definitively negative, researchers might want to test identical

PAGE 67

59 articles using pretest and posttest designs with the presence of Creationist and/or Fundamentalist manipulated as an independent variable.

PAGE 68

APPENDIX A CODESHEET 1) Coder Name ____________ 2) Number: Please enter the number of the article you are coding (001, 101, 202, etc.) __ __ __ 3) Date: Please enter the 6 digit date on which the article was published __ __ __ __ __ __ 4) Publication: Please enter the name of the publication in which the article was published. ____________________________________ 5) Location: Please circle whether the publication is located in the state of Ohio or somewhere else: 0) Ohio 1) Outside of Ohio 6) Word count: Please indicate how many words the article consists of: __ __ __ __ 7) Article type: please indicate which type of news article you are coding: 0) Hard news 1) Letter to the editor 2) Column 3) Editorial 8) Article placement: Please indicate on which page of the publication the article was published: _______ 9) Headline: Please write, verbatim, the headline of the article. __________________________________________________ 10) Article tone: Please indicate if the article was, overall, negative, positive or neutral toward the Intelligent Design movement. 60

PAGE 69

61 0) Negative 1) Positive 2) Neutral 11) Creationist Terms: Please indicate whether the article contained the terms Creationism, or Creationist(s). 0) No 1) Yes 12) Creationist Descriptors: Please indicate whether the article used the terms Creationism, or Creationist(s) specifically to describe the Intelligent Design movement or its proponents. 0) No 1) Yes 13) Creationist Count: Please indicate how many times the article used Creationist terms/descriptors. ___ ___ 14) Fundamentalist Terms: Please indicate whether the article contained the terms Fundamentalist(s) or Fundamentalism. 0) No 1) Yes 15) Fundamentalist Descriptors: Please indicate whether the article used the terms Fundamentalist(s) or Fundamentalism specifically to describe Intelligent Design movement or its proponents. 0) No 1) Yes 16) Fundamentalist Count: Please indicate how many times the article used Fundamentalist terms/descriptors. ___ ___ 17) Scientific Acceptance vs. Scientific Uncertainty: Please indicate whether the article generally presented the Intelligent Design movement with scientific acceptance or uncertainty.

PAGE 70

62 0) Scientific Uncertainty 1) Scientific Acceptance 2) Scientific Denial 18) Scientific vs. Religious portrayal: Please indicate whether the article portrayed the Intelligent Design movement as a scientific controversy or a religious one. 0) Religious 1) Scientific 19) Memorable Quote: If the article contained a particularly humorous, sarcastic, poignant, or clever statement/quote of any kind, please record it here: ________________________________________________________________________ 20) Frames: Please indicate which, if any, of the following frames are among the central, organizing concepts of the story: 0) Religion 1) Education 2) Political Involvement 3) Science 4) Legal consequences 21) Tone of Religion Frame: If a religion frame was present, please indicate the tone of the frame: 0) Negative 1) Positive 2) Neutral 22) Tone of Educational Consequences Frame: If a religion frame was present, please indicate the tone of the frame: 0) Negative 1) Positive 2) Neutral 23) Tone of Political Involvement Frame: If a political involvement frame was present, please indicate the tone of the frame: 0) Negative 1) Positive 2) Neutral

PAGE 71

63 24) Tone of Science Frame: If a science frame was present, please indicate the tone of the frame: 0) Negative 1) Positive 2) Neutral 25) Tone of Legal Consequences Frame: If a legal consequences frame was present, please indicate the tone of the frame: 0) Negative 1) Positive 0) Neutral 26) Dominant Frame: Please indicate which of the five frames is dominant. PLEASE CHOOSE ONLY ONE 0) Religion 1) Educational Consequences 2) Political Involvement 3) Science 4) Legal consequences

PAGE 72

APPENDIX B CODEBOOK Please read the article from beginning to end and answer the questions on the codesheet in the following way. Please feel free to read the article as many times as needed to accurately analyze the content. Also, if questions or coding problems should come up, please contact the author of this paper with your concerns ( martinjd@ufl.edu ). Coder name: Please enter your first name. Article number: Please enter the number of the article you are coding. Each article in the sample was saved as a unique number; please enter that number here. Article date: Please enter the 6 digit number specifying the date the article was published (, for January 1st, 2004, e.g.). Publication: Please enter the name of the publication in which the article ran. Do not use capitals, italics or the word the. Location: Please indicate whether this publication is located in the state of Ohio or whether the publication is located outside of Ohio. Word count: If you are coding an electronic copy of an article, please copy and paste the text of the article into Microsoft Word, select tools, word count and then enter this number. If you are coding a print version of the article, please give your best estimate, to the ten (370, 230, etc.) of how many words the article contains. Article type: Please specify the type of article you are coding. Indicate either hard news, column, editorial or letter to the editor. Hard news typically begins with an inverted pyramid lead and serves to objectively report a development of some kind. Columns are opinion pieces written by a specifically named individual. Editorials are the collective opinions of the publication and do not have one specific author. Letters to the editor are reader responses. Location: Please indicate the section and page of the publication in and on which the article appeared. For instance, if the article appeared on page 17 of the metro section, please record metro 17. If the page (say, page 10) of the article is 64

PAGE 73

65 known but not the section, please record z 10. If neither is known, simply record z. Headline: Please provide, verbatim, the headline of the article. Do not use capitals or punctuation of any kind. Overall tone: Please indicate whether the article covering the school board debate was, overall, negative, positive, or neutral toward the Intelligent Design movement. Please do not immediately assume that an article is neutral. Many of the articles will, of course, be neutral and unbiased toward the Intelligent Design movement, and it is only appropriate to label them thus. That said, though, coding mass media messages for tone is a somewhat ambiguous coding decision. After youve read the entire article, reread the headline. Headlines, while frequently not written by the journalist themselves and not always indicative of the news that follows, can often help in coding articles for tone. Headline writers try hard to capture the main sentiment of the article and, therefore, headlines can be helpful. Next, look at the sources cited in the article. Journalistic fairness frequently hinges on the type and number of certain sources cited in an article. If three sources friendly to the ID movement are cited in the article, but only one source critical or skeptical of the movement is offered, this imbalance may lend support to the notion that the article is positive. Throughout the article, pay attention to diction. That is, pay attention for loaded words. You are also asked to code for Creationist and Fundamentalist descriptors. These words are often loaded and can aid you in your decision. Researchers understand that coding media messages for tone can be difficult for even the most trained readers. Simply try your best, though, to make careful decisions, and try to make such decisions in a consistent manner. Remember, you can contact the researcher whenever you have questions. Use of Creationist terms: Please indicate whether the article contained the terms Creationism, or Creationist(s). Use of Creationist descriptors: Please indicate whether the article used the terms Creationism, or Creationist(s) specifically to describe the Intelligent Design movement or its proponents. Creationist count: Please indicate how many times the article used Creationist terms/descriptors. Use of Fundamentalist terms: Please indicate whether the article contained the terms Fundamentalist(s) or Fundamentalism.

PAGE 74

66 Use of Fundamentalist descriptors: Please indicate whether the article used the terms Fundamentalist(s) or Fundamentalism specifically to describe Intelligent Design movement or its proponents. Fundamentalist count: Please indicate how many times the article used Fundamentalist terms/descriptors. Scientific acceptance, scientific uncertainty, or scientific denial: Please indicate whether the article generally presented the Intelligent Design movement with scientific acceptance or uncertainty. This judgment should generally be based on whether or not the article presents Intelligent Design as a valid alternative to Darwinism. Ask yourself, is the journalist presenting ID as an organized, legitimate challenge to evolution? Is the journalist depicting the movement as scientifically uncertain? Is the journalist presenting the movement with scientific denial? If the article appears neutral and presents ID as a plausible alternative to evolution, select scientific acceptance. Scientific vs. religious portrayal: Please indicate whether the article portrayed the Intelligent Design movement more as a scientific controversy or a religious one. This is a more subjective category. However, if the article mentions the academic credentials of the speakers (such as holding a PhD or a lectern at a college or university) then the classification may be scientific. If, on the other hand, the article refers to ID specifically as a religious movement and/or philosophical and theological, the classification should be religious. Memorable quote: If the article contained a particularly humorous, sarcastic, poignant, or clever statement/quote of any kind, please record it here. Frames: Please indicate which, if any, of the following frames are among the central, organizing concepts of the story: religion, science, educational consequences, political involvement and legal consequences. More than one of these frames can be present in any given story. When deciding whether or not a certain frame is present, ask yourself is this concept central to the storys organization? Religion frame: Articles containing a religion frame, for instance, will present Intelligent Design as a religious issue. Religion frames are present if the article offers a discussion of the religious implications of ID as a central, organizing theme of the story. Such an article may discuss religious individuals support for ID. Often, but not always, the religion frame is hinted at in the headline of the article or the articles lead paragraph, which will sometimes mention the efforts of religious proponents of the ID movement. Science frame: Articles centrally organized by a science frame will generally discuss the scientific merits of one or both sides of the ID debate. A science frame is present, for example, if an article criticizes the scientific tenets of Intelligent Design, but is also present if it discusses IDs merits, or both pros and cons.

PAGE 75

67 Educational consequences frame: Articles containing an educational consequences frame will present the educational implications of ID as a central, organizing part of the story. Articles discussing educational consequences need not be only negative. Indeed, one article may describe the educational downfalls of deemphasizing evolution, while another might describe the educational advantages of having alternative points of view in Ohios science classrooms. Other articles might describe both consequences and be neutral. Political involvement frame: Articles containing a political involvement will usually discuss Ohio citizens efforts to include ID in the states science curriculum via influencing the political process or persuading political officials. It may discuss the efforts of small groups of individuals, like churches, or, it may discuss the efforts of large groups, like the Boy Scouts of America, or the Family Research Council. In the same way, articles may also discuss the efforts of opponents of ID to keep the theory out of Ohios classrooms. Such articles might discuss pressure being put upon school board members, state legislators, education commissioners, or even Ohios gubernatorial administration. Indication of the political involvement frame, however, is in no way limited to these specific circumstances. Legal consequences frame: Articles presented within a legal consequences frame will, quite simply, discuss the legal consequences of the decision to be made by the school board of Ohio. Legal consequences frames will generally present the Intelligent Design debate as well as the controversy in Ohios public schools as issues between church (or religious individuals) and the state. Articles organized within a legal consequences frame, however, may not discuss the church/state issue. Instead, such articles might only discuss the threats of some pro/anti ID groups to sue or take legal action following a certain decision. It may also discuss the issue of amending the state constitution or otherwise changing statutes, but not discuss the church/state issue. Articles packaged within a legal consequences frame need not be negative or antagonistic to intelligent design. However, any article which presents the Intelligent Design controversy within the framework of a legal debate is one presented within this frame. Tone for each present frame: For each frame that is present within the news story, please indicate if the tone of that frame was negative, positive or neutral. Specifically, return if need be to parts of the story that led you select a certain frame as present. Then, ask yourself if that religious, scientific, organization, etc., of Intelligent Design was negative, positive or neutral. Dominant frame: Please indicate which of the five frames is dominant. Ask yourself, of the frames that are present, which one is the main, central organizing part of this news story? PLEASE CHOOSE ONLY ONE.

PAGE 76

LIST OF REFERENCES Andsager, J., Powers, A. (1999). Social or economic concerns: how news and womens Magazines framed breast cancer in the 1990s. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 76(3), 531-550. Armstrong, K. (2004). Resisting modernity. Harvard International Review, 25(4), 40. Arthur, C. (1993). Religion and the media: an introductory reader. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. Ashley, L., Olson, B. (1998). Constructing reality: print medias framing of the womens movement, 1966-1986. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 75(2), 263-277. Ball-Rokeach, S., Rokeach, M. (1987). The future study of public opinion: a symposium. Public Opinion Quarterly, 51, 184-185. Barker, E. (1995). The scientific study of religion? You must be joking, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 34, September, 287-310. Baylor, T. (1996). Media framing of movement protest: the case of American Indian protest, Social Science Journal, 33(3), 241-245. Beck, D.B. (1998). The F word: how the media frame feminism. NWSA Journal 10(1), 159-173. Beckwith, F.J. (2003a). Science and religion twenty years after McLean vs. Arkansas: evolution,public education and the new challenge of Intelligent Design. Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 26(2), 455-499. Beckwith, F.J. (2003b). Law, Darwinism and public education: the establishment clause and the challenge of intelligent design. Rowman and Littlefield, New York, Oxford. Ben-Ari, E.T. (1998). Making science news. Bioscience, 48(11), 893-898. Benford, R., Snow, D., (2000). Framing processes and social movements: an overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611-639. Bolce, L., DeMaio, G. (2002). Our secularist democratic party. Public Interest, Fall, 149, 3-21. 68

PAGE 77

69 Bolce, L., DeMaio, G. (1999b). Religious outlook, culture war politics, and antipathy toward Christian fundamentalists, Public Opinion Quarterly, 63(1) spring, pp. 29-61. Brewer, P.R. (2003). Values, political knowledge and public opinion about gay rights: a framing based account. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67(2), 173. Brown, D. (2003). The Da Vinci Code. Doubleday, New York. Buddenbaum, J. (2002). Social science and the study of media and religion: going forward by looking back, Journal of Media and Religion, 1(1), 13-24. Buddenbaum, J. (1998). Reporting news about religion: an introduction for journalists. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press. Buddenbaum, J. (1997). How religious are journalists? Nieman Reports, fall, 51(3). Buddenbaum, J. (1990). Religion news coverage in commercial network newscasts. In Robert Abelman and Stewart Hoovers (Eds.) Religious Television: Controversies and Conclusions, Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex. Buddenbaum, J. (1986). An analysis of religion news coverage in three major newspapers. Journalism Quarterly, 63(3), 600-606. Bullock, H.E., Wyche, K.F., Williams, W.R. (2001). Media images of the poor. Journal of Social Issues, 57(2), 229-246. Burkeman, O., Jha, A. (2003, April 10). The battle for American science: creationists, pro-lifers, and conservatives now pose a serious threat to research and Science teaching in the U.S. The Guardian, 4. Byrne, D. (1999, August 18). Two views of same reality. Chicago Sun Times, p.43. Campbell, J.A. (2003). The educational debate over Darwinism. Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 15(1), 43-50. Cappella, J.N., Jamieson, K.H. (1996). News frames, political cynicism and media cynicism. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol.546, The Media and Politics, 71-84. Chen, H.C. (2003). Molympics? Journalistic discourse of Mormons in Relation to the 2002 Winter Olympic Games. Journal of Media and Religion, 2(1), 29-47. Chyi, H.I., McCombs, M. (2004). Media salience and the process of framing: coverage of the Columbine school shootings. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 81(1),22-35.

PAGE 78

70 Cracraft, J. (2004). The new Creationism and its threat to science literacy and education. Bioscience, January, 54(1). Cohen, A.A., Wolfsfeld, G. (1993). Framing the intifada: people and the media. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Condit, C. (2004). Science reporting to the public: does the message get twisted? Canadian Medical Association Journal, 170(9), 1415-1417. Coulter, A. (2002). Slander: liberal lies about the American right, New York: Crown Publishing. Darwinian struggle in Ohio, (2002, March 17). The New York Times, p. 14. Davis, J.J. (1995). The effects of message framing on response to environmental communications. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 72(2), 285-299. Debono-Roberts, R. (2003). Festa-catholicism and media religion: the reproduction and Transformation. History and Anthropology 14(4), 383-405. Dembski, W.A. (2004). Intelligent Design: the bridge between science and theology. Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press. DeVreese, C. (2004). The effects of frames in political television news on issue interpretation and frame salience. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 81(1), 36-52. DeVreese, C. Boomgaarden, H., (2003). Valenced news frames and public support for the EU. The European Journal of Communication Research, 28(4), 361-361. De Vries, H. (2001). In media res: global religion, public spheres, and the task of contemporary comparative religious studies. In H. De Vries and S. Webers (Eds.) Religion and Media (pp.3-42). Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. Dont Compromise: science mixed with religion isnt science, (2002, March 17). The Columbus Dispatch, p.2G. Durban, R.K. (2000, April 15). Creationism doesnt meet criteria for science classes. Columbus Dispatch, p.13A. Durham, F.D. (1998). News frames as social narratives: TWA flight 800. Journal of Communication, Autumn 48(4), 100-117. Eller, D. (2003). Macroevolution and microcreationism. Skeptic, 10(3), 70-74. Engstrom, E., Semic, B. (2003). Portrayal of religion in reality tv programming: hegemony and the contemporary American wedding. Journal of Media & Religion, 2(3), 145-163.

PAGE 79

71 Entman, R. (2004). Projections of power: framing news, public opinion, U.S. foreign policy. Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press. Entman, R. (1991). Framing US coverage of international news: contrasts in narratives of the KAL and Iran Air incidents. Journal of Communication, 41(4), 6-27. Entman, R. (1993). Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51-58. Evolution solution faith: science must part at school door, (2000, March 16). The Columbus Dispatch, p.8A. Falk, D. (2001, October 21). A pseudoscientific challenge to evolutionary theory. The Boston Globe, p.16. Friedhoff, S. (2002). Rethinking the science beat. Nieman Reports, 56(3), 23-26. Gamson, W., Modigliani, A. (1987). The political culture of affirmative action. In Research in Political Sociology, Ed. By Richard Braungart, Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press. Gilbert, S.A. (1997). A response to Old-growth forests on network news: news sources and the framing of an environmental controversy. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 74(4), 883-886. Goldacre, B. (2004, April 8). Life: bad science. The Guardian, p.3. Goldstein, L. (2004, July 4). Politicians talk more about religion, and people expect them to. The New York Times, Section 4, p.2. Greenwalt, K. (2003). Intelligent design: scientific theory or religious conviction? Journal of Church and State, 45(2), 237-257. Haller, B., Ralph S. (2001). Not worth keeping alive? News framing of physician-assisted suicide in the United States and Great Britain. Journalism Studies, 2(3), 407-421. The hand of God, (2002, September 28). The New Scientist, 175(2632), 3-4. Henderson, M. (2004, July 3). Science icon fires broadside at Creationists, The London Times, p.6. Hunt, R.L. (1960). Religion and Education. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 332, 89-100. Fayard, P.M. (1997). Science news in the European dailies: the invisible network of agenda setting. Accountability in Research: Policies & Quality Assurance, 5(1-3), 137-143.

PAGE 80

72 Florio, G. (2004). Controversial 'Da Vinci Code' sparking fire at grassroots level, The Denver Post, February 18. Friedman, M., Dunwoody, S., Rogers, C. (1999). Communicating uncertainty: media coverage of new and controversial science, London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Galley, M. (2004). Lesson challenging evolution clears Ohio state school board, Education Week, 23(28), 22. Garrett, L. (2004, July 12). A passion for religion, optimism in a hot category is tempered by realism. Publishers Weekly, p.19. Gedicks, F.M. (1992). Public life and hostility to religion. Virginia Law Review, 78(3), 671-696. Gitlin, T. (1980). The whole world is watching: mass media in the making & unmaking of the new left. Berkeley: University of California Press. Glanz, J. (2002, March 19). Ripples in Ohio from ad on the big bang. The New York Times, p.18. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: an essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Grossman, L. (2004, January 12). A question of faith: a mysterious 16th century woman heals the sick and sees the future, Time, 73. Hatcher, A. (2003). Book review: Sex, religion, media, Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 80(1), p.226. Hindman, E.B. (2003). The princess and the paparazzi: blame, responsibility, and the medias role in the death of Diana. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 80(3), 666-688. Hoffman, R. (2004, January 10). Empty spot draws crowd in Ala.: Ten commandments monument is gone, not forgotten, The Seattle Times, B5. Holm, A. (2004). A (social) capital idea. Harvard International Review, 25(4), 24-27. Hoover, S.M. (2002). The cultural construction of religion in the media age. In S.M. Hoover and L.S. Clark (Eds.), Practicing religion in the age of media: explorations in media, religion and culture (pp.1-6). New York: Columbia University Press. Hoover, S.M. (2002). The culturalist turn in scholarship on media and religion, Journal of Media and Religion, 1(1), 25-36.

PAGE 81

73 Hoover, S.M. (1998). Religion in the news: faith and journalism in American public discourse. London: Sage Publications. Hoover, S.M. (1993). Who reads religion News? Nieman Reports, 47(2), p.42. Horvat, E.M. Weininger, E.B., Lareau, A., (2003). From social ties to social capital: class differences in the relations between schools and parent networks. American Educational Research Journal, 40(2), 419. Hubbard, B.J. (1990). Reporting religion: facts and faith. Sonoma, CA: Eagle Books. Huntington, S.J. (2004, June). Under God. The Wall Street Journal. Ingraham, L. (2003). Shut up and sing. Washington, DC: Regnery. Intelligent design? (2002). Natural History, April, 111(3), 73. Iyengar, S. (1990). Framing responsibility for political issues: the case of poverty. Political Behavior, 12(1), 19-40. Iyengar, S. (1980). Television news and citizens explanations of national affairs. The American Political Science Review, 81(3), 815-832. Jasperson, A.E., Shah, D.V., Watts, M., Faber, R.J., Fan, D.P. (1998). Framing and the publicagenda: media effects on the importance of the federal budget deficit. Political Communication, 15(2), 205-224. Johnson, P.E. (2000). The wedge of truth: splitting the foundations of naturalism, Intervarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois. Johnson, P.E. (1991). Darwin on Trial. Intervarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois. Johnson, S.D., Tamney, S.B. (1982). The Christian right and the 1980 Presidential election, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 21(2), 123-131. Kantrowitz, B., Underwood, A. (2003, December 8). The Bibles lost stories, Newsweek, 48-52. Keeler, J.D., Tarpley, J.D., Smith, M.R., (1990). The National Courier, news, and religious ideology. In Media and religion in American history, Ed. by William David Sloan, Northport, AL: Vision Press. Kerhoulis, S. (2004). Press Release: Academic conference to put Darwinists on the defensive, received May, 26. Community Bible Church, Highlands, NC. Kerr, P. (2003). The framing of fundamentalist Christians: network television news, 1980-2000, Journal of Media and Religion, 2(4), 203-235.

PAGE 82

74 Kerr, P., Moy, P. (2002). Newspaper coverage of fundamentalist Christians, 1980-2000, Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 79(1), 54-73. Kintz, L., Lesage, J. (1998). Media, culture, and the religious right, L. Kintz and J. Lesage (Eds.). Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press. Kuhn, T.S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Kulman, L., Tolson, J. (2003, December 22). Jesus in America: behind the wild success of a theological thriller lies a centuries-old urge to recapture the original Jesus, US News & World Report, 45-49. Kristalka, L. (2001, January 7). Dont let Creationists corrupt science standards. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, p.B1. Kruse, C.R. (2001). The movement and the media: framing the debate over animal experimentation. Journal of Political Communication, 18(1), 67-87. Lauritzen, P. (2002, March 8). Should intelligent design be taught in science class? The Columbus Dispatch, p.13A. Leo, J. (2004, August 9). Talk about getting religion! U.S. News & World Report, p. 59. Lewenstein, B.V. (1995). From fax to facts: communication in the cold fusion saga. Social Studies of Science, 25(3), 403-436. Lewis, R. (1999). The craft of the science news release. Quill, 87(3), 34-37. Leyden, K.M. (2003). Social capital and the built environment: the importance of walkable neighborhoods. American Journal of Public Health, 93(9), 1546. Lichter, R.; Rothman, S.; Lichter, L. (1986). The media elite, Adler & Adler, Bethesda, Maryland. Lippmann, W. (1922). Public opinion. New York: Macmillan. Lore, D. (2000, March 10). Creationists plan to fight curriculum standards in evolution debate. Columbus Dispatch, p.1B. Lore, D. (2002, February 10). New contenders evolve in science-standards fight. The Columbus Dispatch, p.5D. Lugg, C. (2004). One nation under God? Religion and the politics of education in a post-9/11 America. Educational Policy, 18(1), 169-187. Machlup, F. (1961). Are the social sciences really inferior? The Southern Economic Journal, 27(3), 173-184.

PAGE 83

75 Malone, R.E., Boyd, E., Bero, L.A. (2000). Science in the news: journalists constructions of passive smoking as a social problem. Social Studies of Science, 30(5), 713-735. Mangels, J., Stephens, S. (2002, February 24). The origin of the human species: the ohio board of education ponders, what do we teach our kids? Plain Dealer, p.10. Mattheis, D.J. (1981). Religion and education: a response. Educational Leadership, 39(3), 209-210. Marquand, R. (1996, January 22). Media still portraying Muslims as terrorists. The Christian Science Monitor, p.11. Marske, C.E. (1996). Social capital and social morality. The International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 16(1), 102-120. Martin, J.D., Trammell, K.D., Valois, J.M., Landers, D., Bailey, T. (2004). Looking back at the controversy: newspaper coverage of the Intelligent Design movement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association, Chicago, Illinois, November 11-15, 2004. Matters of fact vs. matters of faith, (2002, June 4). The Washington Post, p.16A. McCombs, M. (1997). Building consensus: The news medias agenda-setting roles. Political Communication, 14, 433-443. McCune, C. (2003). Framing reality: shaping the news coverage of the 1996 Tennessee debate on teaching evolution, Journal of Media and Religion, 2(1), 5-28. McLeod, D.M., Kosicki, G.M., McLeod, J.M. (2002). Resurveying the boundaries of political communications effects. In Jennings Bryant and Dolf Zillmans (Eds.) Media effects: advances in theory and research. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. McLeod, D., & Detenber, B. (1999). Framing effects of television news coverage of social protest. Journal of Communication, 49(3), 3-23. McQuail, D. (1994). Mass communication theory: an introduction (3rd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage. Milner, R., Maestro, V. (2002). Intelligent Design? Natural History, 111(3), 73-74. Mitchell, J. (2000). On media, religion and popular culture. Journal of Communication, 50(2), 157-163. Melott, A.L (2002). Intelligent design is Creationism in a cheap tuxedo. Physics Today, 55(6), 4850.

PAGE 84

76 Moore, R. (2002). Evolution in the courtroom: a reference guide, ABCCLIO, Oxford, England. Moses, P. (1993). Reporting religion: holiness in the ordinary. America, 168(15), 12-16. Murray, D., Schwartz, J., Lichter, S.R. (2001). It aint necessarily so: how media make and unmake the scientific picture of reality, New York, Rowman and Littlefield. Newspapers get religion, (1999, May 15). Editor and Publisher, 132(4), 46-47. Nelson, T.E., Clawson, R.A., Oxley, Z.M. (1997). Media framing of a civil liberties conflict and its effect on tolerance. American Political Science Review, 91(3), 567-583. Nelson, T.E., Clawson, R.A., Oxley, Z.M. (1997). Toward a psychology of framing effects. Political Behavior, 19(3), 221-246. Neuhaus, R.J. (2002). Media abused and abusing, Journal of Religion and Public Life, December, 128, 75-79. Not your daddys fundamentalism: intelligent design in the classroom, (2004). Harvard Law Review, Jan2004, Vol. 117 (3), 964-972. Ohio may debate evolution in public schools, (2002, October 15). The Washington Post, p.9A. Olasky, M. (1991). Central ideas in the development of American journalism. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Olasky, M. (1988). The press and abortion, 1838-1988. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Peterson, G. (2002). The intelligent design movement: science or ideology? Journal of Religion and Science, 37(1), 7-23. Pollard, F. (1996). Test ye the journalists, Journal of Religion and Psychical Research, 19(2), 93-95. Priest, S.H., Eyck, T. (2003). News coverage of biotechnology debates. Society, 40(6), 29-34. Radcliffe, L. (2004, May 31). Religion: log on for salvation. Newsweek, p.10. Reed, R., Walker, G. (2002). Listening to scientists and journalists. Nieman Reports, 56(3), 45-47. Requena, F. (2003). Social capital, satisfaction, and quality of life in the workplace. Social Indicators Research, 61(3), 331.

PAGE 85

77 Roll-Hansen, N. (1994). Science, politics, and the mass media: on biased communication of environmental issues. Science, Technology and Human Values, 19(3), 324-341. Scarves of many colors, (1997, March). The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, p.74. Scheufele, D.A. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication, 49(1), 103-122. Schoenberg, D.R. (2000, April 14). Intelligent Design isnt supported by evidence. The Columbus Dispatch, p.16A. Severin, W.J., Tankard, J.W. (2001). Communication theories: origins, methods and uses in the mass media. New York: Longman. Shah, D.V., Kwak, N., Schmierbach, M., Zubric, J. (2004). The interplay of news frames on cognitive flexibility. Human Communication Research, 30(1), 102-120. Shaw, D. (2000). Science and the popular media. Science Activities, 37(2), 22-31. Shepard, A.C. (1995). The media get religion. American Journalism Review, 17(10), 18-26. Shermer, M. (2004). Gods number is up. Scientific American, 291(1), 46-47. Sieff, E.M. (2003). Media frames of mental illness: the potential impact of negative frames. Journal of Mental Health, 12(3), 259-269. Singer, E., & Endreny, P.M. (1993). Reporting on Risk. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. Silk, M. (2000). Religion on the international news agenda. M. Silk (Ed.), Hartford, CT: The Leonard F. Greenberg Center for the Study of Religion in Public Life. Silk, M. (1995). Unsecular Media: making news of religion in America. Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Smith, C. (2003). The secular revolution. C. Smith (Ed.), Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Soukup, P.A. (2003). Media, culture and Catholicism. Kansas City, MO: Sheed and Ward. Starr, D. (2002). Teaching journalism students to report on science. Nieman Reports, 56(3), 36-39. Stout, D.A., Buddenbaum, J.M. (2003). Media, Religion and Framing, Journal of Media and Religion, 2(1), 1-3.

PAGE 86

78 Stout, D.A., Buddenbaum, J.M. (2002). Geneology of an emerging field: foundations for the study of media and religion, Journal of Media and Religion, 1(1), 5-13. Strupp, J. (1999). Getting (more) religion. Editor and Publisher, 132(20), 28-32. Terkildsen, N., Schnell, F. (1997). How media frames move public opinion. Political Research Quarterly, 50(4), 879-900. Testing a radical theory, (2004, April). Nature Neuroscience, 7(4) 315-316. Tewksbury, D., Jones, J., Peske, M., Raymond, A., Vig, W. (2000). The interaction of news and advocate frames: manipulating audience perceptions of a local public policy issue, Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 77(4). Tolson, J., Kulman, L. (2004, March 8). The real Jesus: how a Jewish reformer lost his Jewish identity, U.S. News & World Report, 38-46. Tolson, J. (2003, December 8). The new old time religion; evangelicals defy easy labels. Heres why, and why their numbers are growing, U.S. News & World Report, 36-41. Tuchman, G. (1978). Making news: a study in the construction of reality. New York: The Free Press. Underwood, D.; Stamm, K. (2001). Are journalists really irreligious? A multidimensional approach, Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 78(4), 771-786. Viadero, D. (2002). State Journal, Education Week, 21(41), 21. Ward, D. (2002, February 11). Media roundup: Religious coverage undergoes a new awakening, PR Week, 12-13. Warren, R. (2002). The purpose driven life. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan. Watkins, S.C. (2001). Framing protest: news media frames of the million man march. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 18(1), 83-101. Weaver, D.; Wilhoit, G. (1996). The American journalist in the 1990's, Mahwah, New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Publishing. Weis, J. (2001). Controversy over evolution is not scientific its political. Bioscience, 51(12), 995-996. Wenzler, J.W. (2004, March 5). Creationist posed in scientists clothing. The Columbus Dispatch, p.8A. Wexler, J. (2003). Darwin, design and disestablishment: teaching the evolution controversy in public schools. Vanderbilt Law Review, April, 56(3), 749.

PAGE 87

79 Wilkins, R.D. (1999). Journalists bury science in sensation. Business Journal, 13(25), 39. Winnick, P. (2002, October 18). Inherited debate. National Review. Winston, K. (2004, May 24). Not such strange bedfellows: the interplay between religion and politics is a hot topic across all faiths. Publishers Weekly, p.S2. Wirth, E. (2002). The church and the media. America, 187(5), 22-23. Woodward, T.J. (2003). Doubts about Darwin: a history of intelligent design. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books. Yioutas, J., Segvic, I. (2003). Revisiting the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal: the convergence of agenda setting and framing. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 80(3), 567. Zoch, L.M., Turk, J.V. (1998). Women making news: gender as a variable in source selection and use. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 75(4), 762-775.

PAGE 88

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Justin D. Martin was born in Washington, Pennsylvania. Family members include parents Rev. William J. Martin and Sandra H. Martin, and sisters Ashley and Kelley. Justin earned a B.S. in psychology from High Point University in December 2002. Justin plans to pursue a Ph.D. in Mass Communications and an undergraduate minor in Arabic. He currently resides in Gainesville with his dog, Samson, who frequently makes poor decisions. 80


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0008950/00001

Material Information

Title: Religion, Science and Public Education: Newspaper Coverage of the Origins' Debate in Ohio's Public Schools
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0008950:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0008950/00001

Material Information

Title: Religion, Science and Public Education: Newspaper Coverage of the Origins' Debate in Ohio's Public Schools
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0008950:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












RELIGION, SCIENCE AND PUBLIC EDUCATION: NEWSPAPER COVERAGE
OF THE ORIGINS' DEBATE IN OHIO'S PUBLIC SCHOOLS















By

JUSTIN D. MARTIN


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2004


































Copyright 2004

by

Justin D. Martin

































This document is dedicated to my parents, William and Sandy Martin; my success in
higher education would not have been possible without you.















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank my committee members (Dr. Lynda L. Kaid, Dr. Spiro

Kiousis and Dr. John Wright) for demonstrating an immeasurable fondness of teaching,

love of learning and commitment to excellence. It is a privilege to work among talented

and personable scholars. I thank my parents, William and Sandy Martin, whose gentle

but unshakeable support instilled in me a love of truth and the courage to seek it.

















TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

ACKNOW LEDGM ENTS ........................................ iv

LIST OF TABLES ............... ............. ...................... vii

ABSTRACT .............................. ......................... viii

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION ................... .................. .............. .... ......... .......

Religion in American Public Life............................................................ ... .....2
The Em ergence of Intelligent D esign.........................................................................4
Criticism of Intelligent Design ........................ ....... ....................6
The C controversy in O hio .................... .......... .....................8
Intelligent Design and the Structure of Scientific Revolutions ................................10
Intelligent D esign and Social Capital ................................................................... 11

2 BACKGROUND .............. ..................................... .... ...... ........14

Journalists and Religion................. ................................................ .... 14
Journalists and Science ................... ......................... ................................................. 18
Framing...................................... .................. ............... ........21
Fram ing Religion .................. .................. ....................... ... ............. 25
Hypotheses and Research Questions .............................. ...............26

3 METHODS .................................................30

Sam ple ........................................................... 30
Coding Instrument and Coding Scheme.........................................30

4 RESULTS .................................................33

Article Tone ................... .......................... ........ 33
Frames................ ....... .. .. ... ............................... 33
Creationist and Fundamentalist Terms and Descriptors .............................................34
Location of Publication and Treatment of the Intelligent Design Controversy..........36
Scientific Uncertainty, Scientific Acceptance and Scientific Denial .........................37
Scientific vs. Religious portrayal............................................................ .... .... 38










5 DISCUSSION ............... ......... ....................... 48

Limitations ............................ ............ .........57
Future Research ................................................... .........58

APPENDIX

A COD ESH EET .................. ............................ ........ .... .. ..............................60

B CODEBOOK .. ......... ....... ............ ............................ 64

LIST OF REFERENCES ....................... ......... ........68

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...................................................80
















LIST OF TABLES


Table page

4-1 Frequencies............................. ... ......... .. 39

4-2 Tone of Article across Type of News Article .............. .. ............41

4-3 Presence of Creationist Terms across Article Tone .....................................42

4-4 Presence of Creationist Descriptors across Article Tone............... ...... .........43

4-5 Location of Publication across Article Tone..........................................44

4-6 Location of Publication across Presence of Creationist Terms............... ............45

4-7 Location of Publication across Presence of Creationist Descriptors.....................46

4-8 Scientific Acceptance/Uncertainty across Article Type...................................... 47
















Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Master of Arts

RELIGION, SCIENCE AND PUBLIC EDUCATION: NEWSPAPER COVERAGE
OF THE ORIGINS' DEBATE IN OHIO'S PUBLIC SCHOOLS
By

JUSTIN D. MARTIN

December, 2004

Chair: Lynda Lee Kaid
Major Department: Mass Communications

Broadly, this project analyzed journalistic treatment of religion and science.

Specifically, this thesis analyzed the treatment of a discipline called Intelligent Design

and a surrounding controversy that took place in Ohio's public schools. Intelligent

Design is a notion which challenges Darwinian evolution through the claim that life is too

complex to have originated by chance variations. The decision of whether or not to

include the concept of Intelligent Design in Ohio's public school science curricula

sparked a flood of newspaper coverage both inside and outside the state of Ohio. This

thesis examines this newspaper coverage in terms of the overall tone of the coverage,

various "frames" or central themes that organized the coverage, the presence/absence of

certain descriptors of the Intelligent Design movement, and also the treatment of

Intelligent Design as "science" or "non-science."














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Media mold and influence our understanding of the world. Religious issues are, for

most people, a part of that world. Because of increasing media coverage of religious

issues, my study examined media coverage of a religious debate. The debate over the

merits of a discipline called Intelligent Design (ID) -the idea that life is far too complex

to have developed randomly and without purpose-is a unique one, in that it is a religious

debate taking place across the entire country, from Nebraska and Texas, to Minnesota

and Pennsylvania. Few if any religious issues are more debated, covered in the media, or

hotly disputed than the theory of intelligent agency in the universe, and the challenge it

poses to naturalistic evolution. One study on newspaper coverage of ID showed that

articles on ID frequently elicited a flood of letters and responses from readers, sometimes

lasting for a week or more after a specific article was published (Martin, Trammell,

Valois, Landers & Bailey, 2004). This public interest in, as well as opposition to, the ID

discipline has fueled a panoply of media coverage of the topic.

One need only type in the words IDto search engines (such as Google and Yahoo)

or databases (such as Lexis Nexis and Ebsco Host) to recognize the volume of resources

and criticism available on this topic. Much of this coverage involves controversies in

public school districts, and their deliberations and decisions on whether to include ID in

public-school science curricula and, if so, to what extent. My study examined newspaper

coverage of one such ID controversy in and among the school board and citizens of the

state of Ohio.









Religion in American Public Life

By the middle of the 20th Century, many western scholars believed religion was a

fading aspect of public life, but that belief soon passed (Armstrong, 2004). The

phenomenon of religion has reemerged in recent years in liberal democracies, as well as

in the rest of the World, and media coverage of religious issues and scholarly analysis of

media and religion have paralleled this trend (De Vries, 2001). Unlike the general

interpretation of the theory of secularization, religion is not a moribund influence in

society (Silk, 2000). Even in places like Great Britain, where weekly church attendance

is an apathetic 7% of the general population, Internet churches are sprouting up in an

attempt to interest young worshipers (Radcliffe, 2004). Christian books have been

penetrating bestseller lists worldwide. One such book, Rick Warren's The Purpose-

Driven Life (2002), has sold nearly 11 million copies. This reemergence of religion is

perhaps even more prominent in the United States, because the incumbent president is a

born-again and vocal evangelical Christian; and also because of religious overtones

inherent in the gay-marriage and pledge-of-allegiance debates taking place in states

across the country, and in Congress (Winston, 2004). Mass communication scholars

have seemingly taken notice of these trends.

Since the mid-twentieth century, the relationship between religion and the mass

media has come into scholarly focus (Hoover, 2002). In the last twenty years,

communication scholars have increasingly studied this relationship (Mitchell, 2000). The

Journal of Communication and Religion was founded in the late 1970s, but more in-depth

analysis did not proceed until later (Hatcher, 2003). Indeed, it was not until 2002 that the

Journal of Media and Religion began publishing quarterly periodicals addressing this

relationship.









Still, some scholars favor more study of religious issues and the media (Stout &

Buddenbaum, 2002), and this may be due to a recent increase in media coverage of

religious issues. During roughly the past 10 years, religion journalism has grown, and

more journalists are now willing to step into the fray and report on religious controversy

(Ward, 2002, p12; "Newspapers get religion," 1999). In December 2003 and January

2004, for instance, all three major American news magazines (U.S. News & World

Report, Time and Newsweek) published cover or major articles critiquing author Dan

Brown's (2003) theological and fictional book The Davinci Code (Kulman & Tolson,

2003; Kantrowitz and Underwood, 2003; Grossman, 2004). In the same year, U.S. News

also published two more cover articles covering major religious trends: one involved

dominant perceptions of Jesus in America, and the other involved the increasing size of

American evangelical congregations (Tolson & Kulman, 2004; Tolson, 2003).

In the summer of 2003, Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore made national headlines

when he refused to remove a monument bearing the ten commandments of Judeo-

Christianity, an event that sparked national dialogue about religion in the public square

(Hoffman, 2004). In an even greater example of media frenzy over religious issues, on

February 25, 2004, Mel Gibson's anticipated film "The Passion of the Christ," began

playing amid enormous fanfare and in movie theaters nationwide (Goldstein, 2004).

Also, recent scandals involving the Catholic Church have ignited a flood of media

coverage of the role and effects of organized religion in and on contemporary society

(Wirth, 2002). The large amount of extant media coverage of religion, according to some

scholars, warrants study of such coverage (Buddenbaum, 2002). This study addressed

that need; and in analyzing a specific religious controversy, builds on prior









communications research about media and religion in general, as well as upon research

on newspapers and ID in particular.

The Emergence of Intelligent Design

American theists (and more specifically, religious conservatives) are highly

concerned with culture and values (Kintz & Lesage, 1998). Many Americans have

rejected the "secularization" of the country's public schools, and advocate a return to

Judeo-Christian beliefs (Mattheis, 1981). Many of these values spring from certain

beliefs about the universe and its origins: beliefs that have spawned a new era in the

Creation-vs.-Evolution debate. In 2002, Mason Dixon polling surveyed 1,500 Ohioans

and found that 59% favored teaching ID and the theory of evolution by natural selection

in the state's public schools (Viadero, 2002).

By this time, most Ohio residents were familiar with the argument of ID, and more

than half felt Ohio's schoolchildren should consider it. Other similar debates have taken

place in school boards across the country, and most recently in Georgia.

Before the early 1990s, the phrase Intelligent Design was not well-known. By the

end of that decade and the beginning of the next, though, the phrase and its acronym were

appearing in books from university presses; and newspaper and magazine articles,

refereed, academic journals. Discussion of the movement appeared on public television

networks like PBS (Beckwith, 2003a). The journal Natural History ("Intelligent

Design?," 2002) devoted space in one volume to arguments from three proponents and

three challengers of ID. Searching LexisNexis or other academic/journalistic databases

yields thousands of articles on the topic of Intelligent Design.

In general, ID is "a scientific research program that investigates the effects of

intelligent causes, an intellectual movement that challenges Darwinism and its









naturalistic legacy" (Dembski, 1999, pp.13). Intelligent Design's scholars hale not only

from fields such as theology and philosophy, but also from biology, mathematics and law

and are accomplished scientists ("Not Your Daddy's Fundamentalism," 2004). Followers

of the movement distinguish themselves from their creationist predecessors mainly

through a higher level of scientific literacy (The New Scientist, 2002), and their popular

presence and political influence is increasing.

Much of this coverage was due to debate of science standards in various school

districts across the country. In places like Kansas, Alabama, New Mexico, Kentucky,

Ohio, Michigan and Minnesota, school boards debated future standards for teaching the

origins of life, whether to use certain evolutionary terminology, and whether to include

ID theory in their curricula (Moore, 2002).

The first successes of ID's penetration into the public awareness are largely

credited to University of California, Berkeley professor of law Phillip Johnson. In 1990,

while on sabbatical in London, England, Johnson wrote Darwin on Trial, a book largely

credited as the precursory text of the ID movement (Woodward, 2003). The book argued

that for reasons such as large gaps in the fossil record, Charles Darwin's theory of

common ancestry through successive, slight modifications was untenable. The book

created a stir in scientific communities and encouraged some like-minded scholars to join

efforts. In the years after the release of his 1991 bestseller, Johnson and colleagues both

for and against design theory arranged academic conferences and symposia on ID at such

institutions as Stanford, Cornell, the University of Texas, Harvard and the University of

Chicago (Beckwith, 2003). On the ID side of this debate, design theorists claim

Darwinism and the biological sciences are driven by philosophical naturalism; on the









Darwinist side of the controversy, evolutionists tag design theory as Creationism in

disguise and its proponents as academics with an agenda.

Broadly, ID proponents submit that "intelligent agency, as an aspect of scientific

theory making, has more explanatory power in accounting for the specified, and

sometimes irreducible, complexity of some physical systems, including .the existence

of a universe as a whole, than the blind forces of unguided and everlasting

matter" (Beckwith, p.xiii, 2003b). These "blind" and "unguided" forces are what

Johnson (2000) claims embodies the philosophy of naturalism, and he argues that the

scientific community is faced with two choices when confronting ID: scientists can

entertain the possibility of supernatural creation or dismiss it outright.

ID's proponents do more than critique and call into question the philosophy of

scientific naturalism; according to Beckwith (2003a), these researchers are publishing

books in academic presses and articles in refereed journals. Unlike some Creationist

adherents, ID advocates offer scientific, technical and empirically grounded arguments to

promote and support theism (Beckwith, 2003b). ID researchers are generally more subtle

than Creationist theologians; the former claim that natural selection cannot explain the

complexity of life, and suggest intelligent agency, but say very little about who or what

that agent may be (Greenwalt, 2003).

Criticism of Intelligent Design

That the ID movement is growing in recognition and influence need not imply that

it is without its critics. Some scientists argue simply that ID is not a scientific discipline,

because the complex nature of human life does not necessarily imply Creation (Shermer,

2004). Some of the most heated political controversies in the last four decades involved

the teaching (and not teaching) of evolution in public schools (Lugg, 2004). The notion









of ID elicits strong responses in many academics; according to The London Times,

shortly after turning 100 years of age, Harvard biologist Ernst Mayr is putting final

touches on a research publication critical of design theory (Henderson, 2004).

Modernization, or secularization, of American life, such as that in public schools, has

been wrought with conflict and harsh words from both the religious and secular camps

(Smith, 2003). American Institute of Biological Sciences president Judith Weis (2001)

encourages biologists to counteract the efforts of ID with perpetual determination.

While some survey data suggests most Americans favor teaching design theory

alongside evolution, many academics dispute the notion that ID is a scientific discipline.

Some scholars feel that ID should be addressed in religion classes and evolution in

scientific ones (Wexler, 2003). Cracraft (2004) goes further by saying that ID in science

classrooms poses a danger to students' scientific literacy. Physicist Adrian Melott (2002,

p.48) claims that ID is "Creationism in a cheap tuxedo." Other scholars feel ID

proponents are plainly ignorant or deliberately spurious when it comes to scientific

objectivity (Milner & Maestro, 2002). Just because an entity exhibits complexity does

not mean it was intelligently designed, some say. A termite mound, says Peterson

(2002), is complex and beautiful, but that does not necessary lend itself to the work of an

intelligent agent. In a similar vein, Eller (2003) criticizes ID proponents for basing their

theory on unexplained aspects of evolution. He uses the example of macroevolution

(species evolving into an entirely different species). ID researchers are quick to note that,

says Eller, not one example of macroevolution has ever been proven either in or outside

of the fossil record, an assertion he claims does not prove intelligent agency by default.









Campbell (2003), however, feels that the goal to preserve the integrity of science is

compromised when competing theories of life's origins are dismissed outright, and he

hints that the only way to increase the plausibility of naturalism is to defeat such

competition in classrooms and lecture halls.

The Controversy in Ohio

This study analyzes newspaper coverage of a religious/scientific debate in Ohio's

public school board. While controversies over ID in public schools have raged in other

states, Ohio was chosen for analysis for specific reasons. Ohio is not part of the group of

states frequently referred to as the "Bible Belt," and is therefore indicative of ID's

influence in middle America and outside of so-called evangelical strongholds.

Furthermore, Ohio offers an interesting duality: according to polling data, the general

population of Ohio supports the inclusion of ID in the state's public schools (Viadero,

2002). Academics, however, are generally less accepting of ID (Johnson, 2002), and the

state of Ohio has within its borders some of the most prestigious academic institutions in

the United States: the University of Cincinnati, Case Western Reserve University, The

Ohio State University, etc. Perhaps this is why the controversy in Ohio raged for a

considerable period of time. Newspaper coverage of the Ohio controversy is extensive

and suitable for analysis (news coverage ranges roughly from mid-2000 to early 2004).

This study builds on prior research on ID in the media in particular, and journalism and

religion research in general.

"Education becomes religious in a formal sense," wrote Hunt (1960, p.90), "when

instruction is given in the tenets of one of the organized faiths." Hunts' words might have

been uttered by one of ID's challengers in Ohio some 40 years later, as the controversy in

that state was essentially this: evidence challenging Darwinism was proposed for









inclusion in the state science curriculum, and opponents claimed such an inclusion was

honoring "tenets" of "organized faith." The debate in Ohio over public-school science

standards was long and fierce; at times, rumors promised that evolutionary proponents

would file lawsuits against the school board if challenges to evolution were allowed in

public classrooms (Galley, 2004). The crux of the debate centered on whether or not to

allow teachers to criticize aspects of evolutionary theory they deemed lacking.

Critics of these efforts and of Intelligent Design, though, claimed the campaign

challenging evolutionary standards was an attempt to sneak religion in the classroom

(Durbin, 2000). The controversy began in 2001, shortly before the Ohio Board of

Education was poised to ratify the state's science standards for its 1.8 million public-

school children, something the board does every several years (Mangels & Stephens,

2002). The board of education initially rejected the request ("Evolution solution faith:

science must part at school door," 2001) and the controversy remained relatively static

until 2002 when the Ohio Board of Education voted 17-0 to endorse a "resolution of

intent" expressing their plan to alter the state science standards to include evidence

challenging Darwinism (Winnick, 2002). The controversy was settled with the passage of

the Academic Freedom Act of 2004, which provided public school teachers "the

affirmative right and freedom to present scientific, historical, theoretical, or evidentiary

information pertaining to alternative theories or points of view on the subject of

biological or physical origins" (Goldacre, 2004, p.3). The law stopped short of requiring

teaching of Intelligent Design, and did not specify design theory as one of the "alternative

theories or points of view," but ID proponents hailed the law a major victory in the

challenge to Darwinism in public classrooms. The passage of the law was a victory for









ID adherents, because supporters of the theory were not asking for inclusion of ID in the

first place. Such supporters were "not asking the state to require the teaching of

evolution and intelligent design," according to one Columbus Dispatch article. "Instead,

they want guarantees in the standards that arguments or materials critical of the theory of

evolution can be introduced," (Lore, 2000, p.1).

Intelligent Design and the Structure of Scientific Revolutions

Most scholars who have praised or critiqued tenets of Thomas Kuhn's (1962)

famed essay The Structure of Scientific Revolutions discuss Kuhn's notion of paradigm

shift and paradigm change. Kuhn devotes significant space in his essay, however, to

discussing the difficulty many scientific historians encounter when they attempt to

chronicle and to capture the nonlinear accumulation of scientific knowledge while using

linear language. Part of the problem historians face, of course, involves the panoply of

articles, books and letters they must sift through in order to document the progression

and, ultimately, the success or failure of scientific ideas and movements. "Perhaps

science does not develop by the accumulation of individual discoveries and inventions,"

writes Kuhn (p.2).

Kuhn goes on to argue that this results in historians asking nonlinear questions;

instead of asking about the relationship between revolutionary scientists of the past and

those today, for example, many historians may now ask questions regarding a

revolutionary scientists' relationship with his or her contemporaries. For historians,

quantitative content analysis makes possible generalizations from large amounts of

resources and references to the scientific climate of the period under examination. This

study seeks to examine the taproots of what just may be the sprout of scientific

revolution, by analyzing coverage of the IDdebate within Ohio's public school system.









Not only do social scientists experience resistance and criticism in the difficulty of

examining the massive amount of historical documents, but social scientists have also

been strongly criticized for their frequent inability to predict the future (Machlup, 1961).

For social scientists in communications, content analyses make predicting the nature of

future mass media messages less arbitrary. One of the primary uses of framing theories,

for example, is the ability to conjecture in an educated way how future coverage of an

issue is likely to be presented. This study, then, may provide some cohesion for future

historians who wish to chronicle the success or failure of the ID movement, and may also

add logic to predictions of future coverage of religious and/or scientific movements and

revolutions.

For better or worse, ID may be poised for scientific revolt. ID is gaining steam in

academic circles. The vast majority of Americans believe in a supernatural creator of the

universe (Huntington, 2004). Scientific revolutions, one could argue, cannot subsist

without a newly developed concept of social force called "social capital," which is

discussed below, as is the concepts' relationship to Intelligent Design.

Intelligent Design and Social Capital

Much ink has been spilt on the concept of social capital in the academic literature

of the fields of political science, sociology, economics, to name a few, and also in the

field of education (Horvat, Weininger & Lareau, 2003).The notion of social capital,

generated by Harvard's Robert Putnam in the early nineties (Holm, 2004), is defined as

social forces that inspire trust, action, awareness and reciprocity in and among

communities (Leyden, 2003). Requena (2003) defines social capital as cooperative,

social partnerships that spur collective action.









As seen in Ohio, ID appears to contribute to social capital, in that it spurs collective

action in the areas of education, local and state politics, and in the interpretation and

questioning of scientific paradigms. Examples of ID's influence on social capital come

from some of the articles on the topic. Perhaps the most glaring example of ID's

influence on social capital appeared in the Harvard Journal ofLaw and Public Policy by

Beckwith (2003), who argues that design theory has reignited interest and awareness of a

debate that was considered by many to be over.

Another such example comes from London's The Guardian. Burkeman and Jha

(2003, p.4) reported that, in terms of ID's influence, "one of the first signs that something

was changing came last year in the suburbs of northern Atlanta, when people started

talking ... about mousetraps." The mousetrap was adopted by ID proponent and author

of the bestselling Darwin's Black Box (1996) Michael Behe to explain a characteristic of

living cells he calls "irreducible complexity." While the specifics of irreducible

complexity are not important here, Burkeman and Jha's observations are noteworthy.

These two journalists recognized that ID had spurred in Georgia widespread debate about

biochemical machinations. Not only did ID principles spur discourse on the science of

life's origins, but The Guardian also reported that ID was impelling scores of Georgian

parents to challenge the material their children were learning in school by confronting

governing officials.

If ID expands public awareness, interest and concern with broad issues like

education, public policy and traditional scientific paradigms, as Marske (1996) argues are

the indicators of influence on social capital, then mass media coverage of such an

impetus should be studied. This study analyzed more than 250 newspaper articles






13


covering the burgeoning movement and influence of Intelligent Design, borne out in

controversy in Ohio's public schools.














CHAPTER 2
BACKGROUND

Journalists and Religion

The very first newspapers -printed information published on a consistent basis-

were published in Reformation strongholds like Augsburg and Amsterdam and were

religious in nature (Olasky, 1991). While newspapers and journalism in general are

wholly different today than in the 17th Century, religion is once again becoming a staple

of mass media. Like religions' ostensible reemergence into public life, religion has, in

the past quarter century, become newsworthy. According to Keeler, Tarpley and Smith

(1990), religion became news again in the 1970s, because journalists realized religion had

an impact on presidential elections, foreign policy and Supreme Court rulings. Criticism

of this increased coverage, though, became no less common than the religious content

itself.

In his book Unsecular Media, Silk (1995) notes that anyone knowledgeable about a

particular topic will likely express dissatisfaction with the way that topic is covered in the

mass media. Indeed, in their analysis of media framing of feminism/the women's

movement, Ashley and Olson (1998) concluded mainly that media coverage of feminism

served to de-legitimize the movement. Religion, similarly argues Silk, is no different in

this regard and, by the standards of theologians and others, media coverage of religion

frequently demonstrates errors, improper slant or inadequate contextualization (see also

Engstrom and Semic, 2003). These sentiments led The Washington Report on Middle

East Affairs to complain that mainstream American journalists have not done enough to









encourage an understanding of Islam and of Muslims living in the U.S. ("Scarves of

many colors," 1997).

Traditionally, religion reporting has been considered less than a top assignment

and, for quite some time, was marginalized in American journalism (Buddenbaum, 1986;

Moses, 1993). Hubbard (1988) claims that some journalists view themselves as liberated

from having to report on religion and, for some time, have chosen to report on issues of

the nation separate from faith. Hubbard goes on to argue that some journalists view

religion as a private aspect of life, and avoid it, choosing instead to report on issues they

deem public. Soukup (1996) feels that religious individuals hold distrust for the media,

and might even partly blame mass communicators for corrupting society with

objectionable content. Perhaps this is why Buddenbaum (1998, p.1) feels mass media

demonstrate that "religion is the greatest story that's never told, or, at least, the greatest

story that's never told very well." According to Ward (2002), journalists experience

difficulty covering religious stories because such issues are typically sensitive and often

polarizing, and they don't want to appear to favor one stance or another. For this reason,

he claims, editors have historically avoided many religious stories in favor of other

current events issues.

Within roughly the last decade, however, religion stories have been too important

for some editors to ignore and journalists are being sent out regularly on religious

assignment (Buddenbaum, 1990). "Religion reporting is hot," writes Alice Shepard

(1995, pp.18-19) in the American Journalism Review. "More and more people are

looking for spiritual elements in their lives." People are also looking for more spiritual

elements in political candidates, a phenomenon which could be partly responsible for









increased coverage of religious issues in the presidential campaign year of 2004,

according to one New Yorker article (Hertzberg, 2004). U.S. News & World Report

columnist John Leo (2004) also pointed out the focus on religion at the 2004 Democratic

National convention, which led to increased dialogue about religion in the media,

something self-evident in his very column, which was titled "Talk about getting

religion!"

Perhaps because religion journalism is an increasingly prevalent phenomenon,

some researchers feel communication scholars know little about the relationship between

mass media and religion (Stout & Buddenbaum, 2002). Communication researchers tend

to study both religion and the mass media, usually in isolation and rarely together

(Buddenbaum, 2002). This is also true according to Hoover (2002), who feels that some

mass communication scholars deem religion as a fading and insignificant aspect of

cultural life, although such a suggestion is weakened by the fact that 83 percent of

Americans identify themselves as either practicing Catholics or Christians (Florio, 2004).

Moreover, a study by Nieman Reports suggests that Americans favor more and a wider

range of media coverage of religious issues (Hoover, 1993), even in the face of evidence

suggesting that religious stories in the media are now more in-depth and detailed than in

the past (Buddenbaum, 1986). This sought to shed light on the relationship between mass

media and religion by studying print j journalism coverage of a religious/scientific

controversy.

When reporting on religion and its role in American life, the media frequently

portray religious issues as a conflict between fundamentalists and the mainstream. For

instance, the coverage of Muslims in America, according to an analysis of seven major









news dailies conducted by The Christian Science Monitor in the mid-nineties, frequently

demonstrates journalists' tendency to emphasize fundamentalist and extremist

characteristics (Marquand, 1996). In doing so, media practitioners often ignore the

erasure of denominational borders (Bolce & DeMaio, 2002). And because antipathy

toward Christian fundamentalism exists among educated and secular elites (Bolce &

DeMaio, 1999; Kerr, 2003), some media scholars argue coverage of religious issues

generally, not just particularly those stories fundamentalist in nature, is negative or

critical. Hoover (1998, p.57) admits that a "media cohort explanation"-the idea that, as

a group, journalists are less religious and more politically leftist than mainstream

America- of such coverage is a compelling one.

Such cohort reporting may have been evident in coverage of the 1980 presidential

election, in the way journalists presented American evangelicals, "The Christian Right,"

as they labeled them. These American voters were portrayed as a powerful "political

development" steering support for Ronald Reagan, although follow-up analyses of voter

choice did not recognize such mobilization (Johnson & Tamney, 1982). Coulter (2002)

claims that supposed political power of the so-called "Christian Right" is something

journalists claim but inaccurately define. In the case of Intelligent Design, the primary

debate is not simply one between Creationists/fundamentalists and the mainstream.

There are differing schools of thought within the discipline: under ID's auspices exist

agnostics, northeastern Catholics, southern Baptists and liberal Episcopalians, and not all

agree on an intelligent agent's role in the origins of life.

Not all media scholars, however, agree that coverage of religious issues and

individuals is definitively negative. Although many religious Americans accuse the









media of being hostile to religion in public life and for harshly reporting on religious

issues such as church and state separation (Gedicks, 1992), it may be unfair to

instinctively disdain religion reporting if only because one dislikes the message

(Neuhaus, 2003). Lichter, Rothman and Lichter (1986) found that more than half of elite

journalists expressed no or minimal religious beliefs, but other research challenges the

generalizeability of the findings and points to evidence claiming that three-fourths of

journalists exhibit religious interest (Weaver & Wilhoit, 1996).

Some research suggests that the media have an overall positive orientation with

religion and, in particular, with Christianity (Underwood & Stamm, 2000). While not

challenging the notion that the media demonstrate attitudes toward religion disparate with

the American public, such research posits that journalists are satisfactorily objective

toward religion in hard news coverage (Kerr & Moy, 2002). Religion reporters do not

exist solely to cover religious conflict, but also to examine religion's relationship with,

and influence on, public life (Strupp, 1999).

Journalists and Science

Along with reporting on religious issues, the media play a monumental role in

public understanding of scientific issues and concerns (Lewenstein, 1995). For not a

small number of years, though, journalists and scientists have had a rocky relationship;

journalists view themselves as entertainers, informers and challengers of ideas, while

many scientists see themselves as the originators of important and useful information

which should be communicated by the news media to the public in certain ways (Reed &

Walker, 2002). This conflict may be evident in the relationship between the mass media

and environmental scientists; the former view themselves as entertainers in the way of









environmental conflicts and current event issues, while the latter view themselves as

public educators of certain scientific evidence (Roll-Hansen, 1994).

Although many researchers do not attempt to publish their work outside of the

academic community, some scholars stress the importance of scientific reports in the

mass media, especially in order to foster a dialogue between academics and mass media

consumers (Ben-Ari, 1998). Priest and Eyck (2003) argue that discussion of the latest

scientific developments often take place in elite circles and away from public light and

feel that the mass media are in a position to influence more public interpretation of

scientific issues than other issues of interest. Many researchers do not write press releases

on their academic work, perhaps because journalists have been criticized time and again

for their coverage of science. The beat of science journalism continues to grow (Fayard,

1997) and, it appears, so does criticism of the genre. According to Shaw (2000; see also

Condit, 2004), much science learning takes place outside of academic classrooms and in

the mass media and, therefore, scholars should investigate such coverage.

In their book Communicating Uncertainty (1999; see also "Testing a radical

theory," 2004), Friedman, Dunwoody and Rogers suggest that in some ways, journalists

could do better in their coverage of new and uncertain science. Specifically, they posit

that journalists frequently portray emerging scientific movements as more certain than

may be warranted. One reason for this might be that journalists tend to minimize and

play down scientific uncertainties when reporting on new scientific developments (Singer

& Endreny, 1993). Science reporters have also been criticized for frequently neglecting

to fully explain underlying scientific processes and effects which, if true, could be a

reason why many scientific uncertainties are not thus described (Gilbert, 1997).









Journalists sometimes exaggerate the importance of new medical

developments/procedures, for example (Wilkins, 1999). Murray, Schwartz and Lichter

(2001) similarly maintain that journalists can either highlight or ignore certain aspects of

scientific reports. They note that many preliminary and/or incomplete research reports

receive absolute-truth treatment in the press. Incomplete scientific reports may also

result from the fact that the media's overriding goal is to engage

readers/listeners/consumers with their content and providing new and exciting scientific

information may be one approach to this, despite whether or not journalists gave more

than a cursory nod at the data. Also, journalists work on tight deadlines, so in-depth

analysis of scientific reports and their flaws becomes difficult (Barker, 1995). In their

analysis of media coverage of breast cancer in the 1990's, Andsager and Powers (1999)

similarly found that space constraints and other pressures presented problems for

reporters covering scientific developments regarding this disease.

While the best science reporting usually includes detailed background information

on the subject, lengthy and informative quotes from the researcherss, and comments

from other scholars in the same field (Lewis, 1999), many science articles simply are not

that detailed or carefully written. Scientific reports are sometimes rushed to the press,

regardless of whether the truth of the reports is certain among journalists (Pollard, 1996).

Journalism schools, though, are frequently intimating to students the importance of

detailed exposition of science in their copy (Starr, 2002). Following scientific

developments and breakthroughs, journalists are the first people to communicate such

science to laypeople, and they must do so with sharp details written in common language

(Friedhoff, 2002). Lewenstein (1995) argues that, with increasing technologies available









to reporters for communicating and understanding science, scientific reporting is

changing and improving.

Framing

When evaluating news coverage, whether that coverage deals with issues scientific,

religious or otherwise, the organizing presentation of such issues is important to consider.

As we humans navigate our lives, we are forced to sort through and organize enormous

amounts of information. Much of this information, of course, reaches us via the mass

media, and media frames are credited with helping us manage the panoply of messages to

which we are exposed. Commonly described as the second level of a theory called

agenda setting, frames provide a coherent way to decipher and archive these mounds of

information (Cohen & Wolfsfeld, 1993). In the past quarter-century, communications

scholars have concentrated research efforts into study of agenda-setting, framing, and

effects thereof. Shifting away from a somewhat stringent view of the audience as passive

recipients, scholars have focused on the media's potential and deliberation in shaping

coverage of current events (Goffman, 1974; McCune, 2003; Davis, 1995). Much

research has been conducted on media framing as a theory of media effects. Framing,

which involves details as subtle as diction and nuance as well as larger influences such as

source selection, has been used to analyze media bias and mass media influence on public

opinion (Jasperson, Shah, Watts, Faber & Fan, 1998). The cognitive process of

interpreting media frames, regardless of how complex or basic those frames may be,

involves low levels of cognitive attention and are thus shortcuts which help media

consumers understand a story or issue (Bryant & Zillman, 2002). That frames are

described in the literature as cognitive shortcuts, however, need not diverge from the

argument that such frames are persuasive to some degree. McQuail (1994) argued that









the study of mass communication exists upon the assumption that mass media messages

exert effects on people, and framing has been studied to this end. Scheufele (1999)

argues that theoretical understanding of frames should take place within the larger

context of media-effects research.

Frames are central organizing themes and supporting points within which news

packages are delivered (McLeod & Detenber, 1999). Similarly, Gamson and Modigliani

(1987) argue that frames are organizational tools that provide meaning and weave related

points of an argument or story together in a concrete way. More than that, though,

Benford and Snow (2000) argue framing processes are so important that they must be

examined in order to understand the root of social movements.

At their best, frames make our world more knowable and more interpretable

(Durham, 1998), and journalists should be credited with the usefulness of such

organization (Tuchman, 1979). At their worst, though, frames may have the capability to

perpetuate old stereotypes or create new ones. In her analysis of media frames of mental

illness, Sieff (2003) found that media frames in such stories often maintained and/or

worsened negative stereotypes toward people with psychopathologies. Similarly, lyengar

(1990) argues that frames of poverty and of the poor shape public perception of the

movement and of the destitute. Baylor (1996; Debono-Roberts, 2003; Terkildsen &

Schnell, 1997) found that, depending on the particular frames used to present a

movement, media coverage can often hinder the movement's success. And, depending

on their presentation, frames can either increase or impede cognitive responses to a given

issue (Shah, Kwak, Schmierbach, & Zubric, 2004). Other research suggests that media









frames have the capacity to perpetuate and increase, if not create political cynicism

among American news consumers (Cappella and Jamieson, 1996).

McCombs (1997) suggests that media frames are not necessarily deliberate, and

that in free societies the news media do not intentionally slant the news one way or

another. Entman (1991), however, feels that media practitioners frame news in order to

elicit a favorable response from their audience which, if true, shapes media coverage in

significant ways. Like Entman, Olasky (1988) also argues that mass media shape public

agendas and often unevenly bestow legitimacy on one group or another. Brewer (2003)

feels that, in their coverage of polarizing issues, media practitioners often present

compound frames, offering both sides of the issues and leaving news consumers to decide

for themselves which frame makes more sense. In this way, it is not uncommon to notice

camps on opposing sides of an issue trying to influence, define and help frame the issue

at hand (Severin & Tankard, 2001). All frames are not equal, though, and frames can

steer an audience toward a certain interpretation of an issue and do not necessarily allow

for an egalitarian interpretation of all points of view (Tewksbury, Jones, Peske,

Raymond, Vig & 2000, Ball-Rokeach & Rokeach, 1987).

The publics' reasoning about an issue often relies on frames used to organize and

package the issue (De Vreese & Boomgaarden, 2003; Andsager & Powers, 1999; Nelson,

Clawson, Oxley, 1997) because, often, the presence of one frame often equals the

absence of another, competing frame (Gamson, Reese, Gandy & Grant, 2001; Haller &

Ralph, 2001). Similarly, Zoch and Turk (1998) argue that one of the most powerful ways

journalists frame an issue is through source selection, and the presence of one source can

preclude the inclusion of another.









Such framing effects are manifest in changes in people's choices about an issue

(Iyengar, 1987). Frames can affect the level of consideration that people give to one side

of an issue and, in so doing, affect the balance of opposing stances/arguments (Nelson,

Oxley and Clawson, 1997). People often arrive at one conclusion instead of another,

depending upon how an issue is framed. This may be a problem, according to Bullock,

Wyche and Williams (2001), because the presentation of a main frame and a few

supporting points may reduce the depth of the coverage of certain issues, leaving

consumers with little to take away from a story regarding an issue's underlying causes.

Similarly, Watkins (2001) found that media framing of the Million Man March in the

mid-nineties focused less on the specific issues that generated public interest in the event,

and more on framing the controversial stories about march organizer Louis Farrakhan.

Entman (1993) argues that the choices media consumers make about an issue

depend largely on the choices of individual journalists, who frame issues in a two-step

process. He claims that journalists first select certain aspects of an issue/event and then

make these aspects salient. Entman (2004) also identifies four major steps journalists

climb in organizing media content. First, he argues that certain aspects, developments or

conditions surrounding an issue are identified as negative. Next, possible causes are

presented for consideration. A moral judgment (whether deliberate or otherwise) of some

kind is then passed. Finally, various potential remedies or solutions are presented.

So much research has been devoted to defining and understanding frames that

some scholars argue that, by some definitions, any characteristic of a news story can be

an organizing frame (Chyi & McCombs, 2004). Other researchers choose to analyze

smaller numbers of widely researched frames. Perhaps in the interests of parsimony,









DeVreese (2004) examined just two political frames in his content analysis of Dutch

television news. In the same vein, and to avoid a cumbersome or unwieldy interpretation

of media frames, the few frames analyzed in this study are only those essential to the

topic under examination. Although examining 20 or 25 frames of a media subject may be

warranted by some of the extant framing literature, examining fewer frames may yield

more interpretable results. This study examined the presence and tone of five different

frames: science, religion, educational consequences, political involvement and legal

consequences (for conceptual descriptions of these frames or to see how such organizing

themes were operationally defined, please see the codebook in Appendix B).

Framing Religion

Durham (1998) claims that successfully framing a news story is not easy and is,

sometimes, impossible. When analyzing the ways media practitioners frame religious

coverage, we must again remember Silks' (1995) assertion that anyone who studies

religion or the relationship between the mass media and religion will probably dislike in

some way journalists' coverage of it. Chen (2003), for instance, did not deem objective

mass media presentation of Mormons during the 2002 Winter Olympics in Utah. That

said, however, some communication scholars interpret differently the ways the mass

media frame religious coverage. Some researchers claim such coverage provides

secularized frames of religious issues, while others argue maintain that religious issues

are framed within a context of positive values (Stout & Buddenbaum, 2003).

If the media are criticized for framing coverage of religion in a certain way, such

coverage is not the only hot topic to draw fire. In her exploration of how the media frame

the feminist movement, Beck (1998) found that journalists have a difficult time

objectively framing women's issues. Other research has looked at how debate over









animal experimentation has been covered in the mass media, suggesting that coverage of

the debate is less than perfect, particularly on television (Kruse, 2001). Perhaps issues

such as the origins-of-the-earth debate, feminism and animal experimentation are simply

controversial, whether discussed in the media or in social discourse.

Hypotheses and Research Questions

The following hypotheses and research questions were written in consideration of

the literature reviewed in the preceding two chapters. Some of that research, as well as

additional and pertinent justification for the following statements, is cited prior to each

question/set of questions. Due to prior research suggesting that newspaper coverage of

religious issues tends to be impartial in hard news, critical in columns and editorials, and

favorable in letters to editors (Kerr & Moy, 2002; Martin et al., 2004), hypothesis one

predicts the following:

H1: The overall tone of newspaper coverage of the Intelligent Design debate in

public schools will be negative, although tone will differ across news type. Specifically,

hard news will tend to be neutral, columns and editorials will more often be negative, and

letters to the editor will tend to be positive.

Research question one deals with the presence of five frames: science, religion,

education, political involvement and legal consequences. Martin et al. (2004) analyzed

the presence of five such frames in their analysis of newspaper coverage of ID. Inclusion

of several of these frames, however (science, religion, education and legal consequences),

is perhaps even more intuitive in the current study, given the nature of the controversy of

interest. Intelligent Design is a tii\/iic discussion of a Designer in science and the

earths' origins, and the controversy under examination took place in an educational

setting. Justifying the possibility of a political involvement frame, Kintz and Lesage









(1998) argue that the political influence of religious Americans is hard to deny. The fifth

frame is a legal consequences frame. According to Gedicks (1992), many Americans

who cherish religious values in public life decry what they claim to be hostility toward

religion in both America's mass media and judicial systems. Gedicks further points out

that such Americans cite Federal District and Supreme Court rulings on the separation

clause as evidence of such hostility. For this reason, and because this study analyzes

media coverage of what many consider to be a church-vs.-state issue, a legal

consequences frame is included in research question one.

RQ1: Will newspapers frame the Intelligent Design debate in school boards more

as science, religion, educational consequences, political involvement, or legal

consequences? Which of the five will be the dominant frame?

Intelligent Design proponents typically shy away from Creationist and

Fundamentalist labels to describe the movement in general, and themselves in particular.

Martin et al. (2004), however, found that more than half of newspaper articles covering

ID used such descriptors at least once. Research questions two and three deal with this

nomenclature.

RQ2: To what extent will journalists use "Creationist" and "Fundamentalist" terms

and descriptors in portraying the Intelligent Design debate in Ohio's school board?

RQ3: Are use of "Creationist" and/or "Fundamentalist" descriptors/terms frequent

predictors of tone?

Since the Scopes Trial in Dayton County Tennessee took place in 1925,

controversies involving evolution and Creation have received large amounts of national

media coverage. Perhaps most famously, journalist H.L. Mencken traveled to Tennessee









during the Scopes Trial and wrote columns highly critical of the lifestyles and education

of those opposing evolution (Ingraham, 2003). Similarly, when the Kansas school board

voted to de-emphasize evolution in 1999, criticism rained on the Midwestern state from

publications the country wide (Byrne, 1999). Much of this negative coverage came from

sources outside of Kansas; one headline from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette cautioned

"Don't let Creationists Corrupt Science Standards" (Kristalka, 2001, p.1). Research

questions four and five deal with differences in coverage between Ohio-based sources

and those located elsewhere.

RQ4: Is the location of the news source a frequent predictor of overall article tone?

In other words, are news sources outside of Ohio more likely to publish negative, positive

or neutral coverage of the school board debate?

RQ5: Are sources outside of Ohio more or less likely to use Creationist and/or

Fundamentalist descriptors?

One of the criticisms of scientific coverage in the mass media involves journalists'

tendency to present new scientific developments with unwarranted acceptance and

validation (Friedman, Dunwoody & Rogers). Research Question six involves scientific

uncertainty vs. acceptance in newspaper coverage of Ohio's school-board debate.

RQ6: Does newspaper coverage of the Ohio school board controversy present

Intelligent Design more with scientific uncertainty, scientific denial or scientific

acceptance?

One of the central debates of the Intelligent Design movement is that of religion vs.

science. In fact, many books and journal articles written on the topic of ID serve to

debate this very tandem (Peterson, 2002). Research question seven addresses this debate.






29


RQ7: Is the Intelligent Design debate in public schools portrayed more as a

religious issue or as a scientific issue?















CHAPTER 3
METHODS

This study analyzed newspaper coverage of a public school board debate on

Intelligent Design, which took place from 2000 to 2004; these dates ranged from the

beginning of the school board controversy in Ohio to its completion, signified by the

boards' passage of the Academic Freedom Act of 2004. Methodology consisted of

quantitative content analysis.

Sample

The entire newspaper article was the unit of analysis for this study (N=268), except

when the tone of each frame was analyzed. In those cases, the unit of analysis was an

individual frame. The sample consisted of hard news articles (n=125), columns (n=42),

editorials (n=24) and letters to the editor (n=77), while book reviews and community

calendar items were pared from the sample. Full text articles were garnered from the

LexisNexis database using the following search terms: "Intelligent Design" paired with

the term "Ohio." Articles were collected from the "major newspapers" designation under

the "General News" category under the "U.S. News" heading of the LexisNexis archive.

Impertinent articles (such as those dealing with "intelligent design" in architecture) were

not included in the sample. Articles in the sample ranged from April 14, 2000 to April 8,

2004.

Coding Instrument and Coding Scheme

The coding instrument was constructed from categories used in prior literature

examining the relationship between religion and science in the media (Martin et al.,









2004;Kerr & Moy, 2002; Huckins, 1999; Friedman, Dunwoody, Rogers, 1999; Silk,

1995; Kelstedt, Lyman, and Smidt, 1991). Considering such research and the current

research questions, categories were developed to analyze the units of analysis.

The codesheet (Appendix A) consisted of the following categories: (1) Coder

name; (2) Article number; (3) Article date; (4) Publication of article; (5) Location of

publication; (6) Word Count; (7) Type of Article (hard news, column, editorial, etc.); (8)

Location/Section article appeared in; (9) Article Headline; (10) Overall tone of article;

(11) Use of "Creationist" terms (presence of words Creationist or Creationism); (12) Use

of "Creationist" descriptors (specifically using the word Creationism or Creationist to

refer to Intelligent Design proponents); (12) Creationist count (number of times

Creationist terms and/or descriptors were used); (13) Use of "Fundamentalist" terms

(presence of words Fundamentalist or Fundamentalism); (14) Use of "Fundamentalist"

descriptors (specifically using the words Fundamentalist or Fundamentalism to describe

ID proponents); (15) Fundamentalist count (number of times Fundamentalist terms and/or

descriptors were used); (16) Scientific uncertainty, scientific acceptance or scientific

denial; (17) Scientific vs. religious portrayal (whether the article generally treated the

Intelligent Design movement/ID conference as a scientific or religious

movement/conference); (18) Memorable quote (coders were asked to provide any

sentence/statement from the article that was particularly grabbing, biting, poignant, etc.).

The final categories addressed the presence/absence of five frames: science, religion,

education, political involvement and legal consequences. Coders also indicated the tone

of frames, when the frames were present in the story. Also, coders were asked to indicate

which one of these five frames was dominant.









Coders documented coding decisions on printed codesheets (Appendix A),

whereby they coded the articles by hand, and the decisions were later entered into a

statistical software package. The coders, two college graduates outside of the

communications discipline, were given codebooks (Appendix B) containing all categories

and specific instructions of how to code each article. Coders were instructed to work

alone but consulted with the researcher when specific problems came up. Coders were

told to read the article as many times as needed in order to analyze it accurately.

Coders analyzed a random sub-sample of roughly 5 to 10 percent of the sample (14

articles) to test intercoder reliability, which was 0.86, and was obtained using Holstis'

formula. This sub-sample was randomly stratified in order to include hard news articles,

editorials, columns and letters to the editors.

Omnibus tests of significance were conducted using cross-tabulations of the

categorical variables and subsequent Chi-square tests of independence. The Cramer's V

statistic was obtained to measure the strength of the association between categorical

variables. Adjusted Standardized Residuals were obtained to determine where the most

significant differences were in respective contingency tables. Adjusted standardized

residuals (ASR's) act as z-scores and indicate significant differences between certain

cells in a contingency table. ASR's greater than 11.96| are significant at an alpha level of

.05.






Intercoder reliability was calculated using Holsti's formula: IR=2M/(N1+N2), where M is the number of
agreements between the coders, NI is the total number of coding decisions made by Coder 1 and N2 is the total
number of coding decisions made by Coder 2.














CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

A total of 266 articles were published and then made available on the Lexis Nexis

database during the roughly four years of controversy over public school science

standards in Ohio. The sample consisted of hard news articles (n=125), columns (n=42),

editorials (n=24) and letters to the editor (n=77). Table 4-1 contains basic frequencies.

Article Tone

Hypothesis one predicted that the tone of newspaper coverage of the Intelligent

Design debate in public schools would be negative, and that tone would differ across

news type. Hypothesis one was not fully supported, although negative coverage did

outnumber positive coverage; the tone of the majority of the coverage was neutral

(48.5%), followed closely by negative coverage (38.8%), and finally by positive coverage

(12.3%). Also, the tone of the articles did not differ across article type quite as

predicted. Please see Table 4-1 for these results.

The tone of the articles differed significantly across news type (X2 (6, N=268) =

153.207, p<.0001), and the association was moderate to strong (Cramer's V = .536,

p<.0001). Adjusted standardized residuals indicate that hard news articles tended to be

significantly neutral (86.4%), letters to the editor tended to be negative (55.8%) or

positive (32.5%), and columns (69%) and editorials (73.9%) tended to be negative.

Frames

Research question one asked if newspapers would frame the Intelligent Design

debate in school boards more as science, religion, educational consequences, political









involvement, or legal consequences, and also which of these five frames would be

dominant over all. Overwhelmingly, the most common central, organizing frame

journalists used to cover the ID controversy in Ohio's public schools was science (present

in 82.8% of the articles). Educational consequences was the next most common frame

(present in 60.4% of articles), followed by Religion (51.5%) and Political Involvement

(16.8%), and finally Legal Consequences (4.90%). In addition to listing all the frames

present in the articles, coders also were asked to choose one of the five frames that was

dominant overall. The most common dominant frame in the articles was Science

(dominant in 48.9% of all articles). Educational Consequences was dominant in 25.9%

of all articles, Religion in 16.5%, Political Involvement in 6.8%, and Legal Consequences

was dominant in 1.9% of all articles.

Religion frames were overwhelmingly negative (74.1% Negative; 8.6% Positive;

17.3% Neutral), as were Science frames (57.4% Negative; 12.6% Positive; 29.6%

Neutral). Educational Consequences frames were mostly neutral (51.2% Neutral; 37.2%

Negative; 11.6% Positive), and so too were Political Involvement frames (77.8% Neutral;

20% Negative; 2.2% Positive). Legal Consequences frames were mostly neutral (50.0%

Neutral; 35.7% Positive; 14.3% Negative). Please see Table 4-1 for these results.

Creationist and Fundamentalist Terms and Descriptors

Research question two regarded the extent to which journalists used "Creationist"

and "Fundamentalist" terms and descriptors in portraying the ID debate in Ohio's school

board.

Creationist terms were present in roughly half (49.3%) of the articles in the sample,

and Creationist descriptors nearly as often (43.3%). Fundamentalist terms were present

in just 4.5% of all articles, and Fundamentalist descriptors were used in 3.0% of all









articles in the sample. Please see Table 4-1 for these results. Creationist terms were

present in a majority of hard news articles (53.6%) and editorials (66.7%). Such terms

were present in exactly half of all columns (50.0%), and in a minority of letters to the

editor (36.4%).

Research question three asked whether "Creationist" and/or "Fundamentalist"

descriptors/terms are frequent predictors of tone.

The presence of Creationist terms differed significantly across categories of article

tone (X2 (2, N=267) = 7.78, p=.02). The association between these two variables was

moderate (Cramer's V = .171, p= .02). Roughly half (50.8%) of articles neutral toward

ID contained Creationist terms, while more than half of negative articles (54.8%)

contained Creationist terms. Adjusted standardized residuals suggest that the significant

differences in this contingency table (see Table 4-3) lie in positive articles; Creationist

terms were present in just 27.3% of articles positive toward ID.

The presence/absence of Creationist descriptors in articles covering the Intelligent

Design movement was associated slightly more with article tone [X2 (2, N=267) = 10.97,

p=.004); Cramer's V = .203, p< .004] than was the presence of Creationist terms.

Approximately half of all articles negative toward ID (51%) contained Creationist

descriptors, that is, they contained specific references to the ID movement or its

proponents as "Creationist(s)." Again, the most significant differences in this cross-

tabulation (see Table 4-4) lie in relation to positive articles; Creationist descriptors were

present in only 18.2% of articles positive toward Intelligent Design. Because

Fundamentalist terms were present in only 4.5% of all articles, cross-tabulation of

presence/absence of such terms and article tone was not feasible.









Location of Publication and Treatment of the Intelligent Design Controversy

Research question four asked if the location of the news source is a frequent

predictor of overall article tone.

The tone of articles on the school-board controversy over ID differed for articles

inside and outside the state of Ohio, although the relationship between these variables is

somewhat modest [X2 (2, N=267) = 10.40, p=.006); Cramer's V = .197, p = .006]. Forty-

two percent of articles from publications outside Ohio were negative toward Intelligent

Design, none were positive, and more than half (57.9%) were neutral. Regarding articles

published inside Ohio, the distribution was somewhat more evenly divided; roughly half

(46.2%) of articles published in Ohio were neutral, 38.l1% were negative and 15.7% were

positive. Please see table 4-5 for these results.

Research question five asked whether or not sources outside of Ohio were more or

less likely to use Creationist and/or Fundamentalist descriptors.

The presence of Creationist terms differed between Ohio-based sources and those

located outside Ohio (X2 (1, N=268) = 8.78 p=.003) and the association between these

two variables was modest (Cramer's V = .181, p=.003). Sources located outside Ohio

used Creationist terms in coverage of the Intelligent Design controversy 66.7 percent of

the time, while sources inside Ohio used such terms in just 44.5 percent of the articles.

Please see table 4-6 for these results.

The relationship between the location of the publication and the presence/absence

of Creationist descriptors was not as strong [(X2 (1, N=268) = 4.875, p=.027); Cramer's

V = .135]. Articles from sources within Ohio contained Creationist descriptors 39.8

percent of the time, while Creationist descriptors were present in 56.l1% of articles from









sources outside Ohio. (Again, Fundamentalist terms and descriptors were not present in

enough articles for contingency tables to be feasible). Please see table 4-7 for these

results.

Scientific Uncertainty, Scientific Acceptance and Scientific Denial

Research question six asked whether newspaper coverage of the Ohio school-board

controversy would present ID with scientific uncertainty, scientific denial or scientific

acceptance.

Newspaper articles covering the Intelligent Design controversy in Ohio's public

schools generally presented ID as scientifically uncertain (42.5%), while a substantial

minority of articles presented ID with outright scientific denial (37.3%). A small

minority of articles (10.4%) presented ID with scientific acceptance. Please see Table 4-

1 for these results.

Scientific acceptance vs. scientific uncertainty and denial differed across type of

newspaper article (X2 (9, N=268) = 88.896, p<.001) and the association between these

two variables was substantial (Cramer's V = .333,p<.001). Hard news articles generally

presented the ID controversy in Ohio as scientifically uncertain (60.0%), but also

presented the controversy with a substantial amount of scientific denial (17.6%). Very

few hard news articles granted ID scientific acceptance (4.0%). Half of all letters to the

editor (50.6%) presented ID with scientific denial, while a fourth (26.0%) granted ID

scientific acceptance. Roughly a fifth (19.5%) of letters to the editor presented ID with

scientific uncertainty. More columns presented ID with scientific denial (57.1%) than

with scientific uncertainty (35.7%), and only a handful of columns extended scientific

acceptance (7.1%) to ID during the Ohio controversy. Editorials were perhaps the most









skeptical of ID, as 62.5 percent cast scientific denial toward the movement. More than a

third of all columns (37.5%) presented ID with scientific uncertainty, and not one (0.0%)

presented ID with scientific acceptance. Please see Table 4-8 for these results.

Scientific vs. Religious portrayal

Research question seven asked whether or not the ID debate in public schools

would be portrayed more as a religious issue or as a scientific issue.

Newspaper articles covering ID controversy in Ohio's public schools generally

portrayed ID as a scientific (41.4%) issue, but portrayed ID as a religious issue nearly as

frequently (39.6%).











Table 4-1, Frequencies

Percent Number


Type of newspaper article
News Articles 46.6% 125
Letters to the Editor 28.7 77
Editorials 9.0 24
Columns 15.7 42
Article tone
Positive Tone 12.3% 33
Neutral Tone 48.5 130
Negative Tone 38.8 104
Location of article
Inside Ohio 78.7% 211
Outside of Ohio 21.3 57
Presence of creationist terms
Present 49.3% 132
Absent 50.7 136
Presence of creationist descriptors
Present 43.3% 116
Absent 56.7 152
Fundamentalist terms
Present 4.50% 12
Absent 95.5% 256
Scientific Acceptance vs. Scientific Uncertainty
Scientific Uncertainty 42.5% 114

Scientific Acceptance 10.4 28
Scientific Denial 37.3 100
Unable to Tell 9.7 26
Scientific vs. religious portrayal
Scientific 41.4% 111
Religious 39.6 106
Unable to Tell 17.9 48
Frames present in articles
Religion 51.5% 138
Educational Consequences 60.4% 162
Political Involvement Frame 16.8% 45
Science Frame 82.8% 222
Legal Consequences 4.90% 13
Tone of frames
Religion
Negative 74.1% 103
Positive 8.60 12
Neutral 17.3 24
Educational Consequences
Negative 37.2% 61
Positive 11.6 19
Neutral 51.2 84







40


Table 4-1, Continued

Political involvement
Negative 20.0% 9
Positive 2.2 1
Neutral 77.8 35
Science
Negative 57.4% 128
Positive 12.6 28
Neutral 29.6 66
Legal consequences
Negative 14.3% 2
Positive 35.7 5
Neutral 50.0 7
Dominant frame in articles
Religion 16.4% 44
Educational Consequences 25.7 69
Political Involvement 6.7 18
Science 48.5 130
Legal Consequences 1.9 5


N=268










Table 4-2, Tone of Article across Type of News Article


Article Type
Hard News Letters to the Editor
Article Tone
Negative n=15 43

12.0% 55.8%
ASR= -4.8 ASR= 2.4
Positive 2 25

1.6% 32.5%
ASR= -3.4 ASR= 5.0
Neutral 108 9

86.4% 11.7%
ASR= 6.0 ASR= -4.7

n= 125 77
Total 100% 100%o

Chi Square (6, N = 267) = 153.207 p <.0001
Cramer's V = .536, p<.0001


Columns Editorials


69.0%
ASR= 3.1
5

11.9%
ASR= -.10
8

19.0%
ASR= -2.8


42
100%


17

73.9%
ASR= 2.7
1

4.3%
ASR = -1.1
5

21.7%
ASR= -1.9

23
100%


Adjusted Residuals (ASR) > 11.96| are significant at a<.05









Table 4-3, Presence of Creationist Terms across Article Tone

Article Tone
Negative Positive Neutral
Presence/Absence of Terms
Creationist Terms Present n=57 9 66

54.8%% 27.3% 50.8%
ASR= 1.4 ASR= -2.7 ASR= .4
Creationist Terms Absent 47 24 64

45.2% 72.7% 49.2%
ASR= -1.4 ASR= 2.7 ASR= -.4

n= 104 33 130
Total 100% 100% 100%


Chi Square (2, N = 267) = 7.78, p = .02
Cramer's V = .171, p = .02


Adjusted Residuals (ASR) > 11.96| are significant at a<.05









Table 4-4, Presence of Creationist Descriptors across Article Tone

Article Tone
Negative Positive Neutral
Presence of Creationist Descriptors ____________
Creationist Descriptors Present n=53 6 57

51% 18.2% 43.8%
ASR =1.2 ASR = -2.2 ASR = .1
Creationist Descriptors Absent 51 27 73

49.0% 81.8% 56.2%
ASR = -1.0 ASR = 1.9 ASR = -.1

n= 104 33 130
Total 100% 100% 100%


Chi Square (2, N = 267) = 10.97 p
Cramer's V = .203, p = .004


Adjusted Residuals (ASR) > 11.96| are significant at a<.05









Table 4-5, Location of Publication across Article Tone


Article Tone
Negative Positive Neutral Total
Location of Publication
Publication Located in Ohio n=80 33 97 210

38.1% 15.7% 46.2% 100%
ASR = -.2 ASR = 1.4 ASR = -.5
Publication Located outside of Ohio 24 0 33 57

42.1% 0.0% 57.9% 100%
ASR = .4 ASR = -2.7 ASR = 1.0


Chi Square (2, N = 267) = 10.97 p = .004
Cramer's V = .203, p = .004


Adjusted Residuals (ASR) > 11.96| are significant at a<.05









Table 4-6, Location of Publication across Presence of Creationist Terms

Presence/Absence of Creationist Terms


Creationist Terms
Present
n=94

44.5%
ASR = -1.0
38

66.7%
ASR = 1.9


Chi Square (1, N = 268) = 8.783, p = .003
Cramer's V =.181, p = .003


Adjusted Residuals (ASR) > 11.96| are significant at a<.05


Location of Publication
Publication Located in Ohio



Publication Located outside of
Ohio


Creationist Terms
Absent Total
117 n=211

55.5% 100%
ASR= 1.0
19 n=57

33.3% 100%
ASR = -1.8









Table 4-7, Location of Publication across Presence of Creationist Descriptors

Presence/Absence of Creationist Descriptors
Creationist Descriptors Creationist Descriptors Total
Present Absent
Location of Publication
Publication Located in n=84 127 n=211
Ohio
39.8% 60.2% 100%
ASR -.8 ASR= .7
Publication Located outside 32 25 n=57
of Ohio
56.1% 43.9% 100%
ASR= 1.5 ASR =-1.3


Chi Square (1, N= 268)= 4.875, p = .027
Cramer's V =.135, p = .027


Adjusted Residuals (ASR) > 11.96| are significant at a<.05










Table 4-8, Scientific Acceptance/Uncertainty across Article Type


Hard News
Scientific Uncertainty
Vs. Scientific Acceptance
Scientific Uncertainty n=75

60.0%
ASR =3.0
Scientific Acceptance 5

4.0%
ASR = -2.2
Scientific Denial 22

17.6%
ASR = -3.6
Unable to Tell 23

18.4%
ASR = 3.1

n= 125
Total 100%


Article Type
Letters to the
Editor

15


19.5%
ASR =
20

26.0%
ASR =
39

50.6%
ASR =
3

3.9%
ASR=

77
100%


-3.1




4.2




1.9



-1.6


Chi Square (9, N = 268) = 88.896, p < .001
Cramer's V = .333, p < .001


Adjusted Residuals (ASR) > 11.96| are significant at a<.05


Columns


Editorials


15 9

35.7% 37.5%
ASR =-.7 ASR= -.4
3 0

7.1% 0.0%
-.7 ASR =-1.6
24 15

57.1% 62.5%
ASR = 2.1 ASR = -2.0
0 0

0.0% 0.0%
ASR = -2.0 ASR = -1.5

42 24
100% 100%














CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION

Overall, newspaper coverage of the Intelligent Design controversy in public

schools was fairly balanced. Roughly half of all coverage was neutral, and the remaining

half was either negative or positive. When Martin et al. (2004) examined the universe of

major newspaper coverage of the ID movement, they found that the majority of the

coverage was negative. The current study seems to suggest, then, that media coverage of

ID is becoming somewhat more objective or, at least, was somewhat more objective in

the case of Ohio.

Hard news articles tended to be overwhelmingly neutral, editorials, columns and

letters to the editor tended to be more negative than positive. Martin et al. found similar

results, although letters to the editor in their study tended to be strongly positive toward

Intelligent Design, a trend which possibly suggests public support for ID. In the case of

Ohio, however, letters to the editor published in major newspapers did not seem to

parallel public opinion as closely as one might have anticipated (after all, a Gallup poll

cited earlier in this paper suggested that 65 percent of Ohioans favored the inclusion of

ID in public school curricula). A seemingly large number of academics weighed in on

the debate; one biochemist from Ohio State University said that "there is no. scientific

literature supporting the concept of Intelligent Design," (Schoenberg, 2000, p.2).

Another professor, one of entomology, proclaimed that "Evolutionary theory receives

virtually unanimous support among scientists in general," (Wenzel, 2004, p.1).









Perhaps fewer Ohioans supported the idea of Intelligent Design in public schools

than did residents of Kansas and Alabama, where similar controversies unfolded. Ohio

may be less of a religious stronghold than these two states. Still, there was a marked

difference between the tone of editorials and that of letters to the editor, suggesting a

substantial difference between public support for ID and support from journalists. Since

editorials are the collective views of newspapers, some researchers (see Hindman, 2003)

have used editorials to gauge media opinion on certain topics. In the case of the

Intelligent Design controversy in Ohio's public schools, the collective, journalistic stance

on ID's presence in public schools was noticeably different than that expressed in letters

to editors of major newspapers. One Columbus Dispatch editorial ("Don't Compromise,"

2002, March 12) flat-out called Intelligent Design "unscientific," while referring to

Darwinian evolution as strict science. Another editorial in The New York Times

("Darwinian struggle in Ohio, 2002, March 17) admonished that, "No theory" advocating

"the supernatural," belongs in public schools.

A 2002 Gallup poll conducted in Ohio suggested that a majority of Ohioans

supported the inclusion of Intelligent Design in public schools, yet the majority of letters

published on this topic were critical of the movement. A greater percentage of letters to

the editor, however, were positive than that of hard news coverage, columns or editorials.

This likely represents the differences between Ohioans' feelings about ID's inclusion in

public school curricula and that of journalists'.

In terms of framing, "Science" was the central, organizing theme used to present

the Intelligent Design controversy in Ohio's public schools. One New York Times article

(Glanz, 2002) devoted 708 words to describing the scientific arguments that one Case









Western Reserve University professor and ID advocate makes. This was common in the

articles; journalists frequently covered the scientific positions of advocates on either side

of the controversy.

Friedman, Dunwoody and Rogers (1999) complained that journalists present new

scientific movements with unwarranted certainty. They did not, however, act as casually

in the case of the Ohio controversy. So while journalists mainly discussed the scientific

evidence surrounding ID, they did so with skepticism and without giving the movement

undue credit. For example, in The New York Times article cited above, Glanz (p.1)

discussed an ID proponents' idea, but also criticized him by saying "he drifted outside his

field and began proposing radical revisions to some basic laws of physics." In this case,

Glanz appears to have overstepped his journalistic role, but much of the coverage of the

ID controversy was scientifically skeptical and harsh in this way. Starr (2002) argued that

editors, as well as professors in journalism schools, have recently emphasized the

importance of detailed and quality science reporting, a genre of journalism that is

growing. The results of this study seem to support Starr's assertion in a mixed way;

skeptical scientific exposition was evident in much of the coverage of the ID controversy

in Ohio, but sometimes that coverage was harsh to proponents on one side of the debate.

"Educational Consequences" was the next most common organizing theme present

in the articles. This may help explain why the coverage was, overall, reasonably

balanced; journalists tended to discuss the scientific pros and cons of the ID controversy

in terms of scientific evidence. Journalists also discussed the educational implications of

the scientific controversy in mainly descriptive, not speculative, terms. One Washington

Post article's (2002, p.1) headline read, "Ohio may debate evolution in schools; theory's









flaws could be taught," and this article framed ID in terms of its educational

consequences.

Religion frames were also present a great deal in the articles. This makes sense;

Intelligent Design is an inherently religious idea, and coverage of the controversy

drummed up heavy questions. One article ("Matters of fact vs. matters of faith," p.1,

2002, June 4, p.1) which contained a religion frame asked, "Could a guiding force be

behind evolution? Of course, but ... the Intelligent Design theory merits discussion in a

philosophy or religion class, where discussions of faith, belief and other nonscientific

inquiries into life's mysteries are appropriate."

Journalists did not frequently employ "Political Involvement" and "Legal

Consequences" as central organizing themes of stories. This may also be a good thing;

journalists discussed ID in terms of its scientific merits and in terms of the educational

implications of its inclusion in public schools.

In terms of the tone of the frames, Science and Religion frames tended to be more

negative than positive -something that may again reflect the uncertainty with which

reporters approached the ID controversy-and Educational Consequences, Political

Involvement and Legal Consequences frames tended to be neutral. That Religion frames

were by far the most negative, central organizing theme used to present the ID

controversy lends itself to the fact that ID proponents describe ID as a scientific

discipline with scientific merits. ID adherent William Dembski (2004) argues that

although ID is religious in nature, it is a scientific, not a religious, idea. It makes sense,

then, that attempts to frame ID as a Religious movement would be negative. One column

from The Columbus Dispatch (Lauritzen, 2002, p. 13) contained Religion as the dominant









frame and demanded, "Intelligent Design isn't just bad science, it isn't science at all."

Gitlin (1980, p.7) claimed that frames are "largely unspoken and unacknowledged," and

they "organize the world for both journalists who report it and, in some important degree,

for us who rely on their reports." The central organizing themes emphasized in the

articles covering the ID controversy seemed to help organize this "world" for the

journalists and possibly for consumers who were exposed to coverage of this world.

Journalists do, however, tend to "organize" the "world" in different ways by selecting

some aspects of an issue for presentation over others. In the case of ID, journalists

tended to select scientific aspects surrounding the movement, as well as aspects involving

the educational consequences of ID.

While it appears that journalists did a fairly decent job maintaining balance in their

coverage of the ID controversy in public schools, they managed to do so without using

the most ostensibly neutral language to describe ID. Half of the articles under

examination in this study contained "Creationist" terms, and more than 40 percent of

articles contained "Creationist" descriptors. An example of a Creationist term can be

found in an article from The Columbus Dispatch (Lore, 2002, February 10, p.1), when an

ID advocate was explaining his position: "We're not a Creationist group; we don't want

Creationism in the schools." Creationist descriptors, however, were more direct, like the

following tag applied to ID in a Chicago Sun Times article ("Public schools are no place

for the 4th 'R,"' 2002, February 17, p.1). : "Creationism .. now going by the name

Intelligent Design." ID proponents typically defy this nomenclature and, indeed, many of

the articles mentioned the differences between ID adherents and their Creationist









predecessors. More than four in ten articles, however, specifically described either ID

advocates or the ID movement itself as "Creationist."

Fundamentalist terms and descriptors were much less common and were, in fact,

negligible. One reason for this may lie in the common use of the term "fundamentalist."

This word is commonly employed to describe fundamentalist Islam, and journalists may

be less likely to casually apply it to ID proponents. The whole of Intelligent Design

coverage from the late 80s to 2003 contained "fundamentalist" terms in roughly 12

percent of its coverage (Martin et al., 2004), but such terms were far less common in the

current study.

One reason that ID proponents shy away from Creationist and fundamentalist labels

is that they claim such terms are loaded and preclude journalistic balance. Cross-tabs of

the presence/absence of Creationist terms and article tone seem to bolster this assertion.

Articles containing Creationist terms were far more likely to be negative than positive.

The presence of Creationist descriptors was even more strongly associated with article

tone. When Walter Lippmann (1922) made common the word "stereotypes" as tools

journalists use to classify groups of people and to avoid detailed descriptions of group

members, he was referring to this kind of categorization. Many headlines of the articles

in this sample which were negative contained categorical, Creationist descriptors, like the

following headline from a Columbus Dispatch article (Durbin, 2000, April 15):

"Creationism doesn't meet criteria for science classes." Whether a large number of

journalists are deliberately applying these labels to ID proponents to shed doubt on the

movement or whether these labels are simply useful ways to convey the religious









advocacy among ID's followers, such words appear to affect the overall tone of the

coverage.

Another aspect of major newspaper coverage of the ID controversy that apparently

affected the tone of the coverage was the location of the publication. Newspapers outside

Ohio were slightly more likely to publish articles negative toward the ID movement or, at

least, treated ID negatively in terms of the Ohio controversy. Amazingly, one article

from The Boston Globe (Falk, 2001, p.1) which was supposed to be hard news, had a

headline describing ID as a "pseudo-scientific challenge to evolutionary theory." Not one

article from outside Ohio was positive to ID in terms of the controversy in Ohio. In

Dayton County, Tennessee in 1925, when the Scopes trial brought the Darwinian

evolution controversy taking place in public schools to national attention, many elite

journalists traveled to Tennessee to cover the story. Many of these journalists were

disdainful of the positions taken by Creationists in Tennessee, and one journalist in

particular, H.L. Mencken, brutally ridiculed the "Bible-thumpers" in the land he would

eventually dub the "Bible belt." One imagines, although one cannot be sure, that

coverage of the Scopes Trial by newspapers in Tennessee might have been somewhat

more temperate than the coverage of outside journalists like Mencken and others.

Proximity seems to matter in journalism. The closer journalists get to a given

controversy, the more moderate and, sometimes, the more favorable their coverage of the

controversy becomes. Take the stroke of brilliance exercised by Bush administration

officials by embedding American journalists in Iraq during the first five weeks of conflict

in spring 2004; these journalists saw up close the determination exhibited by American









men and women in the armed forces. Coverage from these journalists was positive at

times and, even sometimes, fawning.

In the case of ID in Ohio, though, the influence of proximity on the tone of the

coverage may have been mediated by the fact that a majority of Ohioans supported ID's

inclusion in public school curricula. These Ohioans did, after all, write a great deal of

letters to the editor expressing such support, while letters on the Ohio controversy were

very rarely published, say, in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette or The New York Times.

Whatever the mediating factors, though, articles outside of Ohio were harsher on ID and

on its potential inclusion in public schools. One hard news article from The Australian

(2002) offered a headline that snidely remarked that the Ohio controversy was "unholy."

In line with the findings on publication location and article tone, articles located

outside of Ohio were much more likely to use Creationist terms and descriptors. This

again suggests, albeit it indirectly, that Creationist terms and descriptors share an

association with negative coverage of the ID controversy in Ohio. Journalists in Ohio

were less likely to use purportedly loaded terms to describe ID and its proponents, while

journalists outside the state were more likely to use such stereotypical terms that

Lippmann (1922) decried in Public Opinion. In an article published in The Ottawa

Citizen, one journalist used Creationist terms and descriptors six times in discussing the

ID controversy. An article in The Observer used such terms seven times.

The question of whether journalists presented ID with scientific uncertainty,

scientific acceptance or scientific denial was mentioned a bit earlier in this discussion;

journalists tended overwhelmingly to present ID with scientific uncertainty or outright

scientific denial. This type of coverage consisted of just under eight tenths of the entire









sample. Ten percent of the articles presented ID with scientific acceptance. The facts

that journalists were highly skeptical of ID during the Ohio controversy and few articles

seemed to extend scientific acceptance to the theory may suggest one of two things.

First, it may suggest that, unlike the claims of Wilkins (1999) and others (see also Singer

& Endreny, 1993), journalists are turning away from their old habits of lending undue

credence to new scientific developments in general. These findings may very well,

however, suggest that journalists were less accepting of the scientific claims of Intelligent

Design in particular. Intelligent Design carries with it undeniably religious implications,

and journalists are generally less religious than the average American. It may make

sense, then, that journalists treated the ID controversy with less certainty than they

frequently grant other scientific movements.

While journalists presented ID in the Ohio controversy with perhaps more scientific

denial that they should have, hard news articles, more than any other article type,

presented ID with scientific uncertainty. This suggests again that journalists did a fairly

good job of maintaining balance in hard news coverage of the ID controversy. Letters to

the editor were much more likely to extend scientific acceptance to Intelligent Design

during the controversy than were either columns or letters to the editor. This again

indicates a rift between public opinion about the ID controversy and journalists

sentiments about the debate. Thankfully and for the most part, journalists were able to

keep these sentiments about ID out of hard news coverage.

Newspaper articles covering the Intelligent Design controversy in Ohio's public

schools tended to portray the debate as one of science, and portrayed the debate as one

over religion almost as often. This is interesting for several reasons. First, the actual









debate that took place in the school board was largely scientific. In fact, according to

some members of the Ohio school board and professors who testified before the school

board, religious arguments and debate over religion were invoked somewhat infrequently

during the hearings before the board. Journalists, though, portrayed the ID debate as one

over religion as frequently as they portrayed the debate as over science. The controversy

between Intelligent Design and Darwinian Evolution inevitably energizes -almost

viscerally- some of life's most fundamental questions (Why am I alive?; Who or what

created me?; What process created me?) and, perhaps, is different from virtually any

other controversy. Journalists could not seem to keep from proposing some of these

religious and philosophical questions in their articles and, in so doing, portrayed the ID

controversy as one of religious debate. What is also interesting here is the parity between

the portrayal of the debate as one over science and religion. ID proponents cannot deny,

and indeed do not deny, the religious implications of their theory. These advocates are,

generally speaking, religious individuals who practice science both inside and outside of

the academic community as a way to confront Darwinian evolution. They are, then,

scientists who use evidence to oppose naturalistic evolution and evidence which supports

the notion of a Creator, a religious argument. This parity journalists offered during the

Ohio controversy, then, may be a somewhat accurate reflection of what the debate over

life's origins actually is. So, while portraying the controversy in Ohio as one over

religion may not have perfectly mirrored reality in the Buckeye State, this portrayal may

have been fair and realistic in terms of the ID debate as a whole.

Limitations

In a perfect world, this study would have been able to analyze TV news coverage of

the ID controversy in Ohio as well as print newspaper coverage. One might predict that









televised coverage would emphasize less the scientific and religious aspects of ID and

instead discuss the movement in terms of educational consequences and public policy,

but this is only speculation. It was not possible to examine televised coverage in this

study because of financial and time constraints.

In addition to coverage on the controversy in Ohio, it seems desirable to consider

coverage from a similar controversy in Texas. It would be interesting to compare

coverage of ID from a progressive state like Ohio with coverage from a southern, more

conservative state like Texas. Again, time constraints precluded this comparison.

Future research might also include a category on the codesheet that looks at the

philosophy of the origins of life in some way. Many of the articles in this sample,

particularly letters to the editor, exhibited philosophizing on the part of the letter writer or

journalist. The origins of life debate forces many people to ask deep, philosophical

questions, and I think the consistent presence of such pensiveness in the sample warrants

investigation. The ID controversy is somewhat forceful as well as unique in the

questions it raises, and it might be interesting to examine patterns of such deep questions

in journalistic coverage of the movement.

Future Research

Future research should look at more than just newspaper coverage of ID and related

controversies. Local news affiliates in Ohio likely covered the ID controversy on a

consistent basis; the controversy did, after all, drag on for several years. Other research

in the future may want to test some of the coverage of ID and related controversies using

experimental designs. For example, because some of the current research on media and

religion does not clearly demonstrate whether words like "Creationist" and

"Fundamentalist" are definitively negative, researchers might want to test identical






59


articles using pretest and posttest designs with the presence of "Creationist" and/or

"Fundamentalist" manipulated as an independent variable.















APPENDIX A
CODESHEET


1) Coder Name

2) Number: Please enter the number of the article you are coding (001, 101, 202, etc.)


3) Date: Please enter the 6 digit date on which the article was published


4) Publication: Please enter the name of the publication in which the article was
published.


5) Location: Please circle whether the publication is located in the state of Ohio or
somewhere else:
0) Ohio
1) Outside of Ohio

6) Word count: Please indicate how many words the article consists of:


7) Article type: please indicate which type of news article you are coding:

0) Hard news
1) Letter to the editor
2) Column
3) Editorial

8) Article placement: Please indicate on which page of the publication the article was
published:



9) Headline: Please write, verbatim, the headline of the article.



10) Article tone: Please indicate if the article was, overall, negative, positive or neutral
toward the Intelligent Design movement.











0) Negative
1) Positive
2) Neutral

11) Creationist Terms: Please indicate whether the article contained the terms
"Creationism," or "Creationist(s)."
0) No
1) Yes

12) Creationist Descriptors: Please indicate whether the article used the terms
"Creationism," or "Creationist(s) specifically to describe the Intelligent Design
movement or its proponents.

0) No
1) Yes

13) Creationist Count: Please indicate how many times the article used "Creationist"
terms/descriptors.



14) Fundamentalist Terms: Please indicate whether the article contained the terms
"Fundamentalist(s)" or "Fundamentalism."

0) No
1) Yes

15) Fundamentalist Descriptors: Please indicate whether the article used the terms
"Fundamentalist(s)" or "Fundamentalism" specifically to describe Intelligent
Design movement
or its proponents.

0) No
1) Yes

16) Fundamentalist Count: Please indicate how many times the article used
"Fundamentalist"
terms/descriptors.



17) Scientific Acceptance vs. Scientific Uncertainty: Please indicate whether the article
generally presented the Intelligent Design movement with scientific acceptance or
uncertainty.









0) Scientific Uncertainty
1) Scientific Acceptance
2) Scientific Denial

18) Scientific vs. Religious portrayal: Please indicate whether the article portrayed the
Intelligent Design movement as a scientific controversy or a religious one.

0) Religious
1) Scientific


19) Memorable Quote: If the article contained a particularly humorous, sarcastic,
poignant, or clever statement/quote of any kind, please record it here:



20) Frames: Please indicate which, if any, of the following frames are among the
central, organizing concepts of the story:

0) Religion
1) Education
2) Political Involvement
3) Science
4) Legal consequences

21) Tone of Religion Frame: If a religion frame was present, please indicate the tone of
the frame:

0) Negative
1) Positive
2) Neutral

22) Tone of Educational Consequences Frame: If a religion frame was present, please
indicate the tone of the frame:

0) Negative
1) Positive
2) Neutral

23) Tone of Political Involvement Frame: If a political involvement frame was present,
please indicate the tone of the frame:

0) Negative
1) Positive
2) Neutral









24) Tone of Science Frame: If a science frame was present, please indicate the tone of the
frame:

0) Negative
1) Positive
2) Neutral

25) Tone of Legal Consequences Frame: If a legal consequences frame was present,
please indicate the tone of the frame:

0) Negative
1) Positive
0) Neutral

26) Dominant Frame: Please indicate which of the five frames is dominant. PLEASE
CHOOSE ONLY ONE

0) Religion
1) Educational Consequences
2) Political Involvement
3) Science
4) Legal consequences














APPENDIX B
CODEBOOK

Please read the article from beginning to end and answer the questions on the

codesheet in the following way. Please feel free to read the article as many times as

needed to accurately analyze the content. Also, if questions or coding problems should

come up, please contact the author of this paper with your concerns (martinjd@ufl.edu).


Coder name: Please enter your first name.

Article number: Please enter the number of the article you are coding. Each article in
the sample was saved as a unique number; please enter that number here.

Article date: Please enter the 6 digit number specifying the date the article was published
("010104," for January 1st, 2004, e.g.).

Publication: Please enter the name of the publication in which the article ran. Do not use
capitals, italics or the word "the."

Location: Please indicate whether this publication is located in the state of Ohio or
whether the publication is located outside of Ohio.

Word count: If you are coding an electronic copy of an article, please copy and paste the
text of the article into Microsoft Word, select "tools," "word count" and then
enter this number. If you are coding a print version of the article, please give your
best estimate, to the ten (370, 230, etc.) of how many words the article contains.

Article type: Please specify the type of article you are coding. Indicate either hard news,
column, editorial or letter to the editor. Hard news typically begins with an
inverted pyramid lead and serves to objectively report a development of some
kind. Columns are opinion pieces written by a specifically named individual.
Editorials are the collective opinions of the publication and do not have one
specific author. Letters to the editor are reader responses.

Location: Please indicate the section and page of the publication in and on which the
article appeared. For instance, if the article appeared on page 17 of the metro
section, please record "metro 17." If the page (say, page 10) of the article is









known but not the section, please record "z 10." If neither is known, simply
record "z."

Headline: Please provide, verbatim, the headline of the article. Do not use capitals or
punctuation of any kind.

Overall tone: Please indicate whether the article covering the school board debate was,
overall, negative, positive, or neutral toward the Intelligent Design movement.
Please do not immediately assume that an article is neutral. Many of the articles
will, of course, be neutral and unbiased toward the Intelligent Design movement,
and it is only appropriate to label them thus. That said, though, coding mass
media messages for tone is a somewhat ambiguous coding decision. After you've
read the entire article, reread the headline. Headlines, while frequently not
written by the journalist themselves and not always indicative of the news that
follows, can often help in coding articles for tone. Headline writers try hard to
capture the main sentiment of the article and, therefore, headlines can be helpful.
Next, look at the sources cited in the article. Journalistic fairness frequently
hinges on the type and number of certain sources cited in an article. If three
sources friendly to the ID movement are cited in the article, but only one source
critical or skeptical of the movement is offered, this imbalance may lend support
to the notion that the article is 'positive.'

Throughout the article, pay attention to diction. That is, pay attention for loaded
words. You are also asked to code for "Creationist" and "Fundamentalist"
descriptors. These words are often loaded and can aid you in your decision.

Researchers understand that coding media messages for tone can be difficult for
even the most trained readers. Simply try your best, though, to make careful
decisions, and try to make such decisions in a consistent manner. Remember, you
can contact the researcher whenever you have questions.

Use of "Creationist" terms: Please indicate whether the article contained the terms
"Creationism," or "Creationist(s)."

Use of "Creationist" descriptors: Please indicate whether the article used the terms
"Creationism," or "Creationist(s) specifically to describe the Intelligent Design
movement or its proponents.

"Creationist" count: Please indicate how many times the article used "Creationist"
terms/descriptors.

Use of "Fundamentalist" terms: Please indicate whether the article contained the terms
"Fundamentalist(s)" or "Fundamentalism."









Use of "Fundamentalist" descriptors: Please indicate whether the article used the terms
"Fundamentalist(s)" or "Fundamentalism" specifically to describe Intelligent
Design movement or its proponents.

"Fundamentalist" count: Please indicate how many times the article used
"Fundamentalist" terms/descriptors.

Scientific acceptance, scientific uncertainty, or scientific denial: Please indicate
whether the article generally presented the Intelligent Design movement with
scientific acceptance or uncertainty. This judgment should generally be based on
whether or not the article presents Intelligent Design as a valid alternative to
Darwinism. Ask yourself, "is the journalist presenting ID as an organized,
legitimate challenge to evolution? Is the journalist depicting the movement as
scientifically uncertain? Is the journalist presenting the movement with scientific
denial?" If the article appears neutral and presents ID as a plausible alternative to
evolution, select "scientific acceptance."

Scientific vs. religious portrayal: Please indicate whether the article portrayed the
Intelligent Design movement more as a scientific controversy or a religious one.
This is a more subjective category. However, if the article mentions the academic
credentials of the speakers (such as holding a PhD or a lectern at a college or
university) then the classification may be scientific. If, on the other hand, the
article refers to ID specifically as a religious movement and/or "philosophical"
and "theological," the classification should be religious.

Memorable quote: If the article contained a particularly humorous, sarcastic, poignant,
or clever statement/quote of any kind, please record it here.

Frames: Please indicate which, if any, of the following frames are among the central,
organizing concepts of the story: religion, science, educational consequences,
political involvement and legal consequences. More than one of these frames can
be present in any given story. When deciding whether or not a certain frame is
present, ask yourself "is this concept central to the story's organization?"

Religion frame: Articles containing a religion frame, for instance, will present
Intelligent Design as a religious issue. Religion frames are present if the article offers a
discussion of the religious implications of ID as a central, organizing theme of the story.
Such an article may discuss religious individuals' support for ID. Often, but not always,
the religion frame is hinted at in the headline of the article or the articles' lead paragraph,
which will sometimes mention the efforts of religious proponents of the ID movement.

Science frame: Articles centrally organized by a science frame will generally
discuss the scientific merits of one or both sides of the ID debate. A science frame is
present, for example, if an article criticizes the scientific tenets of Intelligent Design, but
is also present if it discusses ID's merits, or both pro's and con's.









Educational consequences frame: Articles containing an educational
consequences frame will present the educational implications of ID as a central,
organizing part of the story. Articles discussing educational consequences need not be
only negative. Indeed, one article may describe the educational downfalls of
deemphasizing evolution, while another might describe the educational advantages of
having alternative points of view in Ohio's science classrooms. Other articles might
describe both consequences and be neutral.

Political involvement frame: Articles containing a political involvement will
usually discuss Ohio citizens' efforts to include ID in the state's science curriculum via
influencing the political process or persuading political officials. It may discuss the
efforts of small groups of individuals, like churches, or, it may discuss the efforts of large
groups, like the Boy Scouts of America, or the Family Research Council. In the same
way, articles may also discuss the efforts of opponents of ID to keep the theory out of
Ohio's classrooms. Such articles might discuss pressure being put upon school board
members, state legislators, education commissioners, or even Ohio's gubernatorial
administration. Indication of the political involvement frame, however, is in no way
limited to these specific circumstances.

Legal consequences frame: Articles presented within a legal consequences
frame will, quite simply, discuss the legal consequences of the decision to be made by the
school board of Ohio. Legal consequences frames will generally present the Intelligent
Design debate as well as the controversy in Ohio's public schools as issues between
church (or religious individuals) and the state. Articles organized within a legal
consequences frame, however, may not discuss the church/state issue. Instead, such
articles might only discuss the threats of some pro/anti ID groups to sue or take legal
action following a certain decision. It may also discuss the issue of amending the state
constitution or otherwise changing statutes, but not discuss the church/state issue.
Articles packaged within a legal consequences frame need not be negative or antagonistic
to intelligent design. However, any article which presents the Intelligent Design
controversy within the framework of a legal debate is one presented within this frame.

Tone for each present frame: For each frame that is present within the news story,
please indicate if the tone of that frame was negative, positive or neutral. Specifically,
return if need be to parts of the story that led you select a certain frame as present. Then,
ask yourself if that religious, scientific, organization, etc., of Intelligent Design was
negative, positive or neutral.

Dominant frame: Please indicate which of the five frames is dominant. Ask yourself,
"of the frames that are present, which one is the main, central organizing part of
this news story?" PLEASE CHOOSE ONLY ONE.
















LIST OF REFERENCES

Andsager, J., Powers, A. (1999). Social or economic concerns: how news and women's
Magazines framed breast cancer in the 1990's. Journalism and Mass
Communication Quarterly, 76(3), 531-550.

Armstrong, K. (2004). Resisting modernity. HarvardInternational Review, 25(4), 40.

Arthur, C. (1993). Religion and the media: an introductory reader. Cardiff: University
of Wales Press.

Ashley, L., Olson, B. (1998). Constructing reality: print media's framing of the women's
movement, 1966-1986. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 75(2),
263-277.

Ball-Rokeach, S., Rokeach, M. (1987). The future study of public opinion: a symposium.
Public Opinion Quarterly, 51, 184-185.

Barker, E. (1995). The scientific study of religion? You must be joking, Journalfor the
Scientific Study ofReligion, 34, September, 287-310.

Baylor, T. (1996). Media framing of movement protest: the case of American Indian
protest, Social Science Journal, 33(3), 241-245.

Beck, D.B. (1998). The "F" word: how the media frame feminism. NWSA Journal
10(1), 159-173.

Beckwith, F.J. (2003a). Science and religion twenty years after McLean vs. Arkansas:
evolution,public education and the new challenge of Intelligent Design. Harvard
Journal ofLaw and Public Policy, 26(2), 455-499.

Beckwith, F.J. (2003b). Law, Darwinism and public education: the establishment clause
and the challenge of intelligent design. Rowman and Littlefield, New York,
Oxford.

Ben-Ari, E.T. (1998). Making science news. Bioscience, 48(11), 893-898.

Benford, R., Snow, D., (2000). Framing processes and social movements: an overview
and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611-639.

Bolce, L., DeMaio, G. (2002). Our secularist democratic party. Public Interest, Fall,
149, 3-21.









Bolce, L., DeMaio, G. (1999b). Religious outlook, culture war politics, and antipathy
toward Christian fundamentalists, Public Opinion Quarterly, 63(1) spring, pp. 29-
61.

Brewer, P.R. (2003). Values, political knowledge and public opinion about gay rights: a
framing based account. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67(2), 173.

Brown, D. (2003). The Da Vinci Code. Doubleday, New York.

Buddenbaum, J. (2002). Social science and the study of media and religion: going
forward by looking back, Journal of Media and Religion, 1(1), 13-24.

Buddenbaum, J. (1998). Reporting news about religion: an introduction for journalists.
Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press.

Buddenbaum, J. (1997). How religious are journalists? Nieman Reports, fall, 51(3).

Buddenbaum, J. (1990). Religion news coverage in commercial network newscasts. In
Robert Abelman and Stewart Hoover's (Eds.) Religious Television: Controversies
and Conclusions, Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex.

Buddenbaum, J. (1986). An analysis of religion news coverage in three major
newspapers. Journalism Quarterly, 63(3), 600-606.

Bullock, H.E., Wyche, K.F., Williams, W.R. (2001). Media images of the poor. Journal
of Social Issues, 57(2), 229-246.

Burkeman, 0., Jha, A. (2003, April 10). The battle for American science: creationists,
pro-lifers, and conservatives now pose a serious threat to research and Science
teaching in the U.S. The Guardian, 4.

Byrne, D. (1999, August 18). Two views of same reality. Chicago Sun Times, p.43.

Campbell, J.A. (2003). The educational debate over Darwinism. Journal of
Interdisciplinary Studies, 15(1), 43-50.

Cappella, J.N., Jamieson, K.H. (1996). News frames, political cynicism and media
cynicism. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,
Vol.546, The Media and Politics, 71-84.

Chen, H.C. (2003). "Molympics?" Journalistic discourse of Mormons in Relation to the
2002 Winter Olympic Games. Journal of Media and Religion, 2(1), 29-47.

Chyi, H.I., McCombs, M. (2004). Media salience and the process of framing: coverage of
the Columbine school shootings. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly,
81(1),22-35.









Cracraft, J. (2004). The new Creationism and its threat to science literacy and education.
Bioscience, January, 54(1).

Cohen, A.A., Wolfsfeld, G. (1993). Framing the intifada: people and the media.
Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Condit, C. (2004). Science reporting to the public: does the message get twisted?
Canadian Medical Association Journal, 170(9), 1415-1417.

Coulter, A. (2002). Slander: liberal lies about the American right, New York: Crown
Publishing.

"Darwinian struggle in Ohio," (2002, March 17). The New York Times, p. 14.

Davis, J.J. (1995). The effects of message framing on response to environmental
communications. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 72(2), 285-299.

Debono-Roberts, R. (2003). Festa-catholicism and media religion: the reproduction and
Transformation. History and Anthropology 14(4), 383-405.

Dembski, W.A. (2004). Intelligent Design: the bridge between science and theology.
Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press.

DeVreese, C. (2004). The effects of frames in political television news on issue
interpretation and frame salience. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly,
81(1), 36-52.

DeVreese, C. Boomgaarden, H., (2003). Valenced news frames and public support for the
EU. The European Journal of Communication Research, 28(4), 361-361.

De Vries, H. (2001). In media res: global religion, public spheres, and the task of
contemporary comparative religious studies. In H. De Vries and S. Webers' (Eds.)
Religion and Media (pp.3-42). Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.

"Don't Compromise: science mixed with religion isn't science," (2002, March 17). The
Columbus Dispatch, p.2G.

Durban, R.K. (2000, April 15). Creationism doesn't meet criteria for science classes.
Columbus Dispatch, p. 13A.

Durham, F.D. (1998). News frames as social narratives: TWA flight 800. Journal of
Communication, Autumn 48(4), 100-117.

Eller, D. (2003). Macroevolution and microcreationism. Skeptic, 10(3), 70-74.

Engstrom, E., Semic, B. (2003). Portrayal of religion in reality tv programming:
hegemony and the contemporary American wedding. Journal of Media &
Religion, 2(3), 145-163.









Entman, R. (2004). Projections ofpower: framing news, public opinion, U.S. foreign
policy. Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press.

Entman, R. (1991). Framing US coverage of international news: contrasts in narratives
of the KAL and Iran Air incidents. Journal of Communication, 41(4), 6-27.

Entman, R. (1993). Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of
Communication, 43(4), 51-58.

"Evolution solution faith: science must part at school door," (2000, March 16). The
Columbus Dispatch, p.8A.

Falk, D. (2001, October 21). A pseudoscientific challenge to evolutionary theory. The
Boston Globe, p.16.

Friedhoff, S. (2002). Rethinking the science beat. Nieman Reports, 56(3), 23-26.

Gamson, W., Modigliani, A. (1987). The political culture of affirmative action. In
Research in Political Sociology, Ed. By Richard Braungart, Greenwich,
Connecticut: JAI Press.

Gilbert, S.A. (1997). A response to "Old-growth forests on network news: news sources
and the framing of an environmental controversy." Journalism and Mass
Communication Quarterly, 74(4), 883-886.

Goldacre, B. (2004, April 8). Life: bad science. The Guardian, p.3.

Goldstein, L. (2004, July 4). Politicians talk more about religion, and people expect them
to. The New York Times, Section 4, p.2.

Greenwalt, K. (2003). Intelligent design: scientific theory or religious conviction?
Journal of Church and State, 45(2), 237-257.

Haller, B., Ralph S. (2001). Not worth keeping alive? News framing of physician-assisted
suicide in the United States and Great Britain. Journalism Studies, 2(3), 407-421.

"The hand of God," (2002, September 28). The New Scientist, 175(2632), 3-4.

Henderson, M. (2004, July 3). Science icon fires broadside at Creationists, The London
Times, p.6.

Hunt, R.L. (1960). Religion and Education. Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science. 332, 89-100.

Fayard, P.M. (1997). Science news in the European dailies: the invisible network of
agenda setting. Accountability in Research: Policies & Quality Assurance, 5(1-3), 137-
143.






72


Florio, G. (2004). Controversial 'Da Vinci Code' sparking fire at grassroots level, The
Denver Post, February 18.

Friedman, M., Dunwoody, S., Rogers, C. (1999). Communicating uncertainty: media
coverage of new and controversial science, London: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Galley, M. (2004). Lesson challenging evolution clears Ohio state school board,
Education Week, 23(28), 22.

Garrett, L. (2004, July 12). A passion for religion, optimism in a hot category is
tempered by realism. Publishers Weekly, p.19.

Gedicks, F.M. (1992). Public life and hostility to religion. Virginia Law Review, 78(3),
671-696.

Gitlin, T. (1980). The whole world is watching: mass media in the making & unmaking
of the new left. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Glanz, J. (2002, March 19). Ripples in Ohio from ad on the big bang. The New York
Times, p.18.

Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: an essay on the organization of experience.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Grossman, L. (2004, January 12). A question of faith: a mysterious 16th century woman
heals the sick and sees the future, Time, 73.

Hatcher, A. (2003). Book review: Sex, religion, media, Journalism and Mass
Communication Quarterly, 80(1), p.226.

Hindman, E.B. (2003). The princess and the paparazzi: blame, responsibility, and the
media's role in the death of Diana. Journalism and Mass Communication
Quarterly, 80(3), 666-688.

Hoffman, R. (2004, January 10). Empty spot draws crowd in Ala.: Ten commandments
monument is gone, not forgotten, The Seattle Times, B5.

Holm, A. (2004). A (social) capital idea. Harvard International Review, 25(4), 24-27.

Hoover, S.M. (2002). The cultural construction of religion in the media age. In S.M.

Hoover and L.S. Clark (Eds.), Practicing religion in the age of media: explorations in
media, religion and culture (pp. 1-6). New York: Columbia University Press.

Hoover, S.M. (2002). The culturalist turn in scholarship on media and religion, Journal
of Media and Religion, 1(1), 25-36.









Hoover, S.M. (1998). Religion in the news: faith and journalism in American public
discourse. London: Sage Publications.

Hoover, S.M. (1993). Who reads religion News? Nieman Reports, 47(2), p.42.

Horvat, E.M. Weininger, E.B., Lareau, A., (2003). From social ties to social capital:
class differences in the relations between schools and parent networks. American
Educational Research Journal, 40(2), 419.

Hubbard, B.J. (1990). Reporting religion: facts and faith. Sonoma, CA: Eagle Books.

Huntington, S.J. (2004, June). "Under God." The Wall Street Journal.

Ingraham, L. (2003). \/nit up and sing. Washington, DC: Regnery.

Intelligent design? (2002). Natural History, April, 111(3), 73.

lyengar, S. (1990). Framing responsibility for political issues: the case of poverty.
Political Behavior, 12(1), 19-40.

lyengar, S. (1980). Television news and citizens' explanations of national affairs. The
American Political Science Review, 81(3), 815-832.

Jasperson, A.E., Shah, D.V., Watts, M., Faber, R.J., Fan, D.P. (1998). Framing and the
publicagenda: media effects on the importance of the federal budget deficit.
Political Communication, 15(2), 205-224.

Johnson, P.E. (2000). The wedge of nii /h splitting the foundations of naturalism,
Intervarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois.

Johnson, P.E. (1991). Darwin on Trial. Intervarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois.

Johnson, S.D., Tamney, S.B. (1982). The Christian right and the 1980 Presidential
election, Journal for the Scientific Study ofReligion, 21(2), 123-131.

Kantrowitz, B., Underwood, A. (2003, December 8). The Bible's lost stories, Newsweek,
48-52.

Keeler, J.D., Tarpley, J.D., Smith, M.R., (1990). The National Courier, news, and
religious ideology. In Media and religion in American history, Ed. by William
David Sloan, Northport, AL: Vision Press.

Kerhoulis, S. (2004). Press Release: Academic conference to put Darwinists on the
defensive, received May, 26. Community Bible Church, Highlands, NC.

Kerr, P. (2003). The framing of fundamentalist Christians: network television news,
1980-2000, Journal of Media and Religion, 2(4), 203-23 5.









Kerr, P., Moy, P. (2002). Newspaper coverage of fundamentalist Christians, 1980-2000,
Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 79(1), 54-73.

Kintz, L., Lesage, J. (1998). Media, culture, and the religious right, L. Kintz and J.
Lesage (Eds.). Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.

Kuhn, T.S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press.

Kulman, L., Tolson, J. (2003, December 22). Jesus in America: behind the wild success
of a theological thriller lies a centuries-old urge to recapture the original Jesus, US
News & World Report, 45-49.

Kristalka, L. (2001, January 7). Don't let Creationists corrupt science standards.
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, p.B 1.

Kruse, C.R. (2001). The movement and the media: framing the debate over animal
experimentation. Journal of Political Communication, 18(1), 67-87.

Lauritzen, P. (2002, March 8). Should intelligent design be taught in science class? The
Columbus Dispatch, p. 13A.

Leo, J. (2004, August 9). Talk about getting religion! U.S. News & World Report, p. 59.

Lewenstein, B.V. (1995). From fax to facts: communication in the cold fusion saga.
Social Studies of Science, 25(3), 403-436.

Lewis, R. (1999). The craft of the science news release. Quill, 87(3), 34-37.

Leyden, K.M. (2003). Social capital and the built environment: the importance of
walkable neighborhoods. American Journal of Public Health, 93(9), 1546.

Lichter, R.; Rothman, S.; Lichter, L. (1986). The media elite, Adler & Adler, Bethesda,
Maryland.

Lippmann, W. (1922). Public opinion. New York: Macmillan.

Lore, D. (2000, March 10). Creationists plan to fight curriculum standards in evolution
debate. Columbus Dispatch, p. 1B.

Lore, D. (2002, February 10). New contenders evolve in science-standards fight. The
Columbus Dispatch, p.5D.

Lugg, C. (2004). One nation under God? Religion and the politics of education in a post-
9/11 America. Educational Policy, 18(1), 169-187.

Machlup, F. (1961). Are the social sciences really inferior? The Snluh,,ilii Economic
Journal, 27(3), 173-184.






75


Malone, R.E., Boyd, E., Bero, L.A. (2000). Science in the news: journalists'
constructions of passive smoking as a social problem. Social Studies of Science,
30(5), 713-735.

Mangels, J., Stephens, S. (2002, February 24). The origin of the human species: the ohio
board of education ponders, "what do we teach our kids?" Plain Dealer, p. 10.

Mattheis, D.J. (1981). Religion and education: a response. Educational Leadership,
39(3), 209-210.

Marquand, R. (1996, January 22). Media still portraying Muslims as terrorists. The
Christian Science Monitor, p. 11.

Marske, C.E. (1996). Social capital and social morality. The International Journal of
Sociology and Social Policy, 16(1), 102-120.

Martin, J.D., Trammell, K.D., Valois, J.M., Landers, D., Bailey, T. (2004). Looking back
at the controversy: newspaper coverage of the Intelligent Design movement. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association,
Chicago, Illinois, November 11-15, 2004.

"Matters of fact vs. matters of faith," (2002, June 4). The Washington Post, p. 16A.

McCombs, M. (1997). Building consensus: The news media's agenda-setting roles.
Political Communication, 14, 433-443.

McCune, C. (2003). Framing reality: shaping the news coverage of the 1996 Tennessee
debate on teaching evolution, Journal of Media and Religion, 2(1), 5-28.

McLeod, D.M., Kosicki, G.M., McLeod, J.M. (2002). Resurveying the boundaries of
political communications effects. In Jennings Bryant and DolfZillman's (Eds.)
Media effects: advances in theory and research. London: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

McLeod, D., & Detenber, B. (1999). Framing effects of television news coverage of
social protest. Journal of Communication, 49(3), 3-23.

McQuail, D. (1994). Mass communication theory: an introduction (3rd Ed.). Thousand
Oaks, California: Sage.

Milner, R., Maestro, V. (2002). Intelligent Design? Natural History, 111(3), 73-74.

Mitchell, J. (2000). On media, religion and popular culture. Journal of Communication,
50(2), 157-163.

Melott, A.L (2002). Intelligent design is Creationism in a cheap tuxedo. Physics Today,
55(6), 48- 50.






76


Moore, R. (2002). Evolution in the courtroom: a reference guide, ABCCLIO, Oxford,
England.

Moses, P. (1993). Reporting religion: holiness in the ordinary. America, 168(15), 12-16.

Murray, D., Schwartz, J., Lichter, S.R. (2001). It ain't necessarily so: how media make
and unmake the scientific picture of reality, New York, Rowman and Littlefield.

"Newspapers get religion," (1999, May 15). Editor andPublisher, 132(4), 46-47.

Nelson, T.E., Clawson, R.A., Oxley, Z.M. (1997). Media framing of a civil liberties
conflict and its effect on tolerance. American Political Science Review, 91(3), 567-
583.

Nelson, T.E., Clawson, R.A., Oxley, Z.M. (1997). Toward a psychology of framing
effects. Political Behavior, 19(3), 221-246.

Neuhaus, R.J. (2002). Media abused and abusing, Journal of Religion and Public Life,
December, 128, 75-79.

"Not your daddy's fundamentalism: intelligent design in the classroom," (2004).
Harvard Law Review, Jan2004, Vol. 117 (3), 964-972.

"Ohio may debate evolution in public schools," (2002, October 15). The Washington
Post, p.9A.

Olasky, M. (1991). Central ideas in the development ofAmerican journalism. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Olasky, M. (1988). The press and abortion, 1838-1988. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.

Peterson, G. (2002). The intelligent design movement: science or ideology? Journal of
Religion and Science, 37(1), 7-23.

Pollard, F. (1996). Test ye the journalists, Journal of Religion and Psychical Research,
19(2), 93-95.

Priest, S.H., Eyck, T. (2003). News coverage of biotechnology debates. Society, 40(6),
29-34.

Radcliffe, L. (2004, May 31). Religion: log on for salvation. Newsweek, p. 10.

Reed, R., Walker, G. (2002). Listening to scientists and journalists. Nieman Reports,
56(3), 45-47.

Requena, F. (2003). Social capital, satisfaction, and quality of life in the workplace.
Social Indicators Research, 61(3), 331.






77


Roll-Hansen, N. (1994). Science, politics, and the mass media: on biased communication
of environmental issues. Science, Technology and Human Values, 19(3), 324-341.

"Scarves of many colors," (1997, March). The Washington Report on Middle East
Affairs, p.74.

Scheufele, D.A. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of
Communication, 49(1), 103-122.

Schoenberg, D.R. (2000, April 14). Intelligent Design isn't supported by evidence. The
Columbus Dispatch, p. 16A.

Severin, W.J., Tankard, J.W. (2001). Communication ivm/i i'\% origins, methods and
uses in the mass media. New York: Longman.

Shah, D.V., Kwak, N., Schmierbach, M., Zubric, J. (2004). The interplay of news frames
on cognitive flexibility. Human Communication Research, 30(1), 102-120.

Shaw, D. (2000). Science and the popular media. Science Activities, 37(2), 22-31.

Shepard, A.C. (1995). The media get religion. American Journalism Review, 17(10), 18-
26.

Shermer, M. (2004). Gods' number is up. Scientific American, 291(1), 46-47.

Sieff, E.M. (2003). Media frames of mental illness: the potential impact of negative
frames. Journal of Mental Health, 12(3), 259-269.

Singer, E., & Endreny, P.M. (1993). Reporting on Risk. New York, NY: Russell Sage
Foundation.

Silk, M. (2000). Religion on the international news agenda. M. Silk (Ed.), Hartford, CT:
The Leonard F. Greenberg Center for the Study of Religion in Public Life.

Silk, M. (1995). Unsecular Media: making news of religion in America. Chicago:
University of Illinois Press.

Smith, C. (2003). The secular revolution. C. Smith (Ed.), Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press.

Soukup, P.A. (2003). Media, culture and Catholicism. Kansas City, MO: Sheed and
Ward.

Starr, D. (2002). Teaching journalism students to report on science. Nieman Reports,
56(3), 36-39.

Stout, D.A., Buddenbaum, J.M. (2003). Media, Religion and Framing, Journal of Media
andReligion, 2(1), 1-3.






78


Stout, D.A., Buddenbaum, J.M. (2002). Geneology of an emerging field: foundations for
the study of media and religion, Journal of Media and Religion, 1(1), 5-13.

Strupp, J. (1999). Getting (more) religion. Editor andPublisher, 132(20), 28-32.

Terkildsen, N., Schnell, F. (1997). How media frames move public opinion. Political
Research Quarterly, 50(4), 879-900.

"Testing a radical theory," (2004, April). Nature Neuroscience, 7(4) 315-316.

Tewksbury, D., Jones, J., Peske, M., Raymond, A., Vig, W. (2000). The interaction of
news and advocate frames: manipulating audience perceptions of a local public
policy issue, Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 77(4).

Tolson, J., Kulman, L. (2004, March 8). The real Jesus: how a Jewish reformer lost his
Jewish identity, U.S. News & World Report, 38-46.

Tolson, J. (2003, December 8). The new old time religion; evangelicals defy easy labels.
Here's why, and why their numbers are growing, U.S. News & WorldReport, 36-
41.

Tuchman, G. (1978). Making news: a study in the construction of reality. New York:
The Free Press.

Underwood, D.; Stamm, K. (2001). Arejournalists really irreligious? A
multidimensional approach, Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly,
78(4), 771-786.

Viadero, D. (2002). State Journal, Education Week, 21(41), 21.

Ward, D. (2002, February 11). Media roundup: Religious coverage undergoes a new
awakening, PR Week, 12-13.

Warren, R. (2002). The purpose driven life. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan.

Watkins, S.C. (2001). Framing protest: news media frames of the million man march.
Critical Studies in Media Communication, 18(1), 83-101.

Weaver, D.; Wilhoit, G. (1996). The American journalist in the 1990's, Mahwah, New
Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Publishing.

Weis, J. (2001). Controversy over evolution is not scientific it's political. Bioscience,
51(12), 995-996.

Wenzler, J.W. (2004, March 5). Creationist posed in scientists clothing. The Columbus
Dispatch, p.8A.

Wexler, J. (2003). Darwin, design and disestablishment: teaching the evolution
controversy in public schools. Vanderbilt Law Review, April, 56(3), 749.









Wilkins, R.D. (1999). Journalists bury science in sensation. Business Journal, 13(25),
39.

Winnick, P. (2002, October 18). Inherited debate. National Review.

Winston, K. (2004, May 24). Not such strange bedfellows: the interplay between religion
and politics is a hot topic across all faiths. Publishers Weekly, p.S2.

Wirth, E. (2002). The church and the media. America, 187(5), 22-23.

Woodward, T.J. (2003). Doubts about Darwin: a history of intelligent design. Grand
Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books.

Yioutas, J., Segvic, I. (2003). Revisiting the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal: the convergence
of agenda setting and framing. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly,
80(3), 567.

Zoch, L.M., Turk, J.V. (1998). Women making news: gender as a variable in source
selection and use. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 75(4), 762-
775.
















BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Justin D. Martin was born in Washington, Pennsylvania. Family members include

parents Rev. William J. Martin and Sandra H. Martin, and sisters Ashley and Kelley.

Justin earned a B.S. in psychology from High Point University in December 2002. Justin

plans to pursue a Ph.D. in Mass Communications and an undergraduate minor in Arabic.

He currently resides in Gainesville with his dog, Samson, who frequently makes poor

decisions.