R E V I E W

Drug and Alcohol Review (July 2011), 30, 397–402

DOI: 10.1111/j.1465-3362.2010.00239.x

Illicit drugs and the media: Models of media effects for use in drug
policy research dar_239 397..402

KARI LANCASTER1, CAITLIN E. HUGHES1, BRIDGET SPICER1,

FRANCIS MATTHEW-SIMMONS1 & PAUL DILLON2
1
Drug Policy Modelling Program, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia, and 2Drug and Alcohol Research
and Training Australia, Sydney, Australia

Abstract
Issues. Illicit drugs are never far from the media gaze and although identified almost a decade ago as ‘a new battleground’
for the alcohol and other drug (AOD) field there has been limited research examining the role of the news media and its effects
on audiences and policy. Approach. This paper draws together media theories from communication literature to examine
media functions.We illustrate how each function is relevant for media and drugs research by drawing upon the existing literature
examining Australian media coverage during the late 1990s of escalating heroin-related problems and proposed solutions. Key
Findings. Media can influence audiences in four key ways: by setting the agenda and defining public interest; framing issues
through selection and salience; indirectly shaping individual and community attitudes towards risk; and feeding into political
debate and decision making. Each has relevance for the AOD field. For example, media coverage of the escalating heroin-related
problems in Australia played a strong role in generating interest in heroin overdoses, framing public discourse in terms of a health
and/or criminal issue and affecting political decisions. Implications and Conclusion. Media coverage in relation to illicit
drugs can have multifarious effects. Incorporating media communication theories into future research and actions is critical to
facilitate understanding of the short- and long-term impacts of media coverage on illicit drugs and the avenues by which the
AOD field can mitigate or inform future media debates on illicit drugs. [Lancaster K, Hughes CE, Spicer B, Matthew-
Simmons F, Dillon P. Illicit drugs and the media: Models of media effects for use in drug policy research. Drug Alcohol
Rev 2011;30:397–402]

Key words: illicit drug, media effect, framing, agenda setting, policy.

clearly newsworthy. The key question is what are the

Introduction
Whether you are looking at print or online news, tele-
vision, radio, films or magazines illicit drugs are per-
vasive and never far from the media gaze. Throughout
Australia illicit drugs (i.e. cannabis, heroin, cocaine,
amphetamines and ecstasy) feature in thousands of
news stories each year [1] and remain one of the most
popular motifs used in films, television, magazines and
online chat rooms [2–4]. The daily activity of the mass
media is to fill a ‘news hole’ of a predetermined size
with any number of competing topical issues within
strict publication constraints [5]. News outlets have
limited space to dedicate to issues and illicit drugs are
effects of media reporting on illicit drugs?
Despite media being identified in 2001 as ‘a new
battleground’ for the alcohol and other drug (AOD)
field [6], the response remains one of consternation
(e.g. [7–9]). Almost a decade on there has been limited
research examining the role of media and its effect on
audiences, its impact on drug policy or indeed avenues
by which the AOD field can influence media for legiti-
mate purposes (e.g. [1,10–24]). There are two main
exceptions. First, examination of non-mainstream
media, such as the evaluation of social marketing
campaigns regarding illicit drugs and tobacco, and
advertising of alcohol and tobacco (e.g. [25–41]). And

Kari Lancaster BA, LLB (Hons), MPP, Research Assistant, Caitlin Elizabeth Hughes BA (Hons), BSc, PhD, Research Fellow, Bridget Spicer
BSocSc (Crim), BPsych (Hons), Research Officer, Francis Matthew-Simmons BA, BPPM (Hons), PhD Candidate and Research Assistant, Paul
Dillon DipTeach, MPS, Director. Correspondence to Ms Kari Lancaster, Drug Policy Modelling Program, National Drug and Alcohol Research
Centre, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia. Tel: +61 (0)2 9385 0476; Fax: +61 (0)2 9385 0222; E-mail:
k.lancaster@unsw.edu.au
Received 11 May 2010; accepted for publication 8 August 2010.

© 2010 Australasian Professional Society on Alcohol and other Drugs

398 K. Lancaster et al.
second, public health research regarding media advo-
cacy particularly in the tobacco arena (e.g. [42,43]).
The consequence is that while some sectors of the field
are cognisant of the power of the news media to influ-
ence attitudes and are well equipped to engage in media
advocacy, these avenues remain largely unexplored in
relation to illicit drugs.
While acknowledging that research priorities vary,
the relative lack of attention paid to impacts of media
on the public perception of illicit drugs, their use and
those who use them is striking. Given the potentially
important role played by media, and the proliferation of
new forms of media in modern society, we suggest that
this research gap needs to be addressed.The premise of
this paper is that understanding how news and current
affairs media can influence public opinion, attitudes
and political agendas is of critical importance to the
AOD field. Although the term media refers to ‘the
organised means of communicating openly, at a dis-
tance, and to many in a short space of time’ [44], for the
purposes of this paper we more narrowly use media to
describe mainstream news and current affairs, and not
entertainment, advertising or social media.
This article draws together some key media theories
from communication literature to provide a summary
of four media functions.We illustrate how each function
is relevant for media and drugs research by drawing
upon the existing literature examining Australian media
coverage during the late 1990s of escalating heroin-
related problems and proposed solutions, including the
failed adoption of the Australian Capital Territory
(ACT) heroin trial. The ACT heroin trial was an
evidence-informed proposal to prescribe heroin to a
small number of dependent heroin users. The trial was
argued to have collapsed in 1997 in part because of
heated media debate (see [10,20,23,45,46]). The issue
of heroin and proposed policy responses has been
explicitly chosen for illustrative purposes in this article
as it is the only drug policy issue we are aware of in
which all four media functions have been examined.
Our aim in using this example is to promote research
into and debate on how the field could better engage
with media by increasing understanding of the different
ways in which media can operate and affect public
opinion and drugs policy. The paper concludes with
specific recommendations for future analysis of media
reporting on illicit drugs.
Media effects
The nature and extent of media influence has fasci-
nated researchers, political operatives, policy makers
and media professionals for decades. McQuail [47]
describes media effects theory as a ‘paradox’—it has
been plagued by the assumption that the media have
© 2010 Australasian Professional Society on Alcohol and other Drugs
significant influence over our thoughts and behaviour
and yet there is little agreement about the nature or
extent of these effects. The current stance is that while
individual audience characteristics will mediate media
influence [48,49], the key issue is not whether media
have an effect but how.
Definitions of media effects are often vague, but
Eveland [50] offers a summary of McLeod et al.’s [51]
more explicit approach suggesting that media effects
theory has five characteristics:
(i) a focus on the audience; (ii) some expectation of
influence; (iii) a belief that the influence is due either
to the form or content of a ‘media message system’;
(iv) the use of ‘variable’ terminology and discussion
of causality; and (v) the creation of empirically test-
able hypotheses.
Communications literature tells us media can influence
audiences via a number of mechanisms. Here we
examine four such functions: setting the agenda and
defining public interest; framing issues through selec-
tion and salience; indirectly shaping individual and
community attitudes towards risk; and feeding into
political debate and decision making. For the purposes
of presentation we examine each separately, but in prac-
tice the four mechanisms may be intertwined in a coop-
erative or non-cooperative manner.
Media as agenda setting
The agenda setting function of the news media defines
salient issues, captures the attention of the public and
shapes public opinion. The nature of media production
means that a limited number of issues can remain news-
worthy at a particular time, and the choice of what is
included (or excluded) sets the agenda and defines
public interest. In his seminal statement conceptualis-
ing media agenda setting, Cohen [52] said media ‘may
not be successful much of the time in telling people
what to think, but it is stunningly successful in telling its
readers what to think about’.
The agenda setting process builds consensus about
what issues are the most important within the commu-
nity [53,54]. Indeed in relation to social control issues,
such as crime and drug use, research has shown that
public concern is often directly proportional to the
amount of media emphasis placed on the issue, and not
the magnitude of the problem in broader society [18].
Sometimes the agenda is simply an unintentional
by-product of the limitations of news production. Other
times, the agenda setting process can be strategic.
One clear example of the agenda setting effect was
seen in the late 1990s in Australia. As heroin overdoses
rose, the Herald Sun newspaper in Victoria began

publishing a ‘heroin toll’ alongside the road toll,
which tracked the number of heroin-related deaths as
compared with road accident deaths. It was published
on the editorial page under the heading ‘stop the
carnage’ and continued to be published until 2005. It
was a constant reminder to the Victorian public of lives
lost. The heroin toll thus kept drugs and particularly
heroin at the forefront of the public agenda as a ‘pro-
found social and personal problem’ [11].
Media as framing
In a modern mass-mediated environment, media also
tells us how to think about issues [53]. The concept of
framing is commonly used in communication literature
and is defined by Entman [55]:
To frame is to select some aspects of a perceived
reality and make them more salient in a communi-
cating text, in such a way as to promote a particular
problem definition, causal interpretation, moral
evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for the
item described.
Studies in behavioural sciences indicate that the way a
problem decision is framed provides a contextual cue,
which may significantly influence decision making or
changes of opinion [56].
Framing affects what is said about issues, by whom
and the definition of optimum solutions. Drug issues
are often framed as ‘a problem’, with its agents com-
monly divided into ‘villain’ and ‘victim’ personas,
divorced from more nuanced understandings of drug
use, social context or policy complexity [1]. The selec-
tion and omission of particular sources also contributes
to the framing of an issue, with official sources, such as
law enforcement, politicians and government figures
often dominating drug stories in the news media [21].
In the heroin trial proposal Lawrence et al. [23] iden-
tified 13 subtextual frames competing for media atten-
tion: opposition frames included ‘surrender in the war
on drugs’ and ‘addicts choose deviance and deserve
punishment’; and supportive frames included ‘research
might offer an answer’ and ‘time for new approaches’.
Prevailing frames depicted heroin use as a ‘scourge’ or
issue of moral decay, rather than as a medical issue or
outcome of social inequality [22]. In the heroin trial
case the consequence of the dominant framing was that
voices of trial opponents dominated while others were
ignored. Framing thus influenced the type of public
debate that occurred.
Media as influencing attitudes, for example, risk
Studies have shown that media can influence percep-
tions of risk and public behaviour more generally.
Illicit drugs and the media 399
Understanding of risk, whether it be related to drug
use, road safety or sun protection, develops through
social practices but also through the ever changing way
that risk is presented to audiences in media content
[24]. Unlike experts, who have the skills to analyse
the potentiality of a particular risk, the general public
must build their understanding and perception of risk
through cultural practices and the media play a signifi-
cant role in this process [24]. Media also impacts on
public behaviour more broadly as media messages enter
community discourse and build support for policies
[57].Those who have little contact with illicit drugs and
illicit drug users, tend to shape their perception of risk
and their behaviour around prominent portrayals in
the media [57]. It is for this very reason that media
coverage of heroin and amphetamines have particular
pertinence.
In the lead up to the opening of the medically super-
vised injecting centre in Sydney in 2001, press coverage
was found to be ‘unnecessarily alarmist’. Coverage by
the Daily Telegraph particularly was found to have
fuelled public fear and speculation through the use of
‘risk language’, failing to present views, which advo-
cated for drug reform or tolerance of heroin users [24].
While not explicitly examined, this may lead to the
perpetuation of ‘well-tested stereotypes’ of heroin users
as ‘evil’ and ‘dangerous’, which Watts [11] has argued
limits the possibility for reform.
Media as influencing political debate
and policies
Media is assumed to play an integral role in shaping
policy making. It is considered ‘significant’ and influ-
ences ‘not only the public profile of problems but also the
political response to them’ [19]. In practice, however, it
rarely works in an orderly or linear way [58]. Christie
[10] argues that there are several examples of policy
change, which can be, at least in part, attributed to the
influence of media, for example, the increased emphasis
on child sex offences. It is suggested that the more
strongly media push an issue the more likely it is that
politicians and policy makers will take notice and that
media coverage will influence policy decisions [10].
There is strong evidence from the small number of
studies of drugs and media in Australia that the news
media is indeed playing a crucial role in shaping policy
decisions. In a study of press coverage of the proposed
ACT heroin trial from 1992 to 1997, it was found that
media portrayals of heroin users as ‘deviants’ (pre-
sented by opponents of the trial) played a significant
role in the political demise of the proposal [22].
Lawrence et al. [23] suggested that opposition coverage
of The Daily Telegraph and 2UE talk back radio, and
specifically the use of very powerful frames of reference,
© 2010 Australasian Professional Society on Alcohol and other Drugs
400 K. Lancaster et al.
ultimately influenced the unprecedented intervention
of the Prime Minister and Cabinet in overturning the
ACT heroin trial. The dominant frames effectively cut
the supporters’ arguments out of the debate. Ostensibly
therefore, media had a direct impact upon the govern-
ment’s policy decision.
Conclusion
We have demonstrated that media effects can operate
via at least four different mechanisms. It must be noted
that the mechanisms rarely operate in a simple cause
and effect manner and that media effects often work
synergistically or may indeed result in no effect at all.
Nevertheless, by showing each approach discretely, and
using the issue of media coverage of heroin in Australia,
we can see how media coverage regarding illicit drug
issues can lead to multifarious effects on drug policy,
perceptions of users and public opinion. News media
set the agenda and raised interest in the issue of heroin
overdoses in Victoria. The prevailing frames surround-
ing heroin influenced public opinion and policy
solutions. We further illustrated how adverse media
coverage on drug issues directly contributed to the
rejection of a proposed policy response. By examining
each we can better explain why and how the media
influenced the heroin debate and policy options. More-
over as Lawrence et al. [23] note, it can also help to
understand missed opportunities to counter arguments
and use the news media to reframe issues in a more
favourable light.
The AOD field has been alerted to the fact that it is
important that it learns how to better use and engage
with mainstream media outlets. The example above
provided ample evidence of why and how this knowl-
edge is important. Other public health arenas have
examined the role of mainstream media to a greater
extent, for example, the ongoing research of the Aus-
tralian Health News Research Collaboration regarding
issues, such as obesity and cancer (e.g. [59–62]). As
discussed, this knowledge is currently being applied in
the tobacco arena to engage in media advocacy (e.g.
[42]) and is perhaps one reason for the shifting debate.
Arguably, there is even more need to focus on main-
stream media effects regarding illicit drugs. While we
suggest the four identified media effects will apply in all
public health arenas, the extent of impact, that is, how
powerful the media is in affecting perceptions of risks,
norms and setting agendas, is likely to differ. A reason-
able hypothesis might be that media will have a greater
effect because for many people illicit drugs are an
‘unobtrusive’ issue—one that they see in the news but
do not experience in everyday life [63].
On this basis, we suggest there are many more
avenues to expand research into media coverage on
© 2010 Australasian Professional Society on Alcohol and other Drugs
illicit drugs. In particular there is a need to measure and
compare the extent of media effects on different types
of illicit drugs, and across different populations.Yet the
more immediate issue is to incorporate media commu-
nications theories to examine short- and long-term
effects of media coverage on illicit drugs.Topics that we
assert deserve particular prominence include: how the
news media set the agenda on drug harms, especially
the increased interest in the link between cannabis and
mental health; identifying how media frame drug users
as criminals and how this limits choice of optimum
policy solutions; identifying the extent to which media
influence perceptions of risks and norms surrounding
the acceptability of ecstasy use; and identifying how
politicians perceive and use media to drive drug policy.
There is also great scope to examine the effects of
alternative media forms, such as newer forms of user-
generated social media (e.g. [64]).
The AOD field at present has a limited understand-
ing of the effects of media coverage of illicit drugs
issues, which stymies opportunities to use the media
more effectively.We contend that media influence is not
to be feared, but rather by incorporating the identified
media communications theories the AOD field will be
better able to understand the multifarious effects of
media coverage on illicit drugs issues. Doing so will
ultimately increase opportunities for the AOD field to
produce more informed media debates.
Acknowledgements
This work has arisen out of a project funded by the
Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing,
under the National Psychostimulant Initiative. The
Drug Policy Modelling Program is funded by the Colo-
nial Foundation Trust. We would also like to thank
Associate Professor Alison Ritter, Director of DPMP,
for her insightful comments on an earlier version.
References
[1] Bell P. Drugs and the media. Aust Alcohol/Drug Rev
1985;4:235–42.
[2] Roberts D, Henriksen L, Christensen P. Substance use in
popular movies and music. Washington, DC: Office of
National Drug Control Policy, 1999.
[3] Roberts D, Christensen P. ‘Here’s looking at you, kid’:
alcohol, drugs and tobacco in entertainment media. New
York: The National Center on Addiction and Substance
Abuse at Columbia University, 2000.
[4] MacDonald P, Estep R. Prime time drug depictions.
Contemp Drug Probl 1985;14:419–38.
[5] Tiffen R. News and power. Sydney: Allen & Unwin, 1989.
[6] Proctor D, Babor T. Drug wars in the post-Gutenberg
galaxy: mass media as the next battleground. Addiction
2001;96:377–81.
[7] Warwick Blood R, McCallum K. Key principles for the
reporting of drug issues: final report. Canberra: Australian
National Council on Drugs, 2005.

[8] Wodak A. Soft on drugs? Or going cuckoo?: crikey. 2010.
Available at: http://blogs.crikey.com.au/croakey/2010/01/
28/soft-on-drugs-or-going-cuckoo/ (accessed May 2010).
[9] Wright T. Fairfax misleads public about cannabis study.
The Australian Heroin Diaries; 2010. Available at: http://
theaustralianheroindiaries.blogspot.com/2010/04/fairfax-
misleads-public-about-cannabis_05.html (accessed May
2010).
[10] Christie S. Trial by media: politics, policy and public
opinion. Curr Issues Crim Justice 1998;10:37–51.
[11] Watts R. ‘Headlining heroin’: policy change and reporting
the heroin problem. Media Int Aust 2003;108:67–81.
[12] Stryker JE. Media and marijuana: a longitudinal analysis of
news media effects on adolescents’ marijuana use and
related outcomes, 1977–1999. J Health Commun 2003;
8:305–28.
[13] Lancaster A. What does curiosity really do to the cat?
A look at how message exposure can lead to illicit drug trial
among college students. Mass Commun Soc 2004;7:77–
95.
[14] Gotthoffer A. Do social norms and media coverage influ-
ence illicit drug trial among college students. Baltimore:
Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Com-
munication, 1998.
[15] Noto AR, Pinsky I, De Carvalho Mastroianni F. Drugs in
the Brazilian print media: an exploratory survey of newspa-
per and magazine stories in the year 2000. Subst Use
Misuse 2006;41:1263–76.
[16] Saunders N. How the media report ecstasy. J Subst Misuse
1998;3:98–100.
[17] Fan D. News media framing sets public opinion that drugs
is the country’s most important problem. Subst Use Misuse
1996;31:1413–21.
[18] Beckett K. Setting the public agenda: ‘street crime’ and
drug use in American politics. Soc Probl 1994;41:425–
47.
[19] McArthur M. Pushing the drug debate: the media’s role in
policy reform. Aust J Soc Issues 1999;34:149–65.
[20] Miller P. Reporting of the ACT heroin trials. J Media
Commun Stud 2010;2:1–8.
[21] Teece M, Makkai T. Print media reporting on drugs and
crime, 1995–1998. Canberra: Australian Institute of Crimi-
nology, 2000. Report No.: 158.
[22] Elliott A, Chapman S. ‘Heroin hell their own making’:
construction of heroin users in the Australian press 1992–
1997. Drug Alcohol Rev 2000;19:191–201.
[23] Lawrence G, Bammer G, Chapman S. ‘Sending the wrong
signal’: analysis of print media reportage of the ACT heroin
prescription proposal, August 1997. Aust NZ J Public
Health 2000;24:254–64.
[24] Warwick Blood R, Williams J, McCallum K. Representa-
tions of public risk: illegal drugs in the Australian press.
Media Int Aust Inc Cult Policy 2003;108:82–100.
[25] The Social Research Centre. National TobaccoYouth Cam-
paign evaluation report. North Melbourne: The Social
Research Centre, 2007.
[26] Davis R, Gilpin E, Loken B, Viswanath K, Wakefield M,
eds. Tobacco control monograph No. 19: the role of the
media in promoting and controlling tobacco use. Bethesda:
U.S Department of Health and Human Services, National
Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, 2008.
[27] Pechmann C, Reibling E. Antismoking advertisements for
youths: an independent evaluation of health, counter-
industry, and industry approaches. Am J Public Health
2006;96:906–13.
Illicit drugs and the media 401
[28] Jones S, Gregory P. What does alcohol advertising tell
young people about drinking? Wollongong: University of
Wollongong, 2007.
[29] Brown J, Witherspoon E. The mass media and American
adolescents’ health. J Adolesc Health 2002;31:153–70.
[30] Biener L, Ji M, Gilpin E, Albers A. The impact of emotional
tone, message, and broadcast parameters in youth anti-
smoking advertisements. J Health Commun 2004;9:259–
74.
[31] Wakefield M, Durrant R. Effects of exposure of youths at
risk for smoking to television advertising for Nicotine
Replacement Therapy and Zyban®: an experimental study.
Health Commun 2006;19:253–8.
[32] Durkin S, Wakefield M, Spittal M. Looking for boomerang
effects: a pre-post experimental study of the effects of
exposure of youth to television advertising for nicotine
replacement therapy and Zyban. Addict Behav 2006;31:
2158–68.
[33] Freeman B, Chapman S. Tobacco promotion invades new
media. Lancet Oncol 2007;8:973–4.
[34] The Social Research Centre. National drugs campaign:
evaluation of phase 3. North Melbourne: The Social
Research Centre, 2008.
[35] Carroll T. Illicit drugs research to aid in the development of
strategies to target youth and young people. Report pre-
pared for the Commonwealth Department of Health and
Aged Care. Sydney: Blue Moon Research and Planning,
2000.
[36] Palmgreen P, Donohew L, Lorch EP, Hoyle RH, Stephen-
son MT. Television campaigns and adolescent marijuana
use: tests of sensation seeking targeting. Am J Public Health
2001;91:292–6.
[37] Biener L, McCallum-Keeler G, Nyman A. Adults’ response
to Massachusetts anti-tobacco television advertisements:
impact of viewer and advertisement characteristics. Tob
Control 2000;9:401–7.
[38] Research and Evaluation Committee. Australia’s National
Tobacco Campaign—evaluation report volume three. Can-
berra: Australian Government Department of Health and
Ageing, 2004.
[39] Donovan R, Boulter J, Borland R, Jalleh G, Carter O.
Continuous tracking of the Australian National Tobacco
Campaign: advertising effects on recall, recognition, cogni-
tions, and behaviour. Tob Control 2003;12(Suppl. 2):30–
9.
[40] Tan N, Montague M, Freeman J. Impact of the National
Tobacco Campaign: comparison between teenage and
adult surveys. In: Hassard K, ed. Australia’s National
Tobacco Campaign evaluation report: volume two. Can-
berra: Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged
Care, 2000:77–113.
[41] Unger JB, Cruz TB, Schuster D, Flora JA, Johnson CA.
Measuring exposure to pro- and anti-tobacco marketing
among adolescents: intercorrelations among measures and
associations with smoking status. J Health Commun
2001;6:11–29.
[42] Chapman S. Public health advocacy and tobacco control:
making smoking history. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing,
2007.
[43] Pertschuk M, Wilbur P. Media advocacy: reframing public
debate. Washington, DC: The Benton Foundation, 1991.
[44] McQuail D. Mass communication theory, 6th edn.
London: Sage Publications, 2010.
[45] Wodak A. Public health and politics: the demise of the ACT
heroin trial. Med J Aust 1997;167:348–9.
© 2010 Australasian Professional Society on Alcohol and other Drugs
402 K. Lancaster et al.
[46] Gunaratnam P. Drug policy in Australia: the supervised
injecting facilities debate. Canberra: The Australian
National University, 2005.
[47] McQuail D. Mass communication theory, 5th edn.
London: Sage Publications, 2005.
[48] Scheufele D. Framing as a theory of media effects.
J Commun 1999;49:103–22.
[49] Scheufele D, Tewksbury D. Framing, agenda setting, and
priming: the evolution of three media effects models.
J Commun 2007;57:9–20.
[50] Eveland W. A ‘mix of attributes’ approach to the study
of media effects and new communication technologies.
J Commun 2003;53:395–410.
[51] McLeod J, Kosicki G, Pan Z. On understanding and mis-
understanding media effects. In: Curran J, Gurevitch M,
eds. Mass media and society. New York: Edward Arnold,
1991:235–66.
[52] Cohen B. The press and foreign policy. Princeton: Princ-
eton University Press, 1963.
[53] McCombs M. Building consensus: the news media’s
agenda-setting roles. Polit Commun 1997;14:433–43.
[54] McCombs M, Shaw D. The agenda-setting function of
mass media. Public Opin Q 1972;36:176–87.
[55] Entman R. Framing: toward clarification of a fractured
paradigm. J Commun 1993;43:51–8.
[56] Iyengar S. Is anyone responsible? How television frames
political issues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991.
© 2010 Australasian Professional Society on Alcohol and other Drugs
[57] Gelders D, Patesson R, Vandoninck S, et al. The influence
of warning messages on the public’s perception of substance
use: a theoretical framework. Gov Inf Q 2009;26:349–57.
[58] Shaw D, McCombs M. Dealing with illicit drugs: the
power—and limits—of mass media agenda setting. In:
Shoemaker P, ed. Communication campaigns about drugs:
government, media and the public. Hillsdale: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, 1989:113–20.
[59] MacKenzie R, Imison M, Chapman S, Holding S. Mixed
messages and a missed opportunity: australian news media
coverage of Clare Oliver’s campaign against solaria. Med J
Aust 2008;189:371–4.
[60] The Australian Health News Research Collaboration.
About the collaboration. Available at: http://www.health.
usyd.edu.au/AHNRC/index.html (accessed May 2010).
[61] MacKenzie R, Chapman S, McGeecham K, Holding S.
‘A disease many people still feel uncomfortable talking
about’: Australian television coverage of colorectal cancer.
Psychooncology 2010;19:283–8.
[62] Chapman S, Holding S, Ellerm J, et al. The content and
structure of Australian television reportage on health and
medicine, 2005–2009: parameters to guide health workers.
Med J Aust 2009;191:620–4.
[63] McCombs M. Setting the agenda: the mass media and
public opinion. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2004.
[64] Goode L. Social news, citizen journalism and democracy.
New Media Soc 2009;11:1287–305.
Copyright of Drug & Alcohol Review is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or
emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.