| Abstract: | Abstract In this paper, we examine three unanticipated findings from a social constructionist analysis of popular media coverage of the pesticide DDT from the years 1944 to 1961. The first unanticipated finding was the early (1945) appearance of negative or cautionary claims in the media source examined, the New York Times. Second, while negative or cautionary claims about the pesticide did constitute a minority voice during this time period, it was nonetheless a persistent voice. The third unanticipated finding was the predominance of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the State Agricultural Experiment Stations among those claimsmakers initially cautioning potential users about unintended and potentially deleterious impacts. The concept of "routine monitoring mechanisms" is introduced to explain this third finding. We conclude by considering the potential impact of this coverage on the subsequent development of the controversy. |
