↓ Skip to main content

The War on Drugs That Wasn’t: Wasted Whiteness, “Dirty Doctors,” and Race in Media Coverage of Prescription Opioid Misuse

Overview of attention for article published in Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#1 of 648)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
43 news outlets
blogs
7 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
109 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
260 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
323 Mendeley
Title
The War on Drugs That Wasn’t: Wasted Whiteness, “Dirty Doctors,” and Race in Media Coverage of Prescription Opioid Misuse
Published in
Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry, June 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11013-016-9496-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Julie Netherland, Helena B. Hansen

Abstract

The past decade in the U.S. has been marked by a media fascination with the white prescription opioid cum heroin user. In this paper, we contrast media coverage of white non-medical opioid users with that of black and brown heroin users to show how divergent representations lead to different public and policy responses. A content analysis of 100 popular press articles from 2001 and 2011 in which half describe heroin users and half describe prescription opioid users revealed a consistent contrast between criminalized urban black and Latino heroin injectors with sympathetic portrayals of suburban white prescription opioid users. Media coverage of the suburban and rural opioid "epidemic" of the 2000s helped draw a symbolic, and then legal, distinction between (urban) heroin addiction and (suburban and rural) prescription opioid addiction that is reminiscent of the legal distinction between crack cocaine and powder cocaine of the 1980s and 1990s. This distinction reinforces the racialized deployment of the War on Drugs and is sustained by the lack of explicit discussion of race in the service of "color blind ideology." We suggest potential correctives to these racially divergent patterns, in the form of socially responsible media practices and of clinical engagement with public policy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 109 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 323 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 322 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 53 16%
Student > Bachelor 47 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 45 14%
Researcher 24 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 20 6%
Other 49 15%
Unknown 85 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 98 30%
Medicine and Dentistry 28 9%
Psychology 27 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 3%
Other 52 16%
Unknown 93 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 472. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 March 2024.
All research outputs
#58,228
of 25,755,403 outputs
Outputs from Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry
#1
of 648 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,221
of 356,810 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry
#1
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,755,403 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 648 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 356,810 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them