The purpose of this article is to explore an empirical approach to investigating whether and why readers may perceive bias in public education documents (PEDs). Focusing on explanatory ballot booklets as a paradigmatic example of such documents, the study addresses three questions: (a) Can readers' bias judgments be predicted from rhetorical analyses? (b) What is the relation of readers' partisanship to their perception of bias? and (c) What is the nature of readers' bias judgment process? The study investigates readers' perceptions of bias in a Colorado ballot booklet intended to explain a tax cut proposal. Based on a synthesis of current theories and research investigating bias perceptions in cognitive and social psychology and a rhetorical analysis of the presentation frames and semantic cues in the ballot booklet itself, the study hypothesizes that readers, regardless of partisanship, would be more likely to perceive the ballot booklet to be biased in favor of the proposed tax measure than against it. Converging experimental data in the form of questionnaire ratings and think-aloud protocols are shown to support this hypothesis.

This study explores the relationship between forensic, deliberative, and epideictic modes of rhetoric in the cold fusion controversy. The purpose of this exploration is threefold: (a) to show the interactions between these three modes of rhetoric more comprehensively than they have been shown in previous case studies of scientific controversies; (b) to examine the ways in which all three modes have shaped the emerging scientific consensus and, further, through a close analysis of key experimental reports, to reveal how forensic rhetoric in the cold fusion controversy has come to occupy pride of place; and (c) to suggest how the events in this controversy support Robert Sanders's contention that rhetorical practices interact with scientific practices to allow diverse researchers to arrive at constructive agreements—not merely political ones—on both research findings and ways to resolve competing interpretations.

This article explores the relationship between current theoretical definitions of risk communication, the unique national role that EPA plays in defining health and environmental risks, and possible explanations for EPA's inability to persuade the city of Aspen, Colorado, to accept its plan for a massive cleanup of toxic lead mine wastes. Many explanations for the reversal of EPA's cleanup plan at Aspen could be advanced, but we concentrate on the definition of risk communication upon which EPA's internal risk communication guidelines are based—guidelines that its field representatives are invited to follow. In particular, we now explore ownership messages conveyed through metacommunication conflict with EPA's risk communication guidelines.