Climate change is one of the most pressing issues of our time, and the media have been demonstrated to play a key role in shaping public perceptions and policy agendas. Journalists are faced with multiple challenges in covering this complex field. This article provides an overview of existing research on the media framing of climate change, highlighting major research themes and assessing future potential research developments. It argues that analysis of the reporting of climate science must be placed in the wider context of the growing concentration and globalization of news media ownership, and an increasingly 'promotional culture', highlighted by the rapid rise of the public relations industry in recent years and claims-makers who employ increasingly sophisticated media strategies. Future research will need to examine in-depth the targeting of media by a range of actors, as well as unravel complex information flows across countries as media increasingly converge.
This article investigates how developments in nanotechnology were framed in the British national newspaper press during a formative period in their rising public salience. Specifically, an intervention by Prince Charles in April 2003 is shown to have acted as the principal catalyst for much of the ensuing newspaper reporting over the next fifteen months. This study, in taking as its focus the operation of specific news frames, identifies a range of factors that shaped the initial terms of the subsequent debate (between both advocates and critics of nanotechnology) from one newspaper to the next during this period. The analysis suggests that the involvement of a celebrity may play a crucial role in enhancing the newsworthiness of an issue and influencing its subsequent framing in the newspaper press.
This article reviews existing research on the portrayal of climate change within the print media, paying particular attention to the increasing role that celebrities have come to play within popular culture. While this is certainly not a new development, celebrities are increasingly appearing as key voices within the climate change debate, providing a powerful news hook and potential mobilizing agent. Early coverage of climate change was dominated by scientific sources, but as the debate became more institutionalized and politicized a wider variety of competing sources entered the news arena. Yet media prominence is not necessarily a reliable indicator of influence. How issues are framed is of crucial importance and celebrity interventions can be a double-edged sword.
Increasingly, scientists and policy makers have come to recognize that if nanotechnologies are to achieve wide public acceptance, it is essential to engage publics during the early phase of technology development. The media, situated at the interface between scientists and lay publics, possess the potential to play a significant role in public engagement in this field. This article, drawing on data from a recent survey and interview-based study, examines how scientists perceive and evaluate the production and coverage of news on nanotechnologies. Scientists acknowledged the significance of the media in shaping public perceptions of nanotechnologies and saw a role for the media in public engagement efforts. Most had criticisms of media coverage and offered suggestions as to how it could be improved. However, their comments often revealed a one-dimensional conception of science mediation that overlooked the influence of their own claims. Any efforts to enrich public dialogue about nanotechnologies must endeavor to advance understanding among scientists about the operations of the media and their own role in news production.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.