Climate Hypocrisies: A Comparative Study of News Discourse

Abstract

This paper conducts a comparative study of how the idea of hypocrisy was invoked in media coverage of climate change in twelve newspapers from four countries (Canada, Australia, United Kingdom, United States) between 2005 and 2015. It develops the concepts, and explores the characteristics, of three distinct types of climate hypocrisy: personalized (which attacks the moral character of individuals based upon inconsistencies between their stated beliefs and behaviour); institutional-analytic (which identifies contradictions between institutional rhetoric and ongoing policies and practices); and reflexive (which develops sympathetic accounts of the 2 struggles individuals face in reconciling the tension between values and actions). It explores how these types are used to undermine the credibility of climate advocates as well as to argue for more aggressive climate action, and maps out key features of climate hypocrisy discourse including ideological attributes, targeted actors and behaviours, affective intensity and regional variations. It outlines a number of surprising key findings, including (i) that hypocrisy discourses are more frequently invoked by 'progressives' supporting climate change action than by 'conservatives' resisting climate change action, and (ii) that while both groups use hypocrisy discourse, they tend to use very different types of hypocrisy discourses which each likely have very different impacts on climate change discourse..

The trouble with ‘quiet advocacy’: local journalism and reporting climate change in rural and regional Australia

“…Such research now has a special urgency, given the acute need to communicate and act on cascading environmental harms, with much research attention directed at the role of journalism in reporting on the climate crisis (for a meta-analysis, see Schäfer and Schlichting, 2014). Journalistic work on climate change importantly shapes the ways that people ‘understand, talk, care and act around climate change’ (Gunster et al, 2018: 775). However, in a media landscape where many more voices and interests have joined the mediatised conversation on climate change, crucial questions have arisen about how journalism should be responding to climate emergency.…”

“Why Don't You Act Like You Believe It?”: Competing Visions of Climate Hypocrisy

“…These observations obviously raise many more questions than we can explore here (including whether various political perspectives have distinctly identifiable rhetorical tendencies/preferences when debating contemporary climate change policy). Some of these questions are further discussed in Gunster et al (2018). Others are the subject of ongoing research and will be explored in future publications.…”

“…We conduct a detailed quantitative analysis of these articles elsewhere (Gunster et al, 2018), mapping the distribution of key characteristics such as pro-vs. anti-climate action orientation, presence of climate science denial, targeted actors and behaviors, affective intensity and the prominence of three distinct types of hypocrisy discourse (personalized, institutionalanalytic, reflexive). Among the most surprising findings of this analysis was the fact that references to hypocrisy were more frequently embedded within arguments supporting stronger climate action than opposing it.…”

Should Climate Scientists Fly?

“…Greta Thunberg and the climate strike are perhaps most prominent in this group, which also includes the Flight Free and flygskam ("flying shame") movements. As the reference to shame indicates, those in this camp make frequent use of hypocrisy charges; indeed, Gunster et al's (2018a) review of traditional media found more charges of hypocrisy from pro-climate-action arguers than from skeptics. Particularly since Thunberg's muchpublicized sea voyage to North America, climate scientists' flying has come under attack, often in harsh terms.…”