How climate change skeptics (try to) spread their ideas: Using computational methods to assess the resonance among skeptics’ and legacy media

Abstract

We study the discursive resonance of online climate skepticism in traditional media in Germany, a country where climate skeptics lack public prestige and thus form a political counter-movement. We thereby differentiate two temporal dynamics: resonance can be continuous or selective, based on the exploitation of specific events. Beyond, we test whether such resonance is higher within the conservative media. We rely on news value theory to shed light on the mechanism facilitating or hindering such resonance and identify three indicators for resonance: frames, positions and actors. Using various computational methods as well as qualitative case studies, we examine the skeptical and traditional media discourses over a period of two years. Our analysis shows that there is no continuous resonance. However, our data reveal selective resonance: skeptics' manage to exploit specific events pushing their frames and positions onto traditional media's agenda. Thereby, conservative media did not give greater resonance to climate skeptical voices whereas they resort to downplaying the issue by allocating less space to it.

Diverse Effects of Mass Media Concerns about Immigration: New Evidence from Germany, 2001 - 2016

“…To analyze frames in media reports, Jacobi, van Atteveldt and Welbers (2016) propose to use topic models. This is in line with DiMaggio, Nag and Blei (2013), who investigate frames in government arts funding, Heidenreich et al (2019), who analyze the media framing dynamics during the 'European Refugee Crisis' using topic models, as well as Adam et al (2020), who study the discursive resonance of online climate skepticism.…”

Mainstream Consensus and the Expansive Fringe: Characterizing the Polarized Information Ecosystems of Online Climate Change Discourse

“…By examining the network dynamics of link-sharing (URL-sharing) practices by various groups holding different stances toward climate change, we unearth novel characterizations of the distinct information ecosystems that drive polarized discourse around climate change. We specifically triangulate evidence of polarized bifurcation between a consolidated, mainstream information ecosystem that bolsters the scientific consensus around climate change; and an expansive, fringe information ecosystem that may support diverse entry points into climate change skepticism [1,29]. These findings resonate with and extend recent scholarship on information polarization around climate change and other controversial topics of public discourse [2,30,31,33].…”

“…Because of the similarly vast scale of climate change information online, diverse digital populations may indeed be drawn to scientific knowledge; yet at the same time, these motivations may also drive consumption of non-traditional alternatives which promise epistemic certainty [29]. Traditional media institutions, climate change activists, as well as motivated skeptics employ the resources of cyberspace with both proficiency and influence [1,30]. It is therefore important to understand not just extant divisions in the kinds of information available to online discourse, but also how these resources are employed by different online communities.…”

“…Such dynamics have been studied in both real-world and digital contexts, featuring conflicts between those who accept the scientific reality of anthropogenic climate change, and those who reject it [9,19]. In particular, researchers across various disciplines have uncovered significant insights into how polarized discourse is linked with social and emotional rifts, leading to the formation of echo chambers, exacerbating hostile interactions, and the spread of climate misinformation [1,18,29].…”

Politicized climate science: No evidence for science literacy driving motivated reasoning, or polarized belief-updating in a US national experiment

“…Motivated reasoning probably cannot explain these effects since motivated reasoning should affect response bias, but not sensitivity (Batailler et al, 2021). Rather, the lower sensitivity among climate skeptics may be driven by the specific characteristics of the media and information environments of climate skeptics that challenges expert knowledge, and climate science (Adam et al, 2020;Elgesem et al, 2015;Sharman, 2014), which may blur the line between correct and incorrect pieces of knowledge (Fischer et al, 2019)different types of evidence. This is consistent with recent evidence showing that Conservatives had lesser abilities to discern true from false political claims, which could partially be explained with the political implications of these claims (Garrett & Bond, 2021).…”