Media’s social construction of environmental issues: focus on global warming – a comparative study

Abstract

Global warming has been a well recognized environmental issue in the United States for the past ten years, even though scientists had identified it as a potential problem years before in 1896. We find debate about the issue in the United States media coverage while controversy among the majority of scientists is rare. The role that media plays in constructing the norms and ideas in society is researched to understand how they socially construct global warming and other environmental issues. To identify if the U.S. Media presents a biased view of global warming, the following are discussed 1) the theoretical perspective of media and the environment; 2) scientific overview and history of global warming; 3) media coverage of global warming, and 4) research findings from the content analysis of three countries' newspaper articles and two international scientific journals produced in 2000 with comparison of these countries economies, industries, and environments. In conclusion, our research demonstrates that the U.S. with differing industries, predominantly dominated by the fossil fuel industry, in comparison to New Zealand and Finland has a significant impact on the media coverage of global warming. The U.S's media states that global warming is controversial and theoretical, yet the other two countries portray the story that is commonly found in the international scientific journals. Therefore, media, acting as one driving force, is providing citizens with piecemeal information that is necessary to assess the social, environmental and political conditions of the country and world. Over the last decade, the fossil fuel lobby has mounted an extremely effective campaign of disinformation to persuade the public and policymakers that the issue of atmospheric warming is still stuck in the limbo of uncertainty. That campaign for the longest time targeted the science. It then misrepresented the economics. And most recently it attacked the diplomatic foundations of the climate convention. And it has been extraordi

Media coverage of climate change in spanish-speaking online media

“…The results of León and Erviti diverge from other studies in non-u.s. media, in which the portrayal of controversy was very limited (Dispensa and Brulle, 2003;Gordon et al, 2010;Zamith et al, 2013). In the spanish newspapers, controversy is a very relevant element in the presentation of cc and is related to the editorial line of each media.…”

Constructions of Climate Change on the Radio and in Nepalese Lay Focus Groups

“…In terms of sources, in common with findings in developed 4 countries (e.g. Kenix, 2008;Dispensa & Brulle, 2003), he points to a dominance of elite discourses on climate change with little attention to effects on more vulnerable populations within the country. Similarly, Billet's analysis also points to the way in which Indian newspapers reflect concerns of industrial elites and downplay their responsibility for India's increasing emissions.…”

“…Analysis shows that the US has more scepticism in its coverage than other developed countries such as New Zealand or Finland (Dispensa & Brulle, 2003). Similarly, climate change discourse in the UK press is also found to be 'confusing', 'contradictory', 'chaotic' (Ereaut & Segnit, 2006: p.7), and uncertain (Doulton & Brown, 2009).…”

“…Despite such variation, one recurrent observation is that climate change is often framed in terms of debate, controversy or uncertainty (see Antilla, 2005;Dispensa & Brulle, 2003;Doulton & Brown, 2009, Ereaut & Segnit, 2006Nisbet & Mooney, 2007). Analysis shows that the US has more scepticism in its coverage than other developed countries such as New Zealand or Finland (Dispensa & Brulle, 2003).…”

“…Studies in the United Kingdom (Ereaut & Segnit, 2006;Hulme, 2007) and Germany (Peters & Heinrichs, 2008) further suggest that alarmism dominates climate change discourses, with the issue often depicted as "awesome, terrible, immense" and beyond the control of human beings (Ereaut & Segnit, 2006, p.7). Such contradictory, uncertain and alarmist media discourses are thought to lead to public confusion and helplessness (Antilla, 2005;Dispensa & Brulle, 2003;Ereaut & Segnit, 2006).…”