Talk of the Enemy: Adversarial Framing and Climate Change Discourse

Abstract

This article provides a comparative analysis of adversarial framing oriented to reputation discrediting in the context of social movement/counter-movement relations. Website material associated with two Canadian organizations, the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP) and DeSmogBlog (DSB), involved on opposite sides of the contention over anthropogenic global warming (AGW), is analysed to examine how each side identifies and frames its adversaries and the latter's claims-making practices. The analysis focuses on the extent to which the structure of adversarial framing by each side differs from or is mirrored by the framing of the other side. Both sides discredit their opponents on the basis of five reputational dimensions: practices, moral character, competence and qualifications, social associations, and real versus apparent motivations. The principal point of difference concerns the main focus of discrediting, with the NRSP focusing chiefly on its opponents' claims-making practices and the DSB on moral character. Both discourses, nonetheless, create an integrated discrediting narrative in which all five dimensions are involved, with motivation acting as a cognitive and normative thread tying the other dimensions together.

When does an issue trigger change in a field? A comparative approach to issue frames, field structures and types of field change

“…In fact, although in fragmented fields there are no clearly dominant actors, previous research has shown that under certain conditions frames can socially construct a salient rival or "virtual enemy" with the strategic intent to create the perception of a wellidentified antagonist in the eyes of potential supporters (e.g. Hunt, Benford and Snow, 1994;Knight and Greenberg, 2011). For example, McEvily and Ingram (2007) documented how actors in the highly fragmented field of food cooperatives created the perception of Whole Foods -which at the time was not considered a "player" and competitor by the cooperativesas a salient "dominating" rival, eventually sharpening the identity of food cooperatives and eliciting their increasing support against a "common enemy" (which was virtually unknown until that time).…”

Climate Hypocrisies: A Comparative Study of News Discourse

“…al. 2012); the use of hypocrisy to attack the credibility of climate scientists and environmental activists (Gavin & Marshall 2011;Gunster & Saurette 2014;Knight & Greenberg 2011;Marshall 2014;Mayer 2012); public and activist criticism of the hypocrisy of state actors and climate policy (Eckersley 2013;McGregor 2015;Platt & Retallack 2009;Webb 2012); hypocrisy's effect in shifting climate discourse into a moral, emotional register (Young 2011;Dannenberg et al 2012); representations of the general public as hypocritical (Höppner 2010); and the hypocrisy of 'green' consumerism (Barr 2011;Laidley 2013). For the most part, however, these references to climate hypocrisy are cursory and often under-developed, merely gesturing towards the idea's rhetorical significance.…”

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

“…While many scholars have, in passing, noted the rhetorical force of hypocrisy in discourse about climate change, there has been no systematic empirical study or robust theorization of the nature of hypocrisy discourse. Scholars have noted the hypocrisy intrinsic to much celebrity advocacy (Boykoff and Goodman, 2009;Anderson, 2011;Cooper et al, 2012); the utility of hypocrisy for attacks on the credibility of climate scientists and environmental activists (Gavin and Marshall, 2011;Knight and Greenberg, 2011;Mayer, 2012;Gunster and Saurette, 2014;Marshall, 2014); the existence of accusations of hypocrisy directed toward state actors and climate policy (Platt and Retallack, 2009;Webb, 2012;Eckersley, 2013;McGregor, 2015); the impact of hypocrisy accusations in shifting climate discourse into a moral register (Young, 2011;Dannenberg et al, 2012); representations of the general public as hypocritical (Höppner, 2010); and the hypocrisy of "green" consumerism (Barr, 2011;Laidley, 2013). Such references to climate hypocrisy, however, are largely cursory and under-developed, noting the idea's rhetorical significance without any sustained investigation.…”