Conflicting Climate Change Frames in a Global Field of Media Discourse

Jeffrey Broadbent, John Sonnett, Iosef Botetzagias, Marcus Carson, Anabela Carvalho, Yu Ju Chien, Christopher Edling, Dana Fisher, Georgios Giouzepas, Randolph Haluza-DeLay, Koichi Hasegawa, Christian Hirschi, Ana Horta, Kazuhiro Ikeda, Jun Jin, Dowan Ku, Myanna Lahsen, Ho Ching Lee, Tze Luen Alan Lin, Thomas MalangJana Ollmann, Diane Payne, Sony Pellissery, Stephan Price, Simone Pulver, Jaime Sainz, Keiichi Satoh, Clare Saunders, Luisa Schmidt, Mark C.J. Stoddart, Pradip Swarnakar, Tomoyuki Tatsumi, David Tindall, Philip Vaughter, Paul Wagner, Sun Jin Yun, Sun Zhengyi

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

34 Scopus citations

Abstract

Reducing global emissions will require a global cosmopolitan culture built from detailed attention to conflicting national climate change frames (interpretations) in media discourse. The authors analyze the global field of media climate change discourse using 17 diverse cases and 131 frames. They find four main conflicting dimensions of difference: validity of climate science, scale of ecological risk, scale of climate politics, and support for mitigation policy. These dimensions yield four clusters of cases producing a fractured global field. Positive values on the dimensions show modest association with emissions reductions. Data-mining media research is needed to determine trends in this global field.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalSocius
Volume2
DOIs
StatePublished - 2016

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
We gratefully acknowledge funding support from the listed sources. We also thank colleagues for comments on the article: Riley Dunlap, Peter Haas, Charles Perrow, Antti Gronow, Eben Broadbent, and Andrew Jorgenson.

Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s) 2016.

Keywords

  • climate change
  • comparative
  • cosmopolitan
  • frame conflicts
  • global warming

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Conflicting Climate Change Frames in a Global Field of Media Discourse'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this