Media coverage of climate change: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 14:01, 30 December 2024

Revision as of 02:27, 21 March 2025

Line 69:

The relationship between media and politics is [[Reflexivity (social theory)|reflexive]]. As Feindt & Oels state, "[media] discourse has material and power effects as well as being the effect of material practices and power relations".<ref>{{cite journal|last=Feindt|first=P|author2=Oels, A|title=Does Discourse Matter? Discourse Analysis in Environmental Policy Making|journal=Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning|year=2005|volume=7|issue=3|pages=161–173|doi=10.1080/15239080500339638|bibcode=2005JEPP....7..161F|s2cid=143314592|url=https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:bvb:384-opus4-946257}}</ref> Public support of climate change research ultimately decides whether or not funding for the research is made available to scientists and institutions.

Media coverage in the United States during the Bush Administration often emphasized and exaggerated scientific uncertainty over climate change, reflecting the interests of the political elite.<ref name="Boykoff-Flogging" /> Hall et al. suggest that government and corporate officials enjoy privileged access to the media, allowing their line to become the 'primary definer' of an issue.<ref>{{cite book|last=Hall|first=S|title=Policing the Crisis - Mugging, the State, and Law and Order|year=1978|publisher=Holmes and Meier|___location=New York|page=438|display-authors=etal}}</ref> Media sources and their institutions very often have political leanings which determine their reporting on climate change, mirroring the views of a particular party.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Carvalho|first=A|author2=Burgess, J|title=Cultural Circuits of Climate Change in UK Broadsheet Newspapers|journal=Risk Analysis|date=December 2005|volume=25|issue=6|pages=1457–1469|doi=10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00692.x|pmid=16506975|citeseerx=10.1.1.171.178|s2cid=2079283}}</ref> However, media also has the capacity to challenge political norms and expose corrupt behaviour,<ref>{{cite journal|last=Anderson|first=A|title=Media, Politics and Climate Change: Towards a New Research Agenda|journal=Sociology Compass{{Clarify|date=January 2012}}|year=2009|volume=3|issue=2|pages=166–182|doi=10.1111/j.1751-9020.2008.00188.x}}</ref> as demonstrated in 2007 when ''[[The Guardian]]'' revealed that [[American Enterprise Institute]] received $10,000 from petrochemical giant [[Exxon MobilExxonMobil]] to publish articles undermining the [[IPCC]]'s 4th assessment report.

Ever-strengthening scientific consensus on climate change means that skepticism is becoming less prevalent in the media (although the email scandal in the build up to Copenhagen reinvigorated climate skepticism in the media<ref>{{cite news|last=Monibot|first=George|title=The media laps up fake controversy over climate change|url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/apr/29/george-monbiot-climate-change-scepticism|newspaper=The Guardian|access-date=2011-11-05|___location=London|date=29 April 2009}}</ref>).{{failed verification|date=August 2021|reason=Article is about denialists including an industry of it, but it does not support this paragraph directly.}}