This article is based on the premise that journalists play an important role as mediators of scientific information and their interpretations of climate change influence media debates and public opinion. The study maps the minds of climate journalists from five different countries (Germany, India, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States) and different types of leading media outlets. It identifies five cognitive frames that vary between attributing the responsibility for climate change to lobbying and national interests, blaming consumerist culture and the capitalist system, and expressing technological optimism. The study provides evidence for the emergence of a sustainability frame, indicates a “blame game” between industrialized countries and emerging economies, and shows the demand for a global ecological discourse. Finally, it explores how individual factors such as specialization, professional aims, and political alignment correlate with the cognitive frames of journalists.
AgarwalANarainS (1991) Global Warming in an Unequal World: A Case of Environmental Colonialism. New Delhi, India: Centre for Science and Environment.
2.
AntillaL (2005) Climate of scepticism: US newspaper coverage of the science of climate change. Global Environmental Change15(4): 338–352.
3.
AudetR (2013) Climate justice and bargaining coalitions: A discourse analysis. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics13(3): 369–386.
4.
BillettS (2010) Dividing climate change: Global warming in the Indian mass media. Climatic Change99(1): 1–16.
5.
BoykoffMBoykoffJ (2004) Balance as bias: Global warming and the US prestige press. Global Environmental Change14(2): 125–136.
BoykoffMTSmithJ (2010) Media presentations of climate change. In: Lever-TracyC (ed.) Routledge Handbook of Climate Change and Society. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 210–218.
8.
BrüggemannM (2014) Between frame setting and frame sending: How journalists contribute to news frames. Communication Theory24(1): 61–82.
9.
BrüggemannMEngesserS (2014) Between consensus and denial: Climate journalists as interpretive community. Science Communication36(4): 399–427.
10.
CarvalhoA (2007) Ideological cultures and media discourses on scientific knowledge: Re-reading news on climate change. Public Understanding of Science16(2): 223–243.
11.
ChongDDruckmanJN (2007) A theory of framing and opinion formation in competitive elite environments. Journal of Communication57(1): 99–118.
CorbettJBDurfeeJL (2004) Testing public (un-)certainty of science: Media representations of global warming. Science Communication26(2): 129–151.
14.
DahindenU (2002) Biotechnology in Switzerland. Science Communication24(2): 184–197.
15.
D’AngeloPKuypersJA (eds) (2010) Doing News Framing Analysis: Empirical and Theoretical Perspectives. New York, NY: Routledge.
16.
De VreeseCH (2002) Framing Europe: Television News and European Integration. Amsterdam: Aksant.
17.
DirikxAGeldersD (2010) To frame is to explain: A deductive frame-analysis of Dutch and French climate change coverage during the annual UN conferences of the parties. Public Understanding of Science19(6): 732–742.
18.
DunwoodyS (1992) The media and public perceptions of risk: How journalists frame risk stories. In: BromleysDSegersonK (eds) The Social Response to Environmental Risk: Policy Formulation in an Age of Uncertainty. New York, NY: Springer, pp. 75–100.
19.
DurantJBauerMWGaskellG (1998) Biotechnology in the Public Sphere: A European Sourcebook. London: Science Museum.
20.
ElsasserSWDunlapRE (2013) Leading voices in the denier choir: Conservative columnists’ dismissal of global warming and denigration of climate science. American Behavioral Scientist57(6): 754–776.
21.
EntmanR (1993) Framing: Towards a clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication43(4): 51–58.
22.
EntmanRMMatthesJPellicanoL (2009) Nature, sources, and effects of news framing. In: Wahl-JorgensenKHanitzschT (eds) The Handbook of Journalism Studies. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 175–190.
23.
FahyDNisbetMC (2011) The science journalist online: Shifting roles and emerging practices. Journalism12(7): 778–793.
24.
GamsonWAModiglianiA (1987) The changing culture of affirmative action. In: BraungartRGBraungartMM (eds) Research in Political Sociology. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 137–177.
25.
GamsonWModiglianiA (1989) Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. The American Journal of Sociology95(1): 1–37.
26.
GamsonWACroteauDHoynesWSassonT (1992) Media images and the social construction of reality. Annual Review of Sociology18: 373–393.
27.
GansHJ (1979) Deciding What’s News. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.
28.
GaskellG (2001) Attitudes, social representations and beyond. In: DeauxKPhilogeneG (eds) Representations of the Social. Oxford, UK: Blackwell, pp. 228–241.
29.
GitlinT (1980) The Whole World is Watching: Mass Media in the Making & Unmaking of the New Left. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
30.
GoffmanE (1974) Frame Analysis. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
31.
GrundmannRScottM (2014) Disputed climate science in the media: Do countries matter?Public Understanding of Science23(2): 220–235.
32.
HallSCritcherCJeffersonTClarkeJRobertsB (2009) The social production of news. In: ThornhamSBassettCMarrisP (eds) Media Studies: A Reader. Edinburgh: Edinburg University Press, pp. 648–655.
33.
HartPS (2011) One or many? The influence of episodic and thematic climate change frames on policy preferences and individual behavior change. Science Communication33(1): 28–51.
34.
HöijerB (2011) Social representations theory: A new theory for media research. Nordicom Review32(2): 3–16.
35.
JovchelovitchS (1996) In defence of representations. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour26: 121–135.
36.
KohringMMatthesJ (2002) The face(t)s of biotech in the nineties: How the German press framed modern biotechnology. Public Understanding of Science11(2): 143–154.
37.
McCluskeyM (2008) Reporter beat and content differences in environmental stories. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly85(1): 83–98.
38.
MarkováI (2003) Dialogicality and Social Representations: The Dynamics of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
39.
MatthesJKohringM (2008) The content analysis of media frames: Toward improving reliability and validity. Journal of Communication58(2): 258–279.
40.
McCrightAMDunlapRE (2000) Challenging global warming as a social problem: An analysis of the conservative movement’s counter-claims. Social Problems47: 499–522.
41.
MoscoviciS (1961) La psychanalyse, son image et son public [Psychoanalysis: Its image, its public]. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
42.
MoscoviciS (1984) The phenomenon of social representations. In: FarrRMMoscoviciS (eds) Social Representations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–69.
43.
NisbetMC (2010) Knowledge into action: Framing the debates over climate change and poverty. In: D’AngeloPKuypersJA (eds) Doing News Framing Analysis: Empirical and Theoretical Perspectives. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 43–83.
44.
PainterJ (2013) Climate Change in the Media: Reporting Risk and Uncertainty. London: Tauris.
45.
RahmstorfSSchellnhuberH-J (2007) Der Klimawandel: Diagnose, Prognose, Therapie. München: CH Beck.
46.
SachsmanDBSimonJMyer ValentiJ (2010) Environment Reporters in the 21st Century. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
47.
ScheufeleB (2006) Frames, schemata, and news reporting. Communications31(1): 65–83.
48.
ScheufeleBTScheufeleDA (2010) Of spreading activation, applicability, and schemas: Conceptual distinctions and their operational implications for measuring frames and framing effects. In: D’AngeloPKuypersJA (eds) Doing News Framing Analysis: Empirical and Theoretical Perspectives. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 110–134.
49.
SchlichtingI (2013) Strategic framing of climate change by industry actors: A meta-analysis. Environmental Communication7(4): 493–511.
50.
SchmidtASchlichtingI (2014) Sustainability and climate change: Interpretations and claims by societal actors from Germany, India and the United States. In: MüllerMHemmerITrappeM (eds) Rio+20 – Nachhaltigkeit neu denken? Rio+X: Impulse für Bildung und Wissenschaft [Rio+20 - Rethinking sustainability? Rio+X: Impulses for Education and Science]. München: Oekom, pp. 141–149.
51.
SchmidtAIvanovaASchäferMS (2013) Media attention for climate change around the world: A comparative analysis of newspaper coverage in 27 countries. Global Environmental Change23(5): 1233–1248.
52.
SchudsonM (1995) The Power of News. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
53.
SemetkoHAValkenburgPM (2000) Framing European politics: A content analysis of press and television news. Journal of Communication50(3): 93–109.
ShoemakerPJReeseSD (1996) Mediating the Message: Theories of Influence on Mass Media Content. White Plains, NY: Longman.
56.
StockingHSHolsteinLW (2009) Manufacturing doubt: Journalists’ roles and the construction of ignorance in a scientific controversy. Public Understanding of Science18: 23–42.
57.
TrumboC (1996) Constructing climate change: Claims and frames in US news coverage of an environmental issue. Public Understanding of Science5(3): 269–283.
58.
TuchmanG (1978) Making News: A Study in the Construction of Reality. New York, NY: Free Press.
59.
WilsonKM (2000) Drought, debate, and uncertainty: Measuring reporters’ knowledge and ignorance about climate change. Public Understanding of Science9: 1–13.
60.
ZehrS (2009) An environmentalist/economic hybrid frame in US press coverage of climate change, 2000–2008. In: BoyceTLewisJ (eds) Climate Change and the Media. New York, NY: Peter Lang, pp. 80–91.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
