Abstract
Our understanding of environmental issues and our contribution to environmental degradation are shaped by the way our stories are framed, the value hierarchies they advance and a familiarity with the chosen narratives that are so conventionalised that this may deter recognition of how narrative choices limit our interpretive process. Textual arguments and image choices within these narratives have the potential to expand or restrict the audience's commitment to and participation in the belief or action sought by the message. In this article, I am interested in televised documentaries that argue for environmental preservation. I argue that, guided by journalistic conventions and stock environmental narratives, well-meaning appeals frequently make the wrong strategic choices. By examining a case study of similar documentaries employing different narrative choices, we can begin to see how particular narrative structures and substantive appeals advance or restrict audience adherence to the proposed environmental action.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.