This paper analyses climate change discourse in legacy newspapers from France, Germany, the UK, and the US between 2005 and 2022. Using corpus linguistics and named entity recognition, we develop a robust methodology to build and analyse a large-scale corpus of relevant news articles. We focus on the question: Who speaks about climate change? The paper has five aims: (1) to introduce a method for creating a comprehensive and focused corpus of climate-related news; (2) to analyse this corpus using specialised tools; (3) to compare the most visible individuals and organizations across four countries from 2005 to 2022; (4) to analyse cross-national similarities and differences over time; and (5) to compare our findings to previous research.
AllanBB (2017) Producing the climate: states, scientists, and the constitution of global governance objects. International Organization71(1): 131–162. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020818316000321
2.
BarkemeyerRFiggeFHoepnerA, et al. (2017) Media coverage of climate change: an international comparison. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space35(6): 1029–1054. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263774x16680818
BitarJ (2018) 6 Ways Government is Going After Environmental Activists.
5.
Blanco-CastillaETeruel RodríguezLMartín MolinaV (2018) Searching for climate change consensus in broadsheet newspapers. Editorial policy and public opinion. Communication and Society31(3): 331–346. https://doi.org/10.15581/003.31.3.331-344
6.
BolstadPVictorDG (2024) Growing deviations between elite and non-elite media coverage of climate change in the United States. Climatic Change177(6): 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-024-03750-1
7.
BoykoffM (2011) Who Speaks for the Climate? Making Sense of Media Reporting on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
BrossardDShanahanJMcComasK (2004) Are issue-cycles culturally constructed? A Comparison of French and American Coverage of Global Climate Change. Mass Communication & Society7(3): 359–377. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327825mcs0703_6
10.
BrüggemannMEngesserSBüchelF, et al. (2014) Hallin and mancini revisited: four empirical types of Western media systems. Journal of Communication64(6): 1037–1065. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12127
11.
BrulleRJ (2013) Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations. Climatic Change122(4): 681–694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-1018-7
12.
CannTJBWeaverISWilliamsHTP (2021) Ideological biases in social sharing of online information about climate change. PLoS One16(4): e0250656. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250656
ChinnSHartPSSorokaS (2020) Politicization and polarization in climate change news content, 1985-2017. Science Communication42(1): 112–129. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547019900290
15.
CoanTGBoussalisCCookJ, et al. (2021) Computer-assisted classification of contrarian claims about climate change. Scientific Reports11(1): 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-01714-4
16.
Covering Climate Now (2023) Q&A: Washington Post Climate Editors Talk Global Strategies for a Global Story.
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662509352044
18.
EckersleyPKernKHauptW, et al. (2023) Climate governance and federalism in Germany. In: FennaAJodoinSSetzerJ (eds) Climate Governance and Federalism: A Forum of Federations Comparative Policy Analysis. Cambridge University Press, pp. 150–176.
19.
EideEKuneliusR (2010) Domesticating global moments: a transnational study on the coverage of the Bali and Copenhagen climate summits. In: Global Climate, Local Journalisms: A Transnational Study of How Media Make Sense of Climate Summits. Bochum: Projectverlag.
20.
Esping-AndersenG (1990) The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
21.
FarrellJ (2016) Network structure and influence of the climate change counter-movement. Nature Climate Change6(4): 370–374. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2875
FisherDRLeifeldPIwakiY (2013) Mapping the ideological networks of American climate politics. Climatic Change116(3–4): 523–545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-012-0512-7
GamsonWAModiglianiA (1989) Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: a constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology95(1): 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1086/229213
27.
GrundmannRScottM (2014) Disputed climate science in the media: do countries matter?Public Understanding of Science23(2): 220–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662512467732
28.
GuentherLMeyerHKleinen-von KönigslöwK, et al. (2023) A distant threat? The framing of climate futures across four countries. Environmental Communication17(7): 775–793. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2023.2253500
HaseVMahlDSchäferMS, et al. (2021) Climate change in news media across the globe: an automated analysis of issue attention and themes in climate change coverage in 10 countries (2006–2018). Global Environmental Change70: 102353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102353
31.
HäusslerTSchmid-PetriHAdamS, et al. (2016) The climate of debate: How institutional factors shape legislative discourses on climate change. A comparative framing perspective. Studies in Communication Sciences16(1): 94–102.
32.
JasanoffS (2005) Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
33.
KaczmarskiM (2020) Russia and China in global governanceRussia in the Changing International System. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 95–112.
34.
KahanDM (2012) Cultural cognition as a conception of the cultural theory of riskHandbook of Risk Theory. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, pp. 725–759.
35.
KukkonenAYlä-AnttilaTSwarnakarP, et al. (2018) International organizations, advocacy coalitions, and domestication of global norms: Debates on climate change in Canada, the US, Brazil, and India. Environmental Science and Policy 81(October2017): 54–62.
LijphartA (1999) Patterns of Democracy. Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
40.
LückJWesslerHWozniakA, et al. (2018) Counterbalancing global media frames with nationally colored narratives: a comparative study of news narratives and news framing in the climate change coverage of five countries. Journalism19(12): 1635–1656. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884916680372
41.
MedeNGSchroederR (2024) The “Greta Effect” on social media: a systematic review of research on Thunberg’s impact on digital climate change communication. Environmental Communication18(6): 801–818. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2024.2314028
42.
NerlichBForsythRClarkeD (2012) Climate in the news: how differences in media discourse between the US and UK reflect national priorities. Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture6(1): 44–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2011.644633
43.
NewmanTPNisbetECNisbetMC (2018) Climate change, cultural cognition, and media effects: worldviews drive news selectivity, biased processing, and polarized attitudes. Public Understanding of Science27(8): 985–1002. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662518801170
OlaussonU (2014) The diversified nature of “domesticated” news discourse: the case of climate change in national news media. Journalism Studies15(6): 711–725. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670x.2013.837253
46.
PavenstädtCN (2024) Another world is possible? – climate movements’ bounded politicization between science and politics. Frontiers in Political Science6: 1410833. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2024.1410833
47.
RabitzFTelešienėAZolubienėE (2021) Topic modelling the news media representation of climate change. Environmental Sociology7(3): 214–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/23251042.2020.1866281
48.
RingenSNgokK (2013) What Kind of Welfare State is Emerging in China? Working Paper 2013-2. Geneva: UNRISD.
49.
SchäferMSSchlichtingI (2014) Media representations of climate change: a meta-analysis of the research field. Environmental Communication8(2): 142–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2014.914050
50.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.020
51.
SiebertFSPetersonTSchrammW (1984) Four Theories of the Press. University of Illinois Press.
52.
SongYHuangZSchuldtJP, et al. (2022) National prisms of a global phenomenon: a comparative study of press coverage of climate change in the US, UK and China. Journalism23(10): 2208–2229. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884921989124
53.
TengFWangP (2021) The evolution of climate governance in China: drivers, features, and effectiveness. Environmental Politics30(sup1): 141–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2021.1985221
54.
TrumboC (1996) Constructing climate change: claims and frames in US news coverage of an environmental issue. Public Understanding of Science5(3): 269–283. https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/5/3/006
VuHTLiuYTranDV (2019) Nationalizing a global phenomenon: a study of how the press in 45 countries and territories portrays climate change. Global Environmental Change58: 101942. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.101942
57.
WakimN (2024) La longue bataille du climat dans «Le Monde». Le Monde.
58.
WettsR (2023) Money and meaning in the climate change debate: organizational power, cultural resonance, and the shaping of American media discourse. American Journal of Sociology129(2): 384–438. https://doi.org/10.1086/726747
59.
Ylä-AnttilaTGronowAStoddartMCJ, et al. (2018) Climate change policy networks: why and how to compare them across countries. Energy Research and Social Science45: 258–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.06.020
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.
