The definition and local cultural adoption of globally generated terms such as environment and sustainable development happen largely through an imbricated process of meaning negotiation within democratic public discourse. Framing behaviour by media and influential opinion makers shapes and moulds local and national discourse about environment and sustainability, particularly in developing countries where pro-development forces face off against pro-conservation groups over resource use choices. Using elements of framing and grounded theory, a qualitative interpretive case study analysis of environment and sustainability related articles from a leading English language fortnightly magazine in India reveals that highly emotive frames are being used in media construction of the environment and sustainability discourse in India. While the research findings suggest that stock themes from the international framing repertoire are in use, they also indicate that distinctive new frames are being employed that could assist in instigating social change and refashioning public attitudes.
AnS-KGowerK (2008) How do the news media frame crises? A content analysis of crisis news coverage. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Chicago, IL.
4.
AppaduraiA (1996) Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
5.
BawarshiASReiffMJ (2010) Genre: An Introduction to History, Theory, Research and Pedagogy. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.
6.
BernsteinJM (1995) Recovering Ethical Life: Jurgen Habermas and the Future of Critical Theory. London: Routledge.
7.
BhagwatiJPanagariyaASrinivasanTN (eds) (1998) Lectures on International Trade. Boston, MA: MIT.
8.
BrulleRJ (2010) From environmental campaigns to advancing the public dialog: Environmental communication for civic engagement. Environmental Communication4(1): 82–98.
9.
BryantJOliverMB (eds) (2009) Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research. New York: Routledge.
10.
CornerJ (2009) Public knowledge and popular culture: Spaces and tensions. Media, Culture & Society31(1): 141–146.
11.
CornerJRichardsonKFentonN (1990) Nuclear Reactions: Form and Response in Public Issue Television. London: John Libbey.
12.
CottleS (2011) Taking global crises in the news seriously: Notes from the dark side of globalization. Global Media and Communications7(2): 77–95.
13.
CoxJR (2010) Beyond frames: Recovering the strategic in climate communication. Environmental Communication4(1): 122–133.
14.
DardisE et al. (2008) Media framing of capital punishment and its impact on individuals’ cognitive responses. Mass Communication & Society11(2): 115–140.
DevittAJ (2004) Writing Genres. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
18.
DombosT (2009) Critical frame analysis: A comparative methodology for the QUING project. ECPR First European Conference on Politics and Gender. Queens University, Belfast, 21–23January.
19.
EntmanRM (1993) Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication43(4): 51–58.
GuptaASivaramakrishnanK (eds) (2011) The State in India after Liberalization: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. New York: Routledge.
22.
HabermasJ (1987) The Theory of Communicative Action: Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
23.
HohenthalA (2003) English in India: Loyalty and attitudes. Language in India3(5).
24.
HowsonJCleasbyA (1996) Towards a critical media. In: HuckleJSterlingS (eds) Education for Sustainability. London: Earthscan Publications.
25.
IyengarSSimonA (1993) News coverage of the Gulf crisis and public opinion. Communication Research20(3): 365–383.
26.
KasbekarA (2006) Pop Culture India! Media, Arts, and Lifestyle. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO Inc.
27.
KrippendorffK (1980) Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
28.
KubeyR (ed.) (2001) Media literacy in the information age: Current perspectives. In: KubeyR (ed.) Information and Behaviour. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
29.
LakoffG (2010) Why it matters how we frame the environment. Environmental Communication4(1): 70–81.
30.
LemertCBrenamanA (1997) The Goffman Reader. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
31.
LevettR (1998) Sustainability indicators – integrating quality of life and environmental protection. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society)161(3): 291–302.
32.
LopezA (2010) Defusing the cannon/canon: An organic media approach to environmental communication. Environmental Communication4(1): 99–108.
33.
MarinNLengelL (2007) Emerging media transformations in the new Europe: Past and future challenges. In: BlanksonIAMurphyPD (eds) Negotiating Democracy: Media Transformations in Emerging Democracies. New York: State University of New York Albany Press, pp.52–53.
34.
MawdesleyE (2004) India’s middle classes and the environment. Development and Change1(35): 79–103.
35.
McCombsMEShawDL (1972) The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly36(2): 176–187.
36.
MillerCR (1994) Genre as social action. In: FreedmanAMedwayP (eds) Genre and the New Rhetoric. Bristol: Taylor and Francis.
37.
MinskyM (1975) A framework for representing knowledge. In: WinstonPH (ed.) The Psychology of Computer Vision. New York: McGraw Hill.
38.
MorrisCTAdelmanI (1988) Comparative Patterns of Economic Development 1850–1914. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
39.
MRUC (Media Research Users Council) (2011) Indian Readership Survey. Mumbai: Media Research Users Council.
40.
NeumanWRJustMRCriglerAN (1992) Common Knowledge: News and the Construction of Political Meaning. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
41.
NisbetMC (2009) Communicating climate change: Why frames matter for public engagement. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development51(2): 12–23.
NorrisP (1995) The restless searchlight: Network news framing of the post-Cold War world. Political Communication12(3): 357–370.
44.
PanZKosickiGM (2001) Framing as a strategic action in public deliberation. In: ReeseSDGandyJr OHGrantAE (eds) Framing Public Life: Perspectives on Media and Our Understanding of the Social World. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp.35–65.
RavindranathMJIyer-RanigaU (2000) Living traditions: India. In: FienJYenckenDSykesH (eds) Environment, Education and Society in the Asia-Pacific: Local Traditions and Global Discourses. New York: Routledge, pp.99–113.
51.
RockefellerS (2010) Keynote address at the Earth Charter 10 International Conference, 1–3 November, CEE, Ahmedabad, India.
52.
SemetkoHAValkenburgPM (2000) Framing European politics: A content analysis of press and TV news. Journal of Communication50(2): 93–109.
TalbotM (2007) Media Discourse: Representation and Interaction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
56.
TankardJW (2001) The empirical approach to the study of media framing. In: ReeseSDGandyOHJGrantAE (eds) News Framing as a Multiparadigmatic Research Program. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp.95–106.
57.
ThussuDK (2000) International Communication: Continuity and Change. London: Arnold.
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) (2010) Education for sustainable development. Available at: www.unesco.org/en/esd (accessed 5 April 2010).
