Past research supports the notion that Fox News Channel (FNC) is more dismissive of global warming than other news outlets. In addition, FNC covers the issue much more often. A qualitative–quantitative content analysis indicates that—for the leading U.S. broadcast and cable news networks overall—coverage of global warming relies on traditional news values such as political-elite cues and event magnitude. FNC, however, exhibited a news agenda favoring more coverage of global warming and climate change (relative to the other leading news outlets). Additional analysis indicates that FNC often co-opts the issue as an exemplar of “political correctness” and of the excess of political progressivism. Other networks, conversely, are more likely than FNC to cover the actual causes and impacts of global warming. Findings are situated in the context of gatekeeping theory; implications of observed network differences are discussed.
AltheideD. L. (1996). Qualitative media analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
2.
BaumM. A.JamisonA. S. (2006). The Oprah effect: How soft news helps inattentive citizens vote consistently. The Journal of Politics, 68, 946–959.
3.
BellA. (1991). The language of news media. New York, NY: John Wiley.
4.
BennettW. L. (2004). Gatekeeping and press-government relations: A multigated model of news construction. In KaidL. L. (Ed.), Handbook of political communication research (pp. 283–313). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
5.
BennettW. L. (2005). News: The politics of illusion. New York, NY: Pearson Education.
6.
BerkowitzD. (1990). Refining the gatekeeping metaphor for local television news. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 34, 55–68.
7.
BreedW. (1955). Social control in the newsroom. Social Forces, 1, 326–335.
8.
BrewerP. R.CaoX. (2006). Candidate appearances on soft news shows and public knowledge about primary campaigns. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 50, 18–35.
9.
CoeK.TewksburyD.BondB. J.DrogosK. J.PorterR. W.YahnA.ZhangY. (2008). Hostile news: Partisan use and perceptions of cable news programming. Journal of Communication, 58, 201–219.
10.
CurtinP. A.RhodenbaughE. (2001). Building the news media agenda on the environment: A comparison of public relations and journalistic sources. Public Relations Review, 27, 179–195. doi:10.1016/S0363-8111(01)00079-0
11.
D’AlessioD.AllenM. (2000). Media bias in presidential elections: A meta-analysis. Journal of Communication, 50, 133–156. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02866.x
12.
DanV.LhlenO. (2010). Framing expertise: A cross-cultural analysis of success in framing contests. Journal of Communications Management, 15, 368–388.
FeldmanL. (2011). Partisan differences in opinionated news perceptions: A test of the hostile media effect. Political Behavior, 33, 407–432. doi:10.1007/s11109-010-9139-4
17.
FeldmanL.MaibachE. W.Roser-RenoufC.LeiserowitzA. (2012). Climate on cable. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 17, 3–31. doi:10.1177/1940161211425410
18.
GaltungJ.RugeM. (1965). The structure of foreign news. Journal of Peace Research, 2, 64–91.
19.
GansH. J. (1979a). Deciding what’s news. New York, NY: Random House.
20.
GansH. J. (1979b). Deciding what’s news: Story suitability. Society & Natural Resources, 16, 65–77.
21.
GlotzbachS.BaumgartnerS. (2012). The relationship between intragenerational and intergenerational ecological justice. Environmental Values, 21, 331–355.
22.
GrayJ. H.DenstenI. L. (1998). Integrating quantitative and qualitative analysis using latent and manifest variables. Quality & Quantity, 32, 419–431.
23.
GroelingT. (2013). Media bias by the numbers: Challenges and opportunities in the empirical study of partisan news. Annual Review of Political Science, 16, 129–151. doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-040811-115123
24.
GuntherA. C.ChristenC. T.LiebhartJ. L.Chih-Yun ChiaS. (2001). Congenial public, contrary press, and biased estimates of the climate of opinion. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 65, 295–320.
HarcupT.O’NeillD. (2001). What is news? Galtung and Ruge revisited. Journalism Studies, 2, 261–280. doi:10.1080/14616700120042114
27.
IyengarS.HahnK. S. (2009). Red media, blue media: Evidence of ideological selectivity in media use. Journal of Communication, 59, 19–39. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01402.x
28.
KrosnickJ. A. (2010). Frequent viewers of Fox news are less likely to accept scientists’ views on global warming. Stanford, CA: Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment.
29.
LeiserowitzA.MaibachE. W.Roser-RenoufC.HmielowskiJ. D. (2011). Politics & global warming: Democrats, republicans, independents and the tea party. New Haven, CT: Tale Project on Climate Change Communication: Yale University and George mason University. Retrieved fromhttp://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/article/PoliticsGlobalWarming2011
30.
LevenduskyM. S. (2013). Why do partisan media polarize viewers?American Journal of Political Science, 57, 611–623. Retrieved fromhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/23496642
31.
LewinK. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics: Concept, method and reality in science; social equilibria and social change. Human Relations, 1, 5–40.
32.
MayringP. (2002). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken (8th ed.) (Qualitative Content Analysis: Foundations and Techniques). Weinheim, Germany: Beltz.
33.
McKnightD. (2010). A change in the climate? The journalism of opinion at News Corporation. Journalism, 11, 693–706. doi:10.1177/1464884910379704
34.
McQuailD. (2010). McQuail’s mass communication theory (Vol. 6). London, England: Sage.
35.
NeveuE. (2002). Four generations of political journalism. In KuhnR.NeveuE. (Eds.), Political journalism: New challenges, new practices (pp. 22–43). London, England: Routledge.
36.
O’NeillD.HarcupT. (2009). News values and selectivity. In Wahl-JorgensenK.HanitzschT. (Eds.), The handbook of journalism studies (pp. 161–174). London, England: Routledge.
37.
PattersonT. E. (2000). Doing well and doing good: How soft news and critical journalism are shrinking the news audience and weakening democracy—And what news outlets can do about it. Cambridge, MA: Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy.
38.
Pew Research Center. (2015a). State of the News Media 2015. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.
39.
Pew Research Center. (2015b). Public’s policy priorities reflect changing conditions at home and abroad. Washington, DC: Author.
40.
PlasserF. (2005). From hard to soft news standards: How political journalists in different media systems evaluate the shifting quality of news. The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 10, 47–68.
41.
PriorM. (2007). Post-broadcast democracy. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
42.
ShoemakerP. J.VosT. P.ReeseS. D. (2009). Journalists as gatekeepers. In Wahl-JorgensenK.HanitzschT. (Eds.), The handbook of journalism studies (pp. 73–87). Oxford, England: Routledge.
43.
WhiteD. M. (1950). The “gate keeper”: A case study in the selection of news. Journalism Quarterly, 27, 383–390.
44.
WilliamsA. (1975). Unbiased study of television news bias. Journal of Communication, 25, 190–199. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1975.tb00656.x
45.
ZallerJ. (2003). A new standard of news quality: Burglar alarms for the monitorial citizen. Political Communication, 20, 109–130. doi:10.1080/10584600390211136
