Framing Climate Change in the 5 th Estate: Comparing Online Advocacy and Denial Webpages and Their Engagement

Abstract

Debates about anthropogenic climate change grew increasingly polarized as online channels emerged as primary news sources. This raises the question of how online media shape the perceived salience of climate change issues. Guided by agenda-setting theory and framing theory, this study utilized topic modeling to examine online climate change advocacy and denial webpages posted from 2007–2019. Engagement with media agendas, public agendas, and framing related to climate change were examined. Advocacy webpages were more engaging than denial webpages. The more frequently that a climate change topical frame was covered by online media, the more likely it would be engaged on social media (SM). Climate change topical frames differed in their ability to engage SM users. Several competing climate change advocacy and denial topical frames differed significantly in SM engagement. Results can help researchers to design effective climate change campaigns as well as develop programs to track and combat online misinformation.

Keywords

Climate change framing topic modeling engagement social media

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Arlt

Hoppe

Schmitt

J. B.

De Silva-Schmidt

Brüggemann

(2018). Climate engagement in a digital age: exploring the drivers of participation in climate discourse online in the context of COP21. Environmental Communication, 12(1), 84–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2017.1394892

Arun

Suresh

Madhavan

C. E. V.

Murty

M. N.

(2010). On finding the natural number of topics with latent Dirichlet allocation: some observations. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 6118 LNAI(PART 1), 391–402. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-13657-3_43

Atkin

Hunt

Lin

C. A.

(2015). Diffusion theory in the new media environment: Towards an integrated model of technology adoption. Mass Communication & Society, 18, 623–650.

Bennett

W. L.

(1990). Toward a theory of press-state relations in the United States. Journal of Communication, 40(2), 103–127. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1990.tb02265.x

Blei

D. M.

Lafferty

J. D.

(2009). Topic models. In A. N. Srivastava., & M. Sahami (Eds.) Text mining: Classification, clustering, and applications, (pp.71–89). https://doi.org/10.1145/1143844.1143859

Blei

D. M.

A. Y.

Jordan

M. I.

(2003). Latent Dirichlet allocation. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3, 993–1022. https://doi.org/10.1162/jmlr.2003.3.4-5.993

Bloomfield

E. F.

Tillery

(2019). The circulation of climate change denial online: Rhetorical and networking strategies on Facebook. Environmental Communication, 13(1), 23–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2018.1527378

Brownell

S. E.

Price

J. V.

Steinman

(2013). Science communication to the general public: Why we need to teach undergraduate and graduate students this skill as part of their formal scientific training. Journal of Undergraduate Neuroscience Education, 12(1), E6–E10.

Calder

B. J.

Isaac

M. S.

Malthouse

E. C.

(2016). How to capture consumer experiences: A context-specific approach to measuring engagement: predicting consumer behavior across qualitatively different experiences. Journal of Advertising Research, 56(1), 39–52. https://doi.org/10.2501/JAR-2015-028

10.

Carmichael

J. T.

Brulle

R. J.

(2017). Elite cues, media coverage, and public concern: An integrated path analysis of public opinion on climate change, 2001–2013. Environmental Politics, 26(2), 232–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2016.1263433

11.

Chong

Druckman

J. N.

(2013). Counterframing effects. Journal of Politics, 75(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381612000837

12.

Collins

Nerlich

(2015). Examining user comments for deliberative democracy: A corpus-driven analysis of the climate change debate online. Environmental Communication, 9(2), 189–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2014.981560

13.

Deveaud

SanJuan

Bellot

(2014). Accurate and effective latent concept modeling for ad hoc information retrieval. Document Numérique, 17(1), 61–84. https://doi.org/10.3166/dn.17.1.61-84

14.

Druckman

J. N.

Nelson

K. R.

(2003). Framing and deliberation: How Citizens’ conversations limit elite influence. American Journal of Political Science, 47(4), 729–745. https://doi.org/10.2307/3186130

15.

Fernandez

Piccolo

L. S. G.

Maynard

Wippoo

Meili

Alani

(2016). Talking climate change via social media: Communication, engagement and behaviour. WebSci 2016 - Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Web Science Conference. 85–94. https://doi.org/10.1145/2908131.2908167

16.

Funk

Kennedy

(2016). The politics of climate. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2016/10/PS_2016.10.04_Politics-of-Climate_FINAL.pdf.

17.

Groshek

(2013). Agenda trending: Reciprocity and the predictive capacity of social networking sites in intermedia agenda setting across topics over. Time. Media and Communication, 1(1), 15–27. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v1i1.71

18.

Jansen

B. J.

Booth

D. L.

Spink

(2008). Determining the informational, navigational, and transactional intent of Web queries. Information Processing and Management, 44(3), 1251–1266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2007.07.015

19.

Jeffres

L. W.

Atkin

Neuendorf

(2001). Expanding the range of dependent measures in mainstreaming and cultivation analysis. Communication Research Reports, 18, 408–417. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824090109384822

20.

Johnson, J. (2019). Worldwide desktop market share of leading search engines from January 2010 to July 2019. https://www.statista.com/statistics/216573/worldwide-market-share-of-search-engines/.

21.

Lakoff

(2010). Why it matters how we frame the environment. Environmental Communication, 4(1), 70–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524030903529749

22.

Lewandowsky

Cook

Fay

Gignac

G. E.

(2019). Science by social media: Attitudes towards climate change are mediated by perceived social consensus. Memory and Cognition, 47(8), 1445–1456. https://doi: 10.3758/s13421-019-00948-y

23.

Lewis

D. D.

Yang

Rose

T. G.

(2004). RCV1: A new benchmark collection for text categorization research. Journal of MachineLearning Research, 5(April), 361–397. https://www.jmlr.org/papers/volume5/lewis04a/lewis04a.pdf

24.

Matthews

(2015). Why Are people skeptical about climate change? Some insights from blog comments. Environmental Communication, 9(2), 153–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2014.999694

25.

McCombs

M. E.

(2004). Setting the agenda: The mass media and public opinion. Polity Press.

26.

McCombs

M. E.

Shaw

D. L.

(1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), 176–187. https://doi.org/10.2307/2747787

27.

Millman

(2020). Revealed: quarter of all tweets about climate crisis produced by bots. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/feb/21/climate-tweets-twitter-bots-analysis

28.

Neiger

B. L.

Thackeray

Burton

S. H.

Giraud-Carrier

C. G.

Fagen

M. C.

(2013). Evaluating social media’s capacity to develop engaged audiences in health promotion settings: Use of twitter metrics as a case study. Health Promotion Practice, 14(2), 157–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839912469378

29.

Neuman

Guggenheim

Mo Jang

Bae

S. Y.

(2014). The dynamics of public attention: agenda-setting theory meets big data. Journal of Communication, 64(2), 193–214. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12088

30.

Nisbet

(2009). Communicating climate change: Why frames matter for public engagement. Environment, 51(2), 12–23. https://doi.org/10.3200/ENVT.51.2.12-23

31.

Olausson

(2011). We’re the ones to blame: Citizens’ representations of climate change and the role of the media. Environmental Communication, 5(3), 281–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2011.585026

32.

Pew Research Center . (2020). As economic concerns recede, environmental protection rises on the public’s policy agenda. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/02/13/as-economic-concerns-recede-environmental-protection-rises-onthe- publics-policy-agenda/

33.

Rus

H. M.

Cameron

L. D.

(2016). Health communication in social media: message features predicting user engagement on diabetes-related Facebook pages. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 50(5), 678–689. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-016-9793-9

34.

Schäfer

M. S.

(2012). Online communication on climate change and climate politics: A literature review. WIREs Climate Change, 3(6), 527–543. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.191

35.

Schäfer

M. S.

Neill

(2017). Frame analysis in climate change communication. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science. Oxford: Oxford University.

36.

Schäfer

M. S.

& O’Neill

(2017). Frame analysis in climate change communication. In M. C. Nisbet, S. S. Ho, E. Markowitz, S. O’Neill, M. S. Sch fer, & J. Thaker (Eds.), The Oxford Research encyclopedia of climate Science (pp. 1–32). Oxford University Press. https://doi. org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.487

37.

Scheufele

D. A.

Tewksbury

(2007). Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The evolution of three media effects models. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 9–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-9916.2007.00326.x

38.

Shoemaker

P. J.

Reese

S. D.

(2014) Mediating the message in the 21st century: A media sociology perspective Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

39.

Tewksbury

Scheufele

D. A.

(2019). News framing theory and research. In Oliver

Raney

& Bryant

(Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 17–33). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429491146-4

40.

van Deursen

A. J. A. M.

van Dijk

J. A. G. M.

(2009). Using the internet: skill related problems in users’ online behavior. Interacting with Computers, 21(5-6), 393–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2009.06.005

41.

Walter

Brüggemann

Engesser

(2018). Echo chambers of denial: explaining user comments on climate change. Environmental Communication, 12(2), 204–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2017.1394893

42.

T. Y.

Atkin

(2017). Online news comments: exploring the role of user personality, self-efficacy, and motivations. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 94(1), 61–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699016655754

43.

(2019). Personal stories matter: topic evolution and popularity among pro- and anti-vaccine online articles. Journal of Computational Social Science, 2(2), 207–220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42001-019-00044-w