RSS
by Saffron O’Neill, Hywel T. P. Williams, Tim Kurz, Bouke Wiersma, and Maxwell Boykoff
Nature Climate Change
Vol. 5, 380–385 (2015)
doi:10.1038/nclimate2535 [pdf]
Abstract: The media are powerful agents that translate information across the science–policy interface, framing it for audiences. Yet frames are never neutral: they define an issue, identify causes, make moral judgements and shape proposed solutions. Here, we show how the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) was framed in UK and US broadcast and print coverage, and on Twitter. Coverage of IPCC Working Group I (WGI) was contested and politicized, employing the ‘Settled Science, Uncertain Science, Political or Ideological Struggle and Role of Science’ frames. WGII coverage commonly used Disaster or Security. More diverse frames were employed for WGII and WGIII, including Economics and Morality and Ethics. Framing also varied by media institution: for example, the BBC used Uncertain Science, whereas Channel 4 did not. Coverage varied by working group, with WGIII gaining far less coverage than WGI or WGII. We suggest that media coverage and framing of AR5 was influenced by its sequential three-part structure and by the availability of accessible narratives and visuals. We recommend that these communication lessons be applied to future climate science reports. Read more …
UPDATE: This paper has been highlighted in the following media outlets:
Are We Tired of Talking About Climate Change? (BBC News, March 31, 2015)
Media Contributing to ‘Hope Gap’ on Climate Change by John Upton (Climate Central, March 28)
‘Climate story fatigue’ and U.S. media disinterest limited IPCC press coverage — study by Manon Verchot (ClimateWire, March 26)
These scientists studied journalists covering science. Whoa, meta by Suzanne Jacobs (Grist, March 25)
What the media misses by Tom Hart (Geographical, March 25)
