| 英文摘要: | Fingers are often pointed directly at the news media for their powerful influence and ineffective reporting of climate change. But is that the best place to point? And are there more effective ways to conceptualize the power of the media and to consider whom they serve? Over the past two decades, there has been much critique of news media coverage of climate change, including both subtle and overt suggestions that the media should be more of a watchdog of this issue. At the same time, some research1 concludes that mass media are powerful agents for the way they frame climate change in news stories. This prompts several questions: what is the role of news media (watchdog or otherwise) and how much power do they possess? Where in the process of news — which begins with competing claims-makers who seek to instigate and influence news, culminates with the news product and concludes with media audiences — does the power of media lie? And in whose interest do news media operate — is it in the public's interest as a watchdog or for other interests altogether? I will argue that these questions are best answered when news is conceptualized (and studied) as a complex, interactive societal process rather than as prima facie powerful stories. I also argue that applying theories of the role of media in society advances our understanding of media coverage of climate change and allows scholars to examine important questions of power and influence. The majority of mass media research investigates the latter two parts of the news process, news content and news audiences, which can be studied singly or collectively. Research that analyses how news content affects news consumers (such as their knowledge, policy support or opinions) is part of a large body of research called media effects2. Audience effects can be found in long-term studies, but also in a simple correlation of how a person's opinions about climate change correlate with how often they read or watch news. Overall, the body of media-effects research has demonstrated that media content can influence audiences, but the effects are generally weak, and the circumstances under which media influence occurs are complex and hard to predict3. Media effects are tempered by active audiences who generally seek media viewpoints consistent with their existing beliefs. Effects tend to be more powerful for unobtrusive issues where people have less direct experience (such as climate change). One of the most tested theories of media-effects research is agenda-setting, which holds that the media doesn't tell us what to think, but are fairly effective in telling us what to think about4, 5. To determine whether a media agenda correlates with the public agenda, researchers compare the amount of coverage of a particular topic (such as Ebola or extreme weather events) with survey data ranking how important people believe the topic to be. Agenda-setting research demonstrates the ability of the media to amplify social concern and prime opinions, although usually just for short periods of time. But agenda-setting implies unrealistically that news generation is an autonomous process in which journalists independently set a particular agenda; in reality, they are dependent on powerful, credible social institutions and individuals to alert them to and supply news. The theory also implies that news media drive public concern (linear influence), although evidence has shown that at times the reverse occurs6. Framing theory maintains that how a news story is written (such as emphasizing some details while minimizing others) affects how individuals read and understand it. A story's frame directs readers' attention by defining the problem, stating what or who is responsible, and pointing to a solution7. Studies of climate change media coverage have noted frames such as uncertainty, blame and responsibility, as well as how frames differ by country and media type8, 9, 10. Frame schema often are developed anew by each research team and can include over a dozen categories of frames, making it unlikely that new framing research will use the same categories and test their usefulness.
MINOANDRIANI/ISTOCK/THINKSTOCK
- O'Neill, S., Williams, H. T. P., Kurz, T., Wiersma, B. & Boykoff, M. Nature Clim. Change 5, 380–385 (2015).
- Sparks, G. G. Media Effects Research 5th edn (Cengage, 2014).
- Corbett, J. B. Communicating Nature: How We Create and Understand Environmental Messages 242 (Island, 2006).
- McCombs, M. & Shaw, D. L. Public Opin. Quart. 36, 76–87 (1972).
- Hong Tien, V., Lei, G. & McCombs, M. Journalism Mass Comm. 91, 669–686 (2014).
- Uscinski, J. E. Social Sci. Quart. 90, 796–815 (2009).
- Entman, R. M. J. Commun. 43, 51–58 (1993).
- Dirikx, A. & Gelders, D. Public Underst. Sci. 19, 732–742 (2010).
- Takahaski, B. Public Underst. Sci. 20, 543–557 (2011).
- Kenix, L. J. Polit. Sci. 60, 117–132 (2008).
- Hart, P. S. & Feldman, L. Sci. Commun. 36, 325–351 (2014).
- Zamith, R., Pinto, J. & Villar, M. E. Sci. Commun. 35, 334–357 (2012).
- Hansen, A. Int. Commun. Gaz. 73, 7–25 (2011).
- Davis, A. in Pulling Newspapers Apart: Analysing Print Journalism (ed. Franklin, B.) 272–281 (Routledge, 2008).
- Climate of doubt. PBS Frontline (23 October 2012); http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/climate-of-doubt
- Lewis, J., Williams, A. & Franklin, B. Journalism Stud. 9, 1–20 (2008).
- Corbett, J. B. & Mori, M. Journalism Mass Commun. 76, 229–249 (1999).
- Brulle, R. J., Carmichael, J. & Jenkins, J. C. S. Climatic Change 114 169–188 (2012).
- Weaver, D. H., Beam, R. A., Brownless, B. J., Voakes, P. S. & Wilhoit, G. C. The American Journalist in the 21st Century (Lawrence Erlbaum, 2007).
- Sachsman, D. B. Journalism Mass Commun. 53, 54–60 (1976).
- Tanner, A. Sci. Commun. 25, 350–363 (2004).
- Donohue, G. A., Tichenor, P. J. & Olien, C. N. J. Commun. 45, 115–132 (1995).
- Demers, D. & Viswanath, K. Mass Media, Social Control, and Social Change: A Macrosocial Perspective (Iowa State Univ. Press, 1999).
Download references
Affiliations
-
Julia B. Corbett is in the Department of Communication, University of Utah, 255 South Central Campus Drive, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112, USA
|