TY - JOUR
T1 - Dominant frames in legacy and social media coverage of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report
AU - O'Neill, Saffron
AU - Williams, Hywel T.P.
AU - Kurz, Tim
AU - Wiersma, Bouke
AU - Boykoff, Maxwell
PY - 2015/4
Y1 - 2015/4
N2 - 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 a 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.
AB - 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 a 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.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84925813163&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1038/nclimate2535
DO - 10.1038/nclimate2535
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84925813163
SN - 1758-678X
VL - 5
SP - 380
EP - 385
JO - Nature Climate Change
JF - Nature Climate Change
IS - 4
ER -
