Rutgers University, USA.
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA.
Public Underst Sci. 2017 May;26(4):481-497. doi: 10.1177/0963662515595348. Epub 2015 Jul 30.
This study examines non-editorial news coverage in leading US newspapers as a source of ideological differences on climate change. A quantitative content analysis compared how the threat of climate change and efficacy for actions to address it were represented in climate change coverage across The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, and USA Today between 2006 and 2011. Results show that The Wall Street Journal was least likely to discuss the impacts of and threat posed by climate change and most likely to include negative efficacy information and use conflict and negative economic framing when discussing actions to address climate change. The inclusion of positive efficacy information was similar across newspapers. Also, across all newspapers, climate impacts and actions to address climate change were more likely to be discussed separately than together in the same article. Implications for public engagement and ideological polarization are discussed.
本研究考察了美国主要报纸的非社论新闻报道，将其作为气候变化问题上意识形态差异的一个来源。一项定量内容分析比较了《纽约时报》、《华尔街日报》、《华盛顿邮报》和《今日美国》在 2006 年至 2011 年期间对气候变化的报道中，气候变化的威胁和应对气候变化的措施的有效性是如何被描述的。结果表明，《华尔街日报》最不可能讨论气候变化的影响和威胁，最有可能在讨论应对气候变化的措施时包含负面的有效性信息，并使用冲突和负面的经济框架。在讨论应对气候变化的措施时，四家报纸都更有可能包含负面的有效性信息。此外，在所有报纸中，气候变化的影响和应对气候变化的措施更有可能在同一篇文章中分别讨论，而不是一起讨论。文章还讨论了公众参与和意识形态极化的影响。
