Simmonds Philippa, Maye Damian, Ingram Julie
Countryside and Community Research Institute, University of Gloucestershire, Francis Close Hall Campus, Swindon Road, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, GL50 4AZ UK.
Agric Human Values. 2025;42(2):945-964. doi: 10.1007/s10460-024-10651-7. Epub 2024 Nov 11.
There is ongoing contestation around greenhouse gas emissions from ruminant livestock and how society should respond. Media discourses play a key role in agenda setting for the general public and policymakers, and may contribute to polarisation. This paper examines how UK news media portrayed ruminant livestock's impact on climate change between 2016 and 2021. The analysis addresses a gap in the literature by comparing discourses in national and farming sector newspapers using a qualitative approach. Four national and two farming sector news outlets were searched for articles published between 2016 and 2021. A corpus of 996 relevant articles was assembled, from which 154 were selected for in-depth examination using Critical Discourse Analysis. Four 'Critical Discourse Moments' (CDMs), each signifying a discursive shift in the debate, were identified over the 6-year studied period: 1) Low salience, diverging discourses, 2) We must eat far less meat, 3) Fighting the anti-meat agenda, and 4) Policy (in)action at COP26. There was a large increase in the number of published articles from January 2019 onward, partly associated with publication of the EAT/Lancet Commission report. CDM 2 (We must eat far less meat) occurred mainly in the national media, while CDM 3 (Fighting the anti-meat agenda) occurred mainly in the farming media. Our findings reveal both opinion polarisation and intergroup polarisation between national and farming sector media, and low engagement with food system power imbalances. Addressing polarisation will be important to enhance capacity for collective decision-making regarding methane emissions from ruminant livestock.
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10460-024-10651-7.
关于反刍家畜的温室气体排放以及社会应如何应对,目前仍存在争议。媒体话语在为公众和政策制定者设定议程方面发挥着关键作用,并且可能导致两极分化。本文研究了2016年至2021年期间英国新闻媒体如何描绘反刍家畜对气候变化的影响。该分析通过定性方法比较全国性报纸和农业部门报纸的话语,填补了文献中的空白。在2016年至2021年期间发表的文章中,搜索了四家全国性和两家农业部门新闻媒体。汇编了996篇相关文章的语料库,从中选择了154篇使用批判性话语分析进行深入研究。在为期6年的研究期间,确定了四个“批判性话语时刻”(CDM),每个时刻都标志着辩论中的话语转变:1)低显著性,话语分歧,2)我们必须少吃很多肉,3)对抗反肉议程,4)COP26上的政策(不)行动。从2019年1月起,发表文章的数量大幅增加,部分原因与《饮食/柳叶刀委员会报告》的发表有关。CDM 2(我们必须少吃很多肉)主要出现在全国性媒体中,而CDM 3(对抗反肉议程)主要出现在农业媒体中。我们的研究结果揭示了全国性媒体和农业部门媒体之间的意见两极分化和群体间两极分化,以及对粮食系统权力不平衡的低参与度。解决两极分化对于提高关于反刍家畜甲烷排放的集体决策能力将很重要。
在线版本包含可在10.1007/s10460-024-10651-7获取的补充材料。