Dominant frames in legacy and social media coverage of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report
Dominant frames in legacy and social media coverage of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report
复制标题
DOI：
10.1038/nclimate2535
复制
发表时间：
2015-04-01
影响因子：
30.7
通讯作者：
Boykoff, Maxwell
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
O'Neill, Saffron;Williams, Hywel T. P.;Boykoff, Maxwell
媒体是强大的代理人，他们在科学-政策界面上翻译信息，为受众框定信息。然而，框架从来不是中立的：它们定义一个问题，找出原因，做出道德判断，并塑造拟议的解决方案。在这里，我们展示了IPCC第五次评估报告(AR5)是如何在英国和美国的广播和印刷报道以及Twitter上制定的。对政府间气候变化专门委员会第一工作组(WGI)的报道存在争议，并被政治化，采用了“确定的科学、不确定的科学、政治或意识形态斗争和科学的作用”框架。WGII覆盖了常用的灾难或安全。WGII和WGIII采用了更加多样化的框架，包括经济学和道德与伦理学。取景也因媒体机构而异：例如，BBC使用了《不确定科学》，而第四频道则没有。工作组的覆盖面各不相同，WGIII获得的覆盖面远远少于WGI或WGII。我们认为，媒体对AR5的报道和框架受到其连续的三部分结构以及可获得的叙事和视觉效果的影响。我们建议将这些交流课程应用于未来的气候科学报告。
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.