by
Jiayi Chen
Student ID: 11300639
Master’s Thesis
Graduate School of Communication
Supervisor: Dr. Mark Boukes
1 June 2017
Who is responsible for climate change?
A comparative analysis of climate change coverage
between China and the United States
Table of Contents
Abstract ... 3
Introduction ... 4
Literature Review………. 6
Framing Theory………6
Types of News Frames……….6
News Media in China and the United States………8
Research Hypotheses………..11
Method ……….18
Sampling of Newspaper Articles………18
Operationalization and Measurement………..20
Results……….24
Discussion and Conclusion………. 31
Advocacy of National Interest………31
In Climate Change Coverage, Balance Introduces Bias……….33
“Blame Game” between Industrialized and Emerging Countries……….. 35
Limitation and Future Research………..38
References………...39
Appendix A……….48
Abstract
With the intense divergence and stalled negotiation between countries in collective fight against
global warming, media framing of responsibility becomes a key characteristic of climate change
coverage. Four news frames were identified and analyzed in this thesis, showing that both
Chinese and US media tend to portray climate change as a blame game and advocate own
countries’ interest. However, US reporting included markedly more skeptical voices, and in
doing so, coverage of climate change appeared to be more biased and contentious, which might
somehow distract public attention from the real climate problems and justify government’s
inaction on global warming. In sum, this study visualized how media in China and US play the
climate change football and manifest their diplomacy, through tactical adoption of news
framing.
Who is responsible for climate change?
A comparative analysis of climate change coverage between China and the United States
Introduction
Over the past decades, climate change has evolved from a scientific problem to a
contentious policy issue. Almost all the states have recognized the aggravating threat of
climate change and attempted to address this global problem. However, commitments in
global community seem to be far from enough in practice (Schenck, 2008), the divergence
between required action and inadequate engagement has greatly stalled the international
efforts in settling climate matters (Newell et al., 2015). What result in the big divisions?
Largely, it originates from the inequitable obligations allocated between countries (Schenck,
2008). Since national participation in climate change negotiations are fundamentally driven
by self-interests (Stewart, 1993), once they perceive the unfairness in collective action, they
may be reluctant to get involved proactively. Identification and attribution of responsibilities,
therefore, significantly impact national policy and reaction to climate issues.
Revolved around the debate on who bears more responsibility for climate change, news
framing of responsibility becomes the key feature of media presentation (Wu, 2009). For
(GHG) emissions to justify their refusal of the Kyoto Protocol. Such media remarks, in some
broader sense, reflect America’s intention to shift blame to other countries and free itself from
responsibility for climate mitigation efforts (Jang, 2013).
Despite a sizable number of literature about climate change to date, the research field is
still limited. On the one hand, media studies about climate shift, overall, are partially
concentrated on Europe and North America, whereas Asian, African, and Latin American
regions are rarely analyzed, transnationally comparative data is even rare (Schäfer &
Schlichting, 2014). On the other hand, most literature merely talk about the media
presentation of climate change, ignoring media politicization and strategy in communicating
such a cross-boundary blame game (Engesser & Brüggemann, 2015; Schäfer, 2015; Schmidt,
Ivanova & Schäfer, 2013).
This thesis primarily intends to fulfill this geographical research gap in climate change
by adding some evidence from China, and provide an extension on the research of framing
responsibility in global warming. Based on framing theory, this study draws a picture of how
media in China and the U.S.—these two largest GHG emitters—portray each other and
themselves in news reporting, to elaborate the way in which media reflect diplomacy and
Literature Review Framing Theory
Impressive literatures have contributed to the definition of framing, which is often
regarded as an expansion beyond agenda-setting theory, by not only guiding audiences what
to think about, but how to think about the issue media represented (Pan &Kosicki, 1993;
Semetko & Valkenburg, 2000). Kim and Willis (2007) pointed out that when covering
something complicated, journalists often construct information in interpretative packages, that
is, news frames, to make it easy to understand. In concrete practice, through the selection,
emphasis, exclusion, and elaboration of “some aspects of a perceived reality”, a specific
“problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/ or treatment
recommendation” (Entman, 1993, p. 53) get promoted, with the ability to influence public
cognition of certain issues (Scheufele & Iyengar, 2014). By presenting particular respects of
climate change issues, media can construct a responsibility framing in climate change
discourse, and then shape public understanding of who is responsible for this problem.
In short, the various ways in which news media frame climate change and define
responsibilities have a significant influence on relevant policies, actions, and public attitudes
towards fighting against climate change.
Since different individuals hold different perceptions of a specific issue, which is
influenced by factors both internal and external to journalism (Shoemaker & Reese, 1991),
news reporters often construct issues in distinct frames, most of which in essence, emphasize
common characteristics. De Vreese (2005), hence, generalizes such news frames into generic
frames, through which comparative differences beyond topics, media, or countries become
visible. Semetko and Valkenburg (2000) further synthesize five prevalent news frames, which
are conflict, human interest, morality, attribution of responsibility, and economic
consequences frame, that basically cover all of the frames that have been found in the news
reporting of multitudinous topics.
Since the core intention of this study is to examine the framing responsibility for climate
change, I mainly focus on the application of conflict and responsibility attribution frame in
related news coverage. Additionally, I also refer to the other two universally applied news
formats in framing analysis—“episodic” and “thematic” frames—which can potentially
influence audiences’ perception and attribution of responsibility by narrating news stories in
specific or abstract context (Iyengar, 1991; Semetko & Valkenburg, 2000).
Apart from generic frames, issue-specific frames, featured as adaptation to particular
issues or events, can be identified as the other frame type. An issue-specific frame enables a
& McLeod, 2001). For example, in order to precisely examine the communication of industry
actors in climate change, Schlichting (2013) categorizes specific frames, such as “industrial
leadership” “scientific uncertainty”, which contribute to an insightful angle of view in media
presentation of climate change. Specific research purpose relies on specific-issue frames.
Despite an international concern as climate change is, its inherent complexity and debated
countermeasures characterize this topic with rather high issue-sensitivity (Schäfer, 2015). In
specific, due to different industrialization process and levels, developed and developing
countries are required to assume differentiated responsibility in controlling GHG emissions.
The Kyoto Protocol, for example, merely commits developed nations to implement carbon
reduction projects, with the omission of developing states, which exercises a negative impact
on global response to climate change (Schenck, 2008; Wu, 2009). In this particular vein,
current study identifies a specific frame—“development frame”— to illustrate the
responsibility framing of global warming in different news outlets.
News Media in China and the United States
Since “frames are central to the production of hegemonic meanings” (Carragee & Roefs,
2004, p. 222) and shaped by competing stakeholders, research of news frames, thereby, needs
to be located within a specific cultural, economic, or political context (Anderson, 1997).
issues appear to be distinctly different, which basically originates from the differing media
environment between these two countries (Shen, 2012; Zhao, 2012).
To empirically explore media context, which is connected with specific journalism
culture and media landscape in a given society, Hallin and Mancini (2004) proposed three
typical patterns of media systems, based on four dimensions: media markets, political
parallelism, journalistic professionalism, and the role of the state. However, these four
comparative categories are, obviously, not enough to summarize various media setups
especially beyond western countries. One of the most evident examples can be the distinct
media system in China, which is characterized as “commercialization without independence”
and “professionalization without guarantees” (Shen, 2012, p. 360).
In general, China’s media have chronically been associated with the image of
mouthpiece for Chinese Communist Party, due to its communism ideological nature, as well
as state-controlled attribute (Dai, 2013; Yang, 2012). But after about four decades of reform
and openness, Chinese media, concomitantly, have undergone drastic changes in
organizational structure and orientation (Zhang, Jin & Tang, 2015). News outlets have to
strike a balance between fulfilling political propaganda function and appealing to the mass
audience, one of the most notable manifestation is that some sensitive reporting terrains, on
about disasters, environmental problems, is no longer a forbidden zone (Chan, 2010; Shirk,
2011).
In contrast, media in the U.S., rooted in capitalism and liberalism, turns out to be another
scenario, characterized by high reach of the press market, but a weak role of the institutional
interference (Hallin & Mancini, 2004). The high professionalization in news outlets and
social positions in the larger context enable American media, instead of the authority, to have
substantial power in determining news content (Chang, Southwell, Lee & Hong, 2012).
However, when news reporting involves foreign actors in a broader setting, journalistic works
will be especially influenced by extra-media and ideological considerations (Said, 1997;
Shoemaker & Reese, 1991). Certain political affiliations, whether liberal or conservative, for
example, will be naturally embedded into the process of news production (Gitlin, 1980).
Previous research has pointed out that media often interpret climate change issues via political
events, which would unavoidably influence the portrayal of specific events with the
interference of some ingrained politicalized values or preferences (Luther & Zhou, 2005; Wu,
2009).
In spite of diversified differentiations between China and America, relevant comparative
research of media coverage in climate change is still limited. Existing studies in climate
2014), as for the limited comparative research that involves both China and America, it has
either focused on the amount of media attention to climate change issues (Schmidt et al.,
2013), or examined the overall attitude towards the fact of climate change (Painter & Ashe,
2012; China Dialogue, 2012). One exception is Wu’s (2009) study, through the supranational
investigation of media representation of China’s role in climate change, she points out that
different stakeholders, adjusting to own interests, tend to portray China in different ways with
the purpose of shifting responsibility, which could potentially influence the public perceptions
and subsequent reaction to climate change. This encourages us to think how China and U.S.,
the world’s top two producers of greenhouse gases holding intertwined interests, describe
each other and themselves in covering such issues.
This thesis, therefore, tries to explore the presence of each state and its counterpart in
regard of faming climate change responsibility, not only to enhance our understanding of
various communicative strategies within China and US, the two different media context, but
also to shed light on the determination and commitment that each country has shown in face
of the tough fighting against climate change all around the world.
Research Hypotheses
Referring to the generic news frames identified by Semetko and Valkenburg (2000), and
hypotheses are, initially, constructed from 3 dimensions: 1) responsibility frames, which
comprise causal responsibility and treatment responsibility (Iyengar, 1990); 2) episodic and
thematic frames; 3) conflict frames. In addition, considering the issue-sensitivity of climate
change topic, I attempt to construct an issue-specific frame—development frame—to
compare media presentation of responsibility in countries with different development levels.
Responsibility Frame
This frame presents an issue or problem via attributing causal or solving responsibility to
relevant actors (De Vreese, 2005; Semetko & Valkenburg, 2000). Causal responsibility
concerns the origin of a problem, while treatment responsibility focuses on who is obliged to
solve the problem (Iyengar,1990).
By “presenting an issue or problem in such as to attribute responsibility for its cause or
solution to either the government or to an individual or group” (Semetko & Valkenburg,
2000, p. 96), news reporting, especially risk reporting, has the capability to provide
interpretative cues and affect their audiences’ cognition (Bennett, 1999).
When covering climate crisis, “national media are still dominated by a national logic in
the presentation of news” (Olausson, 2009, p.421), within which journalists often structure
therefore, by shaping how the climate problem is constructed or acted upon, can represent the
positions of different countries (Fahy, 2017; Newell et al., 2015; Wu, 2008).
Since the attribution of causal responsibility for climate change, at the global level, is
only based on the production, rather than consumption, of carbon emissions, this bias raises a
substantial challenge about responsibility allocation and displacement between different
regions (Newell et al., 2015). China, as a country importing carbon-intensive product and
exporting “embodied carbon” back to wealthier states, is frequently portrayed as the greatest
producer of overall energy by western media, without reconciling this with their energy
consumption per capita (Ackerman, 2009; Johnson & Levin, 2009). Thus, it is expected that:
H1a: The U.S. media attribute more causal responsibility for climate change to Chinese
society.
Conversely, Chinese media are found to constantly cite the “historical responsibility”
(UNFCCC) of western states during the Industrial Revolution, and argue that these developed
countries, who are more technologically and financially equipped, are supposed to take more
mitigation responsibility for global warming (Schenck, 2008; Wu, 2009). Thereby, I presume
that:
H1b: Chinese media tend to attribute more treatment responsibility for climate change
Episodic Frame vs. Thematic Frame
Apart from attributing responsibility in such a way as to identify causes or promote
solutions directly, issue responsibilities can also be presented indirectly “by the ways in
which media frame issues thematically or episodically” (Zhang et al, 2015, p.103). Episodic
frame, as it has been termed, refers to construct stories by focusing on a real “face” or a
particular problem, instead of covering it in a general or abstract context (Iyengar, 1991;
Semetko & Valkenburg, 2000).
Holistic as the nature of climate topic is, it is hard to isolate it from a larger but
interactional societal structure, however, coverage of these issues has been identified to be
highly episodic, with little examination of the systemic picture of the complex problem.
Journalists have been found to focus far more on those episodic incidents than on thematic
issues in their climate works (Fahy, 2017; Hansen, 2015). The dominance of episodic
storytelling has been significantly detected in the U.S. media by previous studies (Jones,
2006; Iyengar, 1990). Chinese reporting is, conversely, suggested to use more thematic
frames in foreign news works (Zhang et al., 2015).
By focusing on liability and countermeasures at the individual level instead of residing
them into a broader context, episodic frames may distract public attention from systematic
regulatory efforts” (Zhang et al., 2015). The application of thematic or episodic framing can,
therefore, effectively reflect the attribution of responsibility in media coverage (Iyengar,
1991). Hence, I suppose that,
H2: The use of episodic frames in American coverage about climate change is more
prominent than that in Chinese coverage.
Conflict Frame
Conflict frames, as one of the most pervasive frames in news reporting, highlight the
tension between individuals, groups or countries, journalists are generally detected to give
greater weight to conflict when covering complex topics (De Vreese, 2005; Semetko &
Valkenburg, 2000). The complexity of climate issues has been recognized in myriad aspects,
and when this problem moves to the policy realm, journalists put much more emphasis on
strategy and political conflict (Nisbet, Brossard & Kroepsch, 2003).
This contentious topic is broadly covered in two conflictual forms. One is identified as
“climate skepticism.” With increasingly persuasive evidence for the human-driven climate
crisis, reporting in mainstream newspapers has been closer to the global scientific consensus
(Boykoff, 2007; Fahy, 2017). However, a new variant—“impact skepticism”—emerges,
which highlights the uncertainty of future impacts of global warming, and the strong
attitude has been commonly found in the U.S. media (Painter & Ashe, 2012), whereas in
China, it is seldom to see or hear any denial of climate change or relevant science, climate
skepticism is distinctly absent from Chinese news articles (Painter, 2011). Thus, I suppose:
H3a: There are more skeptical voices about climate change in American media than in
Chinese media.
The other contested pattern of covering climate change is a clash of viewpoints about
how to manage climate crisis, which are influenced by political values, intellectual
evaluations and future prospects of different journalists (Fahy, 2017). In the United States,
where reporters often see climate change as political contest, they tend to magnify
disagreement and multi-sided voices to create a controversial news story (Fahy, 2017); while
Chinese media, as the mouthpiece of ruling party and guardian of society, are expected to
promote mainstream opinion or consensus rather than focusing on tension (Lee, 2005; Tong,
2015). Hereby, I assume:
H3b: American coverage is more conflictual than Chinese media in covering how to
mitigate climate change.
Development Frame
Reporting of climate change has recently been identified as a “blame game” between
countries’ economic policies” (Fahy, 2017, p. 23), in which industrialized society should
assume the responsibility of emissions reduction, and “emerging economies’ responsibility”
(Fahy, 2017, p. 24), in which those major contributors to climate change should undertake the
mitigation obligation, have been identified as two prominent but distinct storylines in
portraying global warming across the world. Considering the decisive role of national
developmental levels in attributing climate change responsibility, here, I use an issue-specific
frame “development frame” to compare climate coverage from different countries.
Globalization of climate issues notwithstanding, its origin from the modernization
process of industrialized world promotes the establishment of the principle of “differentiated
responsibility” in the Kyoto Protocol (UNFCCC), which refers to merely developed countries
that have ratified the Protocol are mandated to cut down their GHG emissions, whereas
developing countries are exempt from the reducing requirement (Wu, 2009). As a
consequence, intense disagreement about the mitigation liability between emerging and
industrialized nations emerged. To free their own states from collective efforts as much as
possible, journalists, who usually have a perspective from where they are based, tend to treat
these international regulations strategically when covering such issues (Fahy, 2017).
Wu (2009) has noticed that Chinese press consistently emphasizes China’s stance as a
Kyoto Protocol required, which tactically facilitate Chinese government to be released from
the binding commitment to curb emissions; the U.S. media, presumably, may be loath to
mention such labels, in order to obfuscate the dividing liability. Judging from this, I assume:
H4: The use of development frames is more prominent in Chinese media than that in
American media.
Method Sampling of Newspaper Articles
To draw a sample from the traditional news media, this study opted for two major
national newspapers in the U.S. (the New York Times and Washington Post) and China (the
People’s Daily and Guangming Daily) respectively. These newspapers were chosen because
of their large circulations and considerable social influence in their native countries. Both
American newspapers have tremendous influence on the national and international news
agenda, considering their professional reputation and role of serving as news sources (Pew
News Coverage Index, 2011). They are also consistently used to analyze coverage of climate
change or other environmental issues (Boykoff & Boykoff, 2004; Jones, 2006). The People’s
Daily, with a daily circulation of more than 3,000,000 worldwide (People's Daily, 2013), is
most influential national paper in China, which gives particular weight to science, technology,
and culture reporting.
Regarding the research cases, since previous studies find that media attention for climate
change often peaks around specific events especially during COPs (Conference of the Parties)
(Schmidt et al., 2013), I, therefore, chose to compare the news reporting during three most
influential and recent United Nations Climate Change Conferences, COP 15 (Copenhagen),
COP 19 (Warsaw) and COP 21 (Paris), to gain an insight into the responsibility framing of
global warming that media constructed during the reporting season.
Both American newspapers were systematically archived by LexisNexis, the most
widely used news archive for content analysts (Deacon, 2007). As for the two Chinese
newspapers, articles were collected from their official database respectively.
The sampling began with two key phrases—“climate change” (“气候变化”) or
“global warming” (“全球变暖”)—to search for stories published during the period of each
UN climate change conference. Considering there was, undoubtedly, widespread coverage
of the final negotiation or agreement at the last day, I extended the time span with one day.
Based on conference relevance, the initial sampling was manually filtered by checking the
title and opening paragraph of each article. Besides, newsflash (e.g. “quotation of the day”
general. After the selection of news sample, the final pattern yielded 95 Chinese articles
and 143 American articles (see Table 1).
Table 1.
The distribution of articles in each newspaper
Operationalization and Measurement
Entman (1993, p. 52) suggests that news frames can be examined by “the presence or
absence of certain keywords, stock phrases, stereotyped images, sources of information and
sentences that provide thematically reinforcing clusters of facts or judgments”.
Operationalized as it is for concepts, this study applied this definition to refine the
responsibility framing of climate change coverage from the sample.
Attribution of responsibility Newspapers
Conference
the New York Times Washingt on Post People’s Daily Guangming Daily COP 15 (Copenhagen) 31 26 15 26 COP 19 (Warsaw) 11 8 5 6 COP 21 (Paris) 42 25 23 20 Total 84 59 43 52
Drawn on Iyengar’s (1990) classification of responsibility attribution, and the analysis of
responsibility in media messages from Semetko and Valkenburg’s (2000), the framing of
causal and treatment responsibility was coded with several aspects.
Causal responsibility. The presence of causal responsibility, which concerns the origin of a problem, was measured by reference to the causes of climate change. Six questions were
formed to assess whether media attribute causal obligation to (a) human factors or (b) natural
factors, does the article mention or imply (c) developed countries’, (d) developing countries’,
(c) China’s, or (d) America’s involvement in causing climate change. Human factors
indicated the mention of anthropogenic GHG emissions, deforestation, agricultural practices,
and so forth, natural factors included volcanic eruptions, continental drift, solar irradiance,
and so on. Intercoder reliability was achieved for causal responsibility (α =. 96).
Treatment responsibility. The treatment responsibility frame was measured with a set of questions to recognize who was identified as the holder of responsibility for global
warming. More specifically, does the story mention any parties (a) have the responsibility or
(b) have contributed to mitigate climate change, (c) who is suggested to assume the
responsibility for climate mitigation. Five parties were recognized here, including individuals,
scientists, industry/corporation, governments or others. Moreover, particular attention was
responsibility for climate mitigation. Intercoder reliability was also achieved for treatment
responsibility (α = .95)
Episodic Frame vs. Thematic Frame
Measurement of episodic and thematic frames was developed based on a review of
previous work and an adaptation to the present case. Grounded on Iyengar’s (1991) finding,
which argues that these two frames often appear in a mixed form in news presentation, such
framing in current study was, thus, categorized into (a) mainly episodic framing, and (b)
mainly thematic framing (Zhang et al, 2015). More episodic frame was recognized if the
article was primarily focusing on a specific individual, country or event; more thematic frame,
in contrary, was identified if the story was put in a larger context, instead of being limited in
the conference. Intercoder reliability was successfully achieved in the episodic and thematic
frame (α = .96).
Conflict Frame
The conflict frame, by and large, was coded in two dimensions: conflictual viewpoints
on how to manage climate crisis and skeptical attitudes towards climate change.
Conflictual viewpoints. Measurement of the contested views about mitigation was based on De Vreese’s (2005, p.57) operationalization of conflict framing, in which he
between individuals/groups/countries” , “does the story refer to two or more side or to more
than two sides of the problem/issue”. Intercoder reliability performed well in the contested
opinion dimension (α = .98).
Climate skepticism. This was measured in two respects—existence skepticism and impact skepticism. The former was operationalized by analyzing whether the article express
any doubts about the existence of (human-made) climate change, measurement of the latter
was drawn from the research instrument of Painter and Ashe (2012), including (a) is there any
claim that climate impacts are uncertain or (b) they may be benign or beneficial, (c) is there
any question or denial of the need for strong regulatory policies or interventions. The
intercoder reliability of climate skepticism overall was highly fulfilled (α = .98).
Wording. This paper also tested a statement which claimed that skeptical groups prefer to use “climate change” rather than “global warming” to describe climate crisis. As Frank
Luntz (2002), a Republican political strategist and global warming skeptic, points out that the
term of “climate change” suggests a more controllable challenge, which is less frightening for
the general public than the term “global warming”, which is attached to catastrophic
connotations. This facet was coded by asking “which wording was used more frequently in
this article?”
The development frame was identified with two questions, (a) Is the development label
used as an indication of responsibility attribution, or (b) as a reason for not contributing to a
better climate in this article. The labeling was indicated by words of “developed” (“发达”) or
“industrialized” (“工业化的”), or “developing” (“发展中”) or “emerging” (“新兴的”)
countries, and the other tags alike. Intercoder reliability for development frame was also
successfully achieved (α = .96).
Analysis
Primarily, a quantitative content analysis was performed in this study. The data were
analyzed with Chi-squares statistics for the identification of each frame, as all of the variables
in this study yield data in the categories, such as yes (1) or no (0), to indicate the presence of
each analytic unit in the sampling articles. Following the hypotheses, the original country of
each article—China or the U.S.—is the independent variable throughout the analysis.
Results Responsibility Frame
As for the responsibility frame, it was expected that US media would attribute more
causal responsibility to Chinese society, while China’s media tend to ascribe more solving
Graph 1. showed 25.2% of the US articles implied China’s involvement in causing
climate shift, nearly twice of that in Chinese news articles (13.7%, x2 = 4.6, df = 1, p = .032),
Hypothesis 1a was, therefore, supported. Meanwhile, the attribution of causal responsibility to
emerging countries in US articles (32.9%) is also marked, the percentage of which was almost
double of Chinese ones (16.8%, x2 = 7.5, df = 1, p = .006).
Graph 1.
Responsibility frame
Surprisingly, the presence of treatment responsibility appeared to be opposite to what was
expected. Rather than China’s blame for US mitigating liability, the US media mentioned
significantly more responsibility of itself. Articles that contained American treatment
obligation accounted for 55.9% of the US reporting, whereas only 16.8% of the articles did it
2 13.7% 16.8% 25.2% 55.9% 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00%
China's Causal responsibility America’s Treatment responsibility China US
Episodic Frame vs. Thematic Frame
Previous research has illustrated the dominant application of episodic framing in the US
news reporting and led to the expectation that American media would be more episodic than
its Chinese counterpart.
Graph 2.
Episodic vs. Thematic Frame
Graph 2. showed that the appearance of episodic framing in the US news stories (58.7%)
was significantly more than that in Chinese news reporting (41.1%, x2 = 7.1, df = 1, p = .007).
Hence, Hypothesis 2 was supported.
Conflict Frame
Conflict framing, in this paper, was assessed from two dimensions—climate change 58.7%
41.3%
Episodic vs. Thematic frame in US coverage Mainly episodic Mainly thematic 41.1% 58.9%
Episodic vs. Thematic frame in Chinese coverage
Mainly episodic Mainly thematic
Graph 3.
Skepticism of climate change in Chinese and US coverage
Consistent with the expectation, figures in Graph 3. showed that US news reporting
included significantly more skeptical voices than Chinese articles with the regard of either
existence skepticism or impacts skepticism of climate change. In the US articles, 17.5%
expressed doubts about the existence of (human-induced) climate shift, whereas this was the
case in only 2.1% of the articles from Chinese news reporting (x2 = 13.4, df = 1, p < .001). As
for the climate impacts skepticism, articles that contained sceptical viewpoints occupied
22.4% of the US articles, which merely appeared in 1.1% of Chinese articles (x2 = 21.7, df =
1, p < .001). Hence, Hypothesis 3a was confirmed.
The results of wording to describe climate crisis seemed to be contrary to the theory (see 2.1% 1.1% 17.5% 22.4% 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00%
Existence Skepticism Impacts Skepticism China the United States
American news articles, “global warming”, however, was utilized more frequently in the US
coverage (18.9%) than that in Chinese coverage (6.3%, x2 = 8.9, df = 2, p = .012), which,
theoretically, means America was less skeptical towards climate change. This is contradictory
with above analysis of climate skepticism.
Graph 4.
Wording of “Climate Change” or “Global Warming” or equal.
In terms of the conflictual viewpoints about mitigating climate change, which was
expected that US coverage is more contentious than Chinese reporting, the results (see Table
2.) showed that there were significantly more articles containing disagreement in American
articles, 86.7% of US reporting described two or more sides on how to tackle global warming, 86.3% 6.3% 7.4% 70.6% 18.9% 10.5% 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00% 90.00% 100.00%
Climate Change (气候变化) Global Warming (全球变暖) Equal China the United States
whereas 51.6% of Chinese articles did this (x2 = 35.4, df = 1, p < . 001). Hypothesis 3b was,
therefore, supported.
Table 2.
Conflictual viewpoints on how to mitigate climate change
Furthermore, in such a conflict framing, it is worth noting that US news stories
reproached its Chinese counterpart (15.4%) significantly more often than Chinese articles did
(0.0%, x2 = 16.1, df = 1, p < .001), while giving great emphasis to US achievement/actions
(15.4%). Such a tendency was partly found in Chinese newspapers, in which the self-assertion Conflictual viewpoints
China (n=95) the U.S. (n=143)
Frequency % Frequency % Sig.
Describe any disagreement 41 43.2 104 72.7 .000
Describe two or more sides 49 51.6 124 86.7 .000
Reproach China 0 00.0 22 15.4 .000
Reproach the U.S. 13 13.7 13 9.1 .266
Stress China’s achievement 44 46.3 5 3.5 .000
Stress us achievement 5 5.3 22 15.4 .016
of China’s commitments reached up to 46.3%, however, blame on other country was not
significant in Chinese coverage.
Development Frame
It was assumed that the use of development labels, as a sign of shifting blame and
diminishing responsibility, would be more prominent in Chinese media than that in American
media.
Graph 5.
Development Frame
The findings indicated that there was a significant difference between Chinese and the
US news outlets regarding the application of development frame, which provided the
evidence for Hypothesis 4. In detail, as a reason for not committing to climatic mitigation, the 68.4% 35.8% 42.7% 16.8% 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00%
Label as an indication of Responsibility attribution
Label as a reason of not contributing a better climate
of that in American articles (16.8%, x2 = 11.1, df = 1, p = .001). As for an indication of
attributing solving obligation, Chinese news included the development variables in 68.4% of
the articles, the US media, however, did it in 42.7% of the articles (x2 = 15.2, df = 1, p < .001).
Discussion and Conclusion
Revolving around who is responsible for global warming, current study visualized the
political spin put in the news content in both countries, instead of reducing divergence and
enhancing international cooperation, climate change coverage becomes an arena of shirking
responsibility. Three findings were concluded. First, when covering climate change at the
global level, national logic dominates. Second, unlike most topics, for which citing different
voices creates balance, the introduction of journalistic balance generates bias in reporting
climate change. Third, the strategic adoption of news framing makes it easier to shift liability,
but also distracts public attention from the real problems and justifies government’s inaction
on global warming.
Advocacy of National Interest
Notwithstanding the globalization of climate change issues, reporters from both
countries, either China or the U.S., are still dominated by a national logic in covering climate
change. They tend to emphasize own countries’ accomplishment, while reproaching the other
In spite of the commercialization in China’s news industry in recent years, the tenor of
domestic achievement is still predominant in Chinese news reporting, especially when
covering international issues, it is extremely rare to see direct criticism on central regime
(Tolan, 2007; Wu, 2009). Reporting of climate change is continually characterized by a
positive portrayal of the Chinese government in “making enormous strides in cutting GHG
emissions and actively committing to collective cooperation” (translated from the article “The
Biased draft aggravates developing countries” in People’s Daily, 2009, December 10),
without any negative discourse or comments on China’s policy. With regard to the description
of US in Chinese reporting, however, criticism appears to be much more outstanding than
praising. “America, as the largest power and GHG emitter in the world, has the main
responsibility for climate change, … but what it has done looks far from sufficient” (People’s
Daily, 2009, December 10).
Surprisingly, despite some critical voices about own government, this reporting pattern
appears to be even more prominent in US coverage, stressing own achievement but criticizing
others’ inadequacy. The presentation of China in the US articles often appears to be a giant of
speaking but loser of action, on the one hand, “(Chinese representative) volubly praises
Beijing for its willingness to limit future emissions of greenhouse gases”, while “cries
Passes Hat at Climate Talks, China Clings to Developing-Nation Status”, the News York
Times, 2015, December 10). When covering America itself, positive spin emerges, in which
US government’s commitment to restrain global warming gets highlighted, and “the president
(Obama) and his team have been doing everything possible to create a deal that is fair to the
U.S. and facilitates international agreement” (“Poor and Emerging States Stall Climate
Negotiations”, the New York Times, 2009, December 17).
In general, we can see a vivid manifestation of diplomacy in different countries when
covering climate change. Either US or Chinese media tends to portray the other country as an
encumber of international cooperation, while cracking itself up. Since climate change enters
the political domain and national interest is involved, journalists inherently perceive and
cover news stories from the perspective of defending their own country (Fahy, 2017). Even in
the U.S., from where the concept of objectivity originates, media content are still dominated
by the national logic, and serve for political purpose in a larger context (Olausson, 2009;
Tong, 2015).
In Climate Change Coverage, Balance Introduces Bias
Consistent with previous literature (Painter, 2011; Painter & Ashe, 2012), US news press
published far more skeptical voices than Chinese coverage. The inclusion of climate
viewpoints from different groups, while on the other hand, it acts more like a media strategy,
through which journalists are able to highlight the tension between parties by “capturing the
political divide over global warming (Eilperin, 2012, p. B1)”.
Although in the US climate change coverage, most journalists seemingly disagree with
climate contrarians, their introduction of such voices is just to display diversified ideas and
pursue news equivalence, when covering global warming, however, balance generates bias
when using equivalent routines (Boykoff & Boykoff, 2004; Fahy, 2017), since equal exposure
of majority and minority ideas, actually, facilitates the latter to gain disproportionate attention
from the public (Gelbspan, 1998; Fahy, 2017).
Compared to the skeptical rhetoric in US media, it is hard to find any doubts and other
contentious voices about climate change in Chinese articles, one reason is the absence of
political polarization in China (Tong, 2015). Owing to the one-party system, media are
expected to “follow the official line on climate science” (Painter, 2011, p. 113) and distribute
it to a wider society. Opposite to the US reporters, who often regard the anthropogenic
climate change as a political conflict and magnify the dissent from climate skeptics (Fahy,
2017), their Chinese colleagues generally cover it as a scientific consensus. Different from US
sides, Chinese press inclines to frame stories with resonance, and barely expresses various
opinions.
Different from other topics, for which citing different viewpoints promotes balanced
reporting, the presence of climate doubts from the minority in national media, in some sense,
reduces the meaningfulness of environment journalism (Bavadam, 2010; Tong, 2015) and
helps “make it easy for our government to do nothing about global warming” (Oreskes &
Conway, 2010, p.215).
“Blame Game” between Industrialized and Emerging Countries
The inherent complexity of climate change issues renders it difficult to divide
responsibility between different stakeholders, this topic is, thus, increasingly covered like a
“blame game” between industrialized and emerging countries (Engesser & Brüggemann,
2015, p. 14).
Under the Kyoto Protocol, current global warming is technically regarded as the
consequence of the Industrial Revolution, thus, the industrialized world is supposed to take
main responsibility for climate crisis, developing countries are not bound to the regulation
(Schenck, 2008; Tolan, 2007). The differentiated responsibility attributed to developed and
developing nations, therefore, explains the prominence of development framing in Chinese
reparation, while China, as its consistent stance of developing country, gets relieved in some
sense.
When it comes to US climate change coverage, however, they are significantly less
framed in terms of development, instead, the framing of causal responsibility appears to be
more salient. Growing GHG emissions generated by emerging countries, especially China, is
significantly emphasized by American news articles. Such a responsibility framing provides a
justification for US to split obligation with those developing countries. While regarding the
responsibility frame, the emphasis of own mitigating responsibility in US articles seems to be
out of expectation. Apart from the explanation of America’s industrialization process and lead
position in international affairs, such stress of US obligation in climate mitigation, on the
other side, can be seen as a settlement of partisan conflict. Due to the intense debate on
Obama’s climate change bill among the U.S. Senate, highlight of responsibility may promote
the passage of relevant legislation nationally, similarly, for Trump’s administration,
emphasizing US liability may help reverse his skeptical attitude and relevant policy on
climate change.
Highly episodic news coverage appears to be another characteristic in US climate change
reporting, instead of systemic analysis about the complex topic, most US articles fixate on a
which, on the one hand, improves the readability of news stories, on the other, it may lead to
the distraction of public attention from the real climatic risk (Wu, 2009). Whereas the more
thematic coverage in Chinese media, which is dominated by abstract statistics and contextual
information, seems to be less attractive but more objective in this regard.
In conclusion, this thesis clearly shows that the topic of climate change, nowadays, is
rather a “political football” (China Dialogue, 2012, p. 1) than basic science, the political spin
established by national media creates a new terrain for countries to mitigate their own
responsibility for global warming. Either the overwhelmingly positive tenor in Chinese
reporting, or the highly episodic and skeptical voices in US coverage, has nothing to do with
the quality of journalism or public cognition on climate change (China Dialogue, 2012).
Highlight on the blame game and cross-boundary divergence can only distract public attention
from the real problems and facilitate governments’ inaction on climate change (Oreskes &
Conway, 2010; Wu, 2009). This would be a great problem for media, especially in China and
US—the two largest producer of carbon dioxide in the world. And, furthermore, it would pose
a great challenge for the global progress of fighting against climate change.
Apart from the politicization of climate change coverage, the false balance in reporting
global warming may also go against the reasoning works of reporters and general perception
perspective is necessary—a perspective from somewhere that seeks to deliver readers from
ambiguity or contradiction, as Rosen (2012) suggested. Providing scientific explanation and
projection, and advocating practical solutions would be more helpful than just informing
readers of the uncertain causality or calamitous consequences of climate change.
Limitation and Future Research
Despite consistent results with previous findings and extension of literature in
cross-national study in covering climate change, there exist some limitations.
The selection of newspapers, in each country, is primarily based on circulation and social
influence, ignoring the political affiliation of each newspaper, which is found to correspond
with its attitude to include climate skepticism in news coverage (Painter & Ashe, 2012). In the
US sampling, both New York Times and Washington Post are documented as left-leaning,
considering vigorous disagreement between Democrats and Republicans on global warming,
future studies should incorporate some right-leaning papers from the United States. Besides,
both of the two Chinese newspapers—People’s Daily and Guangming Daily—are major
official papers of Chinese Communist Party, whose propaganda function are much more
significant compared to commercialized papers. Further analysis could include some metro
Another research direction is to expand the diversity of media forms. Current study only
examines the news framing in print media, considering greater weight of online and social
media in environment and climate communication (Painter, 2015), it would be interesting to
explore the framing scenario in different media terrain.
References
Ackerman F. (2009). Carbon Embedded in China’s Trade. Retrieve from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228986735_Carbon_Embedded_in_China's_Tr ade.
Anderson, A. (1997). Media, Culture and the Environment. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers
University Press.
Bavadam, L. (2010). Environment stories, among the most challenging. In K. Acharya & F.
Noronha (Eds.), The green pen: Environmental journalism in India and South Asia (pp.
3-11). New Delhi, India: Sage.
Bennett, P. (1999). “Understanding responses to risk: some basic findings”. Risk
communication and public health. New York: Oxford University Press.
Boykoff, M. T. (2007). Flogging a dead norm? Newspaper coverage of anthropogenic climate
change in the United States and United Kingdom from 2003 to 2006. Area, 39(4), 470–
Boykoff, M. T., & Boykoff, J. M. (2004). Balance as bias: Global warming and the US
prestige press. Global Environmental Change, 14, 125–136.
Bradsher, K., & Davenport, C. (2015, December 10). As West Passes Hat at Climate Talks,
China Clings to Developing-Nation Status. The New York Times, pp. 18.
Broder, J. M. (2009, December 17). Poor and Emerging States Stall Climate Negotiations.
The New York Times, pp. 16.
Carragee, K. & Roefs, W. (2004) “The Neglect of Power in Recent Framing Research,”
Journal of Communication. 54(2), 214–33.
Dai, W. (2013). Hybrid Journalists -- Chinese Journalists in an era of reform: their values and
challenges. Reuters Institute Fellowship Paper University of Oxford, 1- 39.
Deacon, D. (2007). Yesterday's papers and today's technology: Digital newspaper archives
and "push button' content analysis. European Journal of Communication, 22(1), 5-25.
De Vreese, C. H. (2005). News framing: Theory and typology. Information design journal+
document design, 13(1), 51-62.
Chan, Y. (2010, September 14). What faces China’s future journalists? Retrieved from
http://cmp.hku.hk/2010/09/14/7569/.
Chang, T., Southwell, B., Lee, H., & Hong, Y. (2012). A changing world, unchanging
reporting. The International Communication Gazette, 74(4), 367-384.
doi:10.1177/1748048512439822.
Climate change in the media: less coverage in China and more scepticism in US. (2012).
China Dialogue, 1-2. Retrieved from
https://www.chinadialogue.net/blog/5206-Climate-change-in-the-media-less-coverage-in-China-and-more-scepticism-in-US/en.
Eilperin, J. (2012, May 27). From mild-mannered scientist to climate warrior. Washington
Post, pp. B01.
Engesser, S., & Brüggemann, M. (2015). Mapping the minds of the mediators: The cognitive
frames of climate journalists from five countries. Public Understanding of Science,
25(7), 1–17.
Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of
communication, 43(4), 51-58.
Fahy, D. (2016). Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science. USA: Oxford University
Press. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.345.
Gelbspan, R. (1998). The heat is on: The climate crisis, the cover-up, the prescription.
Cambridge, MA: Perseus.
Gitlin, T. (1980). The Whole World is Watching: Mass Media in the Making and Unmaking of
Hallin, D. C., & Mancini, P. (2004). Comparing media systems: Three models of media and
politics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Hertog, J. K., & McLeod, D. M. (2001). A multiperspectival approach to framing analysis: A
field guide. In S. D. Reese, O.H. Gandy, & A. E. Grant (Eds.), Framing public life (pp.
139–162). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Iyengar, S. (1990). The accessibility bias in politics: Television news and public opinion.
International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 2(1), 1-15.
Iyengar, S. (1991). Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. Chicago,
IL: University of Chicago Press.
Jang, S. M. (2013). Framing responsibility in climate change discourse: Ethnocentric
attribution bias, perceived causes, and policy attitudes. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 36, 27-36.
Johnson, D., & Levin, S. (2009). The tragedy of cognition: Psychological biases and
environmental inaction. Current Science, 97(11), 1593-1603.
Jones, A. R. (2006). How the media frame global warming: A harbinger of human extinction
Kim, S. H., & Willis, L. A. (2007). Talking about obesity: News framing of who is
responsible for causing and fixing the problem. Journal of Health Communication,
12(4), 359–376.
Lee, C. (2005). The conception of Chinese journalists: Ideological convergence and
contestation. In H. de Burgh (Ed.), Making journalists: Diverse models, global issues
(pp. 107–126). London: Routledge.
Liu, Z. (Ed.). (2009, December 10). The Biased draft aggravates developing countries
(Chinese version,“偏心草案”激怒发展中国家). People's Daily.
Luntz, F. (2002). The environment: a cleaner, safer, healthier America (pp. 131-146, Rep.).
Luther, A.C. & Zhou, X. (2005). Within the boundaries of politics: News framing of SARS in
China and the United States. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 82(4), 857–
872.
Newell, P., Bulkeley, H., Turner, K., Shaw, C., Caney, S., Shove, E., & Pidgeon, N. (2015).
Governance traps in climate change politics: re-framing the debate in terms of
responsibilities and rights. WIREs Clim Change, 6, 535-540. doi:10.1002/wcc.356.
Nisbet, M. C., Brossard, D., & Kroepsch, A. (2003). Framing science: The stem cell
controversy in an age of press/politics. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics,
Olausson, U. (2009). Global warming—global responsibility? Media frames of collective
action and scientific certainty. Public Understanding of Science, 18, 421– 436.
Oreskes, N. & Conway, E. (2010). The Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists
Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. New York:
Bloomsbury Press.
Painter, J. (2011). Poles Apart: The international reporting of climate scepticism. Reuters
Institute for the Study of Journalism, 1-144.
Painter, J. (2015, December 13). Reflections from Paris. Retrieved from
http://www.climatematters.hamburg/2015/12/reflections-from-paris/.
Painter, J., & Ashe, T. (2012). Cross-national comparison of the presence of climate
scepticism in the print media in six countries, 2007–10. Environmental Research Letters,
7(4).
Pan, Z., & Kosicki, G. (1993). Framing analysis: An approach to news discourse. Political
Communication, 10, 59–79.
Pew Research Center (2011). News Coverage Index Methodology. Retrieved from
Rahmstorf, S. (2004). The climate skeptics. In G. Berz (Ed.), Weather catastrophes and
climate change: Is there still hope for us? (pp. 76–83). Munich: Rückversicherungs
Gesellschaft.
Rosen, J. (2012, June 25). Covering wicked problems. Press Think. Retrieved from
http://pressthink.org/2012/06/covering-wicked-problems/.
Said, E. (1997). Covering Islam: How the Media and the Experts Determine How We See the
Rest of the World. New York: Vintage.
Semetko, H. A., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2000). Framing European politics: A content analysis
of press and television news. Journal of communication,50(2), 93-109.
Schäfer, M. S. (2015). Climate change and the media. International Encyclopedia of the
Social & Behavioral Sciences, 3, 853-859.
Schenck, L. M. (2008). Climate Change "Crisis" - Struggling for Worldwide Collective
Action. GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works, 19(3), 319-379.
Scheufele, D. & Iyengar, S. (2014). The state of framing research: A call for new directions.
In: Kenski, K. & Hall Jamieson, K. (Eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Political
Communication Theories. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Schlichting, I. (2013). Strategic Framing of Climate Change by Industry Actors: A
Schmidt, A., Ivanova, A., & Schäfer, M. S. (2013). Media attention for climate change around
the world: A comparative analysis of newspaper coverage in 27 countries. Global
Environmental Change, 23(5), 1233-1248.
Shen, G. (2012). Comparing Media Systems beyond the Western World. Chinese Journal of
Communication, 5(3), 360-363. doi:10.1080/17544750.2012.701433
Shirk, S. L. (Ed.). (2011). Changing Media, Changing China. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Shoemaker, P. J. & Reese, S. D. (1991). Mediating the message. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Stewart, R. B. (1993). Environmental Regulation and International Competitiveness. The Yale
Law Journal, 102(8), 2039-2106. doi:10.2307/796859.
Tolan, S. (2007). Coverage of Climate Change in Chinese Media (pp. 1-9, Rep.). Human
Development Report Office.
Tong, J. (2015). Being objective with a personal perspective: How environmental journalists
at two Chinese newspapers articulate and practice objectivity. Science Communication,
37(6), 747–768.
Wu, Y. (2009). The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: Framing of China in News Media Coverage
of Global Climate Change. T. Boyce & J. Lewis (Eds.), Climate Change and the Media
Yang, A. (2012). Understanding the changing Chinese media: Through the lens of crises.
China Media Research, 8, 63–75.
Zhang, Y., Jin, Y., and Tang, Y. (2015). Framing Depression: Cultural and Organizational
Influences on Coverage of a Public Health Threat and Attribution of Responsibilities in
Chinese News Media, 2000-2012. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. 92(1),
99-120.
Zhao, Y. (2012). Understanding China’s media system in a world historical context. In Hallin,
D. & Mancini, P. (Eds), Comparing Media Systems Beyond the Western World (pp. 143–
Appendix A Codebook Q1. From which country does this paper originate? • China (1)
• the United States (2) Q2. Title of the newspaper • the New York Times (1) • Washington Post (2) • People's Daily (3) • Guangming Daily (4)
Q3. Title of this article (the first 5 characters)_____________________ Q4. This article is published in the year of _____________
Q5. This article is published on which day of the conference? (Format: 1st, 2nd, ... one day
after)
Causal Responsibility
Q6. Does this article mention or imply any human factors (e.g. anthropogenic GHG emissions, fossil fuel combustion, industrial activities, deforestation, agriculture practices) that contribute to climate change?
Yes (1) No (0)
Q7. Does this article mention or imply any natural factors (e.g. volcanic eruptions, continental drift, solar irradiance) that contribute to climate change?
Yes (1) No (0)
Q8. Does this article mention or imply Developed countries' involvement in causing climate change?
Yes (1) No (0)
Q9. Does this article mention or imply Developing countries' involvement in causing climate change?
Yes (1) No (0)
Q10. Does this article mention or imply America's involvement in causing climate change? Yes (1) No (0)
Q11. Does this article mention or imply China's involvement in causing climate change? Yes (1) No (0)
Treatment Responsibility
There are five categories of parties, including individuals, scientists, industries/ corporations, government, and other (e.g. organizations, groups).
Q12. Does this article mention or imply any parties that have the responsibility to mitigate climate change?
Yes (1) No (0)
Q13. Does this article mention or imply any parties that have made a contribution to mitigate climate change?
Yes (1) No (0)
Q14. Are Individuals assumed responsible for climate change mitigation in this article? Yes (1) No (0)
Q15. Are Scientists assumed responsible for climate change mitigation in this article? Yes (1) No (0)
Q16. Are Industries or Corporations assumed responsible for climate change mitigation in this article?
Yes (1) No (0)
Q17. Are Governments assumed responsible for climate change mitigation in this article? Yes (1) No (0)
Q18. Are any other parties assumed responsible for climate change mitigation in this article? (e.g. organizations)
Yes (1) No (0)
Q19. Does this article emphasize the mitigation responsibility to which corporation or government?
• Mainly domestic (1) • Mainly international (2)
• No mention of this responsibility (3)
Q20. Does this article mention or imply China's responsibility for mitigating climate change? Yes (1) No (0)
Q21. Does this article mention or imply America's responsibility for mitigating climate change?
Yes (1) No (0)
Q22. Does this article mention or imply Developed countries' responsibility for mitigating climate change?
Q23. Does this article mention or imply Developing countries' responsibility for mitigating climate change?
Yes (1) No (0)
Episodic Frame VS. Thematic Frame
The episodic frame is recognized if the article is primarily focusing on presenting a specific nation or city, telling a particular story, or describing an individual case. It may utilize some typical storytelling techniques, such as characters, plots, and the development and resolution of conflicts.
The thematic frame is identified if the issue is placed in a larger context, instead of being limited in the UN climate change conference. The coverage gives emphasis to some
contextual or objective information, such as scientific data, statistics, expert views regarding climate change, and other broader trends.
Q24. How is this article framed? • Mainly episodic (1)
• Mainly thematic (2)
Climate Skepticism - Existence Skepticism
Q25. Does this article express any doubts about the existence of global warming or climate change?
Yes (1) No (0)
Q26. Does this article offer any different view points on the existence of climate change? Yes (1) No (0)
Q27. Does this article express any doubts about climate change caused by human beings? Yes (1) No (0)
- Impact Skepticism
Q28. Is there any claim that future climate impacts are highly uncertain? Yes (1) No (0)
Q29. Is there any claim that future climate impacts may be benign or beneficial? Yes (1) No (0)
Q30. Is there any question or deny of the need for strong regulatory policies or interventions in climate change?
Q31. Which wording is most frequently used in this article? (except for the title of institution, conference or something alike)
• Climate Change (气候变化) (1) • Global Warming (全球变暖) (2) • Equal (3)
- Conflictual viewpoints on mitigation
Q32. Does this news story reflect any disagreement in mitigating climate change between individuals/ groups/ countries?
Yes (1) No (0)
Q33. Does this story refer to two or more sides of how to mitigate climate change? Yes (1) No (0)
Q34. Does this story emphasise the achievement and/ or action of America? Yes (1) No (0)
Q35. Does this story emphasise the achievement and/ or action of China? Yes (1) No (0)
Q36. Does this story reproach America in mitigating climate change? Yes (1) No (0)
Q37. Does this story reproach China in mitigating climate change? Yes (1) No (0)
Development Frame
Development label: “developed” (“发达的”) or “industrialized” (“工业化的”) or “developing” (“发展中”) or “emerging” (“新兴的”) countries, and the other tags alike.
Q38. Is the development label used as an indication of responsibility attribution in this article? Yes (1) No (0)
Q39. Is the development label used as a reason for not contributing to a better climate in this article?
Appendix B: Intercoder Reliability α
Frame Question Disagreement Total α Average α
Causal responsibility 96% Q6 0 50 100% Q7 0 50 100% Q8 4 50 92% Q9 2 50 96% Q10 4 50 92% Q11 2 50 96% Treatment Responsibility 95% Q12 0 50 100% Q13 2 50 96% Q14 0 50 100% Q15 2 50 96% Q16 4 50 92% Q17 0 50 100% Q18 10 50 80% Q19 2 50 96% Q20 2 50 96% Q21 2 50 96% Q22 2 50 96% Q23 2 50 96%
Episodic vs. Thematic Frame Q24 2 50 96% 96%
Climate Skepticism Q25 0 50 100% 98% Q26 2 50 96% Q27 0 50 100% Q28 0 50 100% Q29 0 50 100% Q30 4 50 92% Wording Q31 0 50 100% 100% Conflictual opinion 98% Q32 0 50 100% Q33 2 50 96% Q34 0 50 100% Q35 2 50 96%
Q36 2 50 96%
Q37 0 50 100%
Development frame 96%
Q38 0 50 100%