Let`s talk about Climate Change

(1)

Let`s talk about Climate Change

A critical discourse analysis of climate change discourse in print

newspapers in Norway and the UK around the UN summit in Paris

Designed by Yana Spasova

MA Thesis

(2)

1

ABSTRACT

This research sets out to explore media representations of climate change as observed in four print newspapers in the UK and Norway (the Guardian, the Daily Telegraph, Aftenposten and Adresseavisen). The method of critical discourse analysis (CDA) is employed to investigate how the issue of climate change is being covered in the period around the climate change summit in Paris, 2015. The findings show that the quality press in Norway and the UK has improved its reporting as compared to previous research conducted in the English-speaking countries (Boykoff and Boykoff, 2004; Oreskes, 2004, Doran and Zimmerman, 2009;

Anderegg et al. 2010). With a few exceptions, skepticism towards human-induced climate change is no longer disproportionately covered. By contrast, most of the analysed articles narrate the story of climate change through the lens of three main environmental discourses – ecological modernization, climate justice and the apocalyptic discourse. Nonetheless, CDA reveals that journalists tend to victimize the developing countries and populations suffering from climate change effects. At the same time, the affected people remain misrepresented in the news as opposed to official and political sources. Future studies with a bigger scope may give us better insights into journalistic reporting on climate change. Being the ‘biggest story in the world’ (the Guardian,2015), climate change may affect the lives of millions of people. Therefore, it is important to study how the media communicates the problem to the general public.

Keywords: climate change, the UN summit in Paris, critical discourse analysis (CDA),

(3)

2

Climate change might be one of the biggest threats which humanity is currently facing. Over 97 percent of climate scientists agree that it is a human – caused problem which is about to unfold faster than expected (Anderegg, William, Prall, Harold, and Schneider, 2010). Leading scientific organizations worldwide have released public statements claiming that ‘climate change is real’ (NASA). Increasing greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are causing temperatures to rise. Furthermore, the Joint science academies have warned that carbon dioxide is bound to remain in the atmosphere for decades.

Melting ice, changing rainfall patterns and the rise of the global overall temperature are only part of the detrimental consequences worldwide. The problem has also affected many people and is about to continue having negative impacts on our planet and species. In 2009, climate – related disasters killed 8,700 people and affected 139 million (Climate Change Conference, 2010). Based on such reports, scientists around the world call for nations taking prompt actions.

Clearly, climate change may be described as an environmental and humanitarian crisis. However, one may wonder what is the role of journalism in such cases? How do journalists around the world report on climate change?

As Boykoff puts it, ‘media workers and institutions powerfully shape and negotiate meaning, influencing how citizens make sense of, and value, the world.’ (Boykoff, 2011: 240 in

Boykoff and Yulsman, 2013). In other words, journalists have the authority and responsibility to inform the public about complex issues like climate disruption. For this reason, I argue it is relevant to study how this happens in practice. In particular, my research focuses on four major print newspapers in Norway and the UK – the Guardian, the Daily Telegraph, Adresseavisen and Aftenposten. These four broadsheets are chosen as they have a national reach and rank among the largest print newspapers in the respective countries. Also, it should be noted that I analyse articles published in the period around the climate change conference which took place in Paris last year. This is a good starting point for this research as climate change summits offer a fruitful opportunity for collecting international data (Eide & Kunelius, 2012 in Brattfjord, 2015). The main research question of this study can be formulated in the following way:

How did the quality newspapers in Norway and the UK (the Guardian, the Daily Telegraph, Aftenposten and Adresseavisen) portray the issue of climate change in the period around the UN climate summit in Paris?

While it may seem like a broad question, several sub-questions help me give a satisfying answer:

(5)

4

SubQ2: Which actors and voices are the most represented?

SubQ3: What are the differences and similarities in climate change coverage in the respective newspapers?

SubQ3: How much skepticism with respect to human-induced climate change can be observed?

SubQ4: How much of the ecological modernization discourse can be seen? SubQ5: What other environmental discourses may be observed?

These sub-questions relate to the main theories and concepts that are being used in this study – concepts of objectivity, review of literature on media coverage of climate change and the environmental discourse of ecological modernization as formulated by Dryzek (2005).

Firstly, the journalistic community has professionalized by relying on some unified values and practices such as the influential objectivity theory. Therefore, objectivity has impacted how journalists report on issues of importance. More specifically, concepts of objectivity (and balance) in climate change reporting are scrutinized to understand how they assist or hinder climate change representations.

Secondly, there is a proliferation of environmental discourses that comment on the possible solutions of the climate change problem. In my view, it would be fruitful to confront some of these theories to the actual climate change reporting in Norway and the UK. It is important to know how the quality press narrates the story of climate change – their lexical and

grammatical choices, among other characteristics, may signal references to the ecological modernization discourse as well as other environmental storylines. Analysing references to different climate change discourses can help us understand how journalists communicate the issue to the general public. Future studies could also investigate how the public responds to such narratives – do they invoke feelings of worry, fear or hope, and how does it prompt (in) action.

Moving away from the theoretical body, it is important to say that this study employs the method of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA). I mainly rely on the threefold model of Fairclough that helps me do a rich analysis of the sample – considering text, discursive practice and social practice. In this way, my study hopes to reveal underlying textual meanings that may provide a fresh new perspective on climate change reporting in Norway and the UK.

(6)

5

Outline of the research

Before moving on to the actual research, I briefly reflect on its organization. Firstly, the Literature Review chapter comments on the main theories and how they apply to this particular study. Specifically, the discussion centers on the concepts of objectivity, climate change coverage and the environmental discourse of ecological modernization as defined by Dryzek (2005). Next, a chapter called Research Focus and Methodology thoroughly explains the method of analysis (CDA) as well as the specific cases and why they were selected. It is outlined why I chose to study the print press in Norway and the UK, and particularly the Guardian, the Daily Telegraph, Aftenposten and Adresseavisen. Also, I justify the rationale behind focusing on the period around the recent UN summit in Paris. Lastly, a coding scheme is included to show how the data was organized and managed. In the Findings chapter, I present and discuss the main results from my analysis. Finally, the Conclusion highlights the most important findings and reflects on the whole research project.

CHAPTER I: LITERATURE REVIEW

(7)

6

1. Defining objectivity

‘Ask ten journalists what objectivity means and you will get ten different answers’

(Cunningham, 2003:26)

There is probably no other concept which has been so persistent in the field of journalism. The key term of objective reporting has continuously stimulated heated debates among journalists, scholars and the public alike. Ironically enough, defining objectivity can be a tough and subjective matter. For some scholars, objectivity is the pillar of good journalism, as Lichtenberg (1991a: 216 in Maras, 2013: 1) wrote, it is the ‘cornerstone of the professional ideology of journalists in liberal democracies’. At the same time, others argue that objectivity is not only ‘unachievable’, but also ‘undesirable’ as it fails to serve democratic societies (McManus, 2009:78).

Objectivity theories may be extremely useful when trying to explain how journalists cover issues of importance. What are its effects on the end product? Why should journalists strive to present both sides of an argument? Is it happening in reality? Most news consumers don`t even think of these unwritten rules which affect the news they receive. Nevertheless, the effects may be huge. Media representations of climate change, among other issues, may be heavily influenced by the objectivity norm.

Therefore, it might be worthwhile to explain the concept itself. What is the meaning of objectivity within journalism? Being an influential theory for decades, objectivity has various definitions; neither of them giving a straightforward answer. Schudson (2001:149) calls it a ‘moral ideal’ which can be observed in journalists` writing; in their reporting and editing practices. Richards (2005), however, describes it as a ‘perspective’, while Kovach and

(8)

7

While the medical ethics includes points like patients` privacy and ‘doing no harm’, journalists are expected to provide a truthful account of the news. It is deemed unacceptable, if media workers lie to or manipulate their audiences. To avoid these and other flaws, the norm of objective reporting was introduced within the journalistic community. It has been associated with terms like impartiality, accuracy, neutrality, fairness, and honesty,

commitment to the truth, depersonalization and balance (Maras, 2013:8). More specifically, Dennis and Merril (1984:111 in Maras, 2013:8) describe it as follows:

1. Separating ‘facts’ from opinion

2. Presenting an emotionally detached view of the news 3. Striving for fairness and balance

Similarly, Michael Schudson (2001:150) wrote that objectivity aims to separate ‘facts’ from ‘values’; representing each side in a political controversy in a cool and detached tone. Furthermore, Mindich (1998) spoke that objectivity provides a set of press values and practices; consequently, journalists need to be independent, uninvolved, unemotional and detached from the events they cover. They should attribute information to their sources, be accurate and never show their personal views. In addition, their writing should outline the five Ws (who, what, when, where, why) in a succinct and informative manner (Mindich, 1998 in Ryfe, 2012:190).

Based on his findings, Mindich (1998, in Ryfe, 2012: 190) compiled a list of five traits: detachment, nonpartisanship, the inverted-pyramid style of writing, facticity and balance. The ‘balance norm’, for example, means that reporters should give equal space to different

viewpoints. In this way, they are not obliged to find out which claim is true and which is wrong (Dunwoody, 2005: 90). Verifying opposing claims usually requires extra time and money. Nowadays, the business of news has undergone changes that involve shrinking budgets and 24/7 news cycles. Hence, the cost-effective strive for objectivity continues to dominate modern newsrooms.

(9)

8

spokespersons of the conflicting sides in any significant dispute, and provide both sides with roughly equal attention’ (Entman, 1989: 30 in Boykof and Boykoff, 2007: 1193).

However, it is important to discuss how the objectivity norm (and its component known as balance) can be practiced in real on-the-job situations. Maras (2013) writes that one way to achieve it is through procedures; but these procedures may vary across different news organizations, time periods and cultures. But what is a procedure? Tuchman (1972) gives one possible answer; she defines it as a formal attribute in different forms which protects the professional from mistakes and critics (Tuchman, 1972: 678).

All kinds of professionals need procedures to guide their practice. Doctors in the 18th- century, for instance, used to cure fever by bleeding patients (Tuchman, 1972:661). This was a ‘strategic ritual’; the right way to do things in a particular case and time. Journalists, on the other hand, use objectivity as a ‘strategic ritual’ which is visible in their daily routines; newsmen may verify facts by double-checking with sources; give equal space to both sides in a controversy when they lack the time to find out who is telling the ‘truth’; and leave the news consumers judge for themselves (Tuchman, 1972). For example, even in the cases of big controversies like the recent Dilma Rousseff affair 1 and the Mexico oil spill, 2 journalists reflected the viewpoints of both sides; the responsible people and their opponents.

However, one may wonder why journalists insist on being objective even in such cases? The reason is simple: objectivity makes their working lives easier. Routines help media professionals deal with the requirements of their superiors, pressing deadlines and libel suits (Tuchman, 1972: 662). Moreover, in this way, they create their common professional identity as a group. This is what enhances their credibility before the public and shields them from external criticism (Schudson, 2001:165). Laboratory evidence has confirmed such

interpretations by showing that readers have more trust in news organizations which report on both sides of a controversy (Fico et.al. 2004 in Shapiro, 2014).

(10)

9

trust; they help journalists tell stories in predictable ways; for instance, by answering the five Ws (who, what, when, where, why) (Maras, 2013).

Later on in this study, I analyse how journalists use objectivity in relation to the climate change story. Nevertheless, first it is important to fully reflect on the concept itself – the amount of support and critique it received throughout the years.

1.1. Historical roots and Criticism

It is important to recognize that journalistic objectivity has a long history. Whereas many scholars and journalists have embraced the normative ideal, it was (and continues to be) subject to extensive criticism.

The notion of objectivity arose in the USA in the late 19th-century. Still, it was not before the 1930s that American journalists started to actively use it in their daily routines (Schudson, 2001: 167). Many factors had a contributing role; technological inventions (the telegraph), the rise of a new urban and social class and the commercialism of newspapers, to name but a few (Donsbach and Klett, 1993).

Apart from that, there was another major reason. Reporters` faith in facts was shattered in the period after World War I as the legacy of war propaganda and the newly emerged public relations gave rise to manipulation, spin and misinformation (Cunnigham, 2003: 26). The new idea of objectivity came to counteract these tendencies. As Walter Lippmann puts it in his book ‘Liberty and the News’ (1920):

‘Without protection, against propaganda, without standards of evidence, without criteria of emphasis, the living substance of all popular decision is exposed to every prejudice and to infinite exploitation’ (Lippmann, 1920: 62f in Donsbach and Klett, 1993:55).

The standard of objectivity represented ‘truth’ and ‘trust’ in an uncertain world, where the very existence of objective reality was questioned. Therefore, journalists stack to this ideal; with the intention to cast aside their nagging doubts (Schudson, 1978 in Cunningham, 2003).

(11)

10

to the traditional concept of objective reporting (Janowitz, 1975 in Donsbach and Klett, 1993). Cunningham (2003:27) puts it in the following way: ‘we became more sophisticated in our understanding of the limits of objectivity’. Although the concept was not entirely

dethroned, more and more critics challenged its dominating position in the world of journalism.

Entman (1989), among other scholars, has argued that the professional norm of objectivity makes it easier for political elites and economic interests to slant the news. The objectivity standard offers predictability (all news organizations follow more or less the same rules) and access (journalist are trained to turn to legitimate elite sources) (Entman, 1989: 37). Also, Soffer (2009: 480) argues that objectivity can lead to representing a limited number of perspectives; as it hinders dialogue and reinforces the voice of authority. In a similar vein, Glasser (1992 in Maras, 2013:64) says objectivity is ‘biased’ and ‘irresponsible’, while Serrin and Serrin(2002 in Lanosga, 2012) name it a mere ‘disguise’.

As for journalists themselves, part of them have also advocated subjectivity. Boudana (2011: 387 in O’Neill, 1992: 50) refers to the position of James Cameron, a known journalist during the Vietnam War:

‘I do not see how a reporter attempting to define a situation involving some kind of ethical conflict can do it with sufficiently demonstrable neutrality to fulfil some

arbitrary concept of ‘objectivity’. It never occurred to me, in such a situation, to be other than subjective, and as obviously as I could manage to be. I may not always have been satisfactorily balanced; I always tended to argue that objectivity was of less importance than the truth, and that the reporter whose technique was informed by no opinion lacked a very serious dimension .’

Although various academics and practitioners challenged (and continue to challenge) the objectivity norm, no other idea has replaced it yet (Boudana, 2011; Donsbach and Klett, 1993). Schudson (1978:193 in Donsbach and Klett, 1993: 56) describes it as follows: ‘there is no new ideal in journalism to successfully challenge objectivity, but there is a hope for

something new, a simmering disaffection with objective reporting.’

(12)

11

discuss how climate change is being covered by the media. After that, I present the relation between objectivity and climate change reporting.

2. Climate change coverage

Mass media has tremendous power with regard to climate change communication. When it comes to science, most people rely on the media for information (Nelkin, 1990, Hansen, 2011). It is indeed true that most of us don`t start the day by reading the latest peer-reviewed scientific publication. Instead, we rely on print and online newspapers, television and the radio to inform us about the latest changes and problems in the world, including the scientific field. As Corbett and Durfee (2004:130) reported, the media shapes our opinions – especially when it comes to ‘unobtrusive’ issues where people lack first-hand experience and knowledge, such as global climate change. Likewise, other researchers found out that the media world differs from the real world. In the media world, people lack direct experiences of events; rather, they depend on the decisions of journalists and editors (Zucker, 1978).

As Corbett and Durfee (2004) noticed, the media bears a big responsibility when it comes to linking happenings to scientific evidence regarding climate change. For instance, even if people in Bulgaria have lived through floods and forest fires in the recent years, the connection with climate change has never been obvious. This might be due to the fact that the media have neglected this angle in their reporting. Yet, it should be noted that the latter is not based on existent academic research, but on my personal opinion as a consumer of Bulgarian news. At the same time, academics like Bell (1994 in Corbett and Durfee, 2004) stated that New Zealanders received all their information on climate change from the media. Also, media (especially television) was a main source of information in the USA (Wilson, 1995 in Corbett and Durfee, 2004, Leiserowitz et al. 2010 in Shapiro, 2014).

Therefore, extensive research has focused on climate change communication. Hansen (2011:8), among others, has claimed that research on environmental coverage centers on three main aspects: the production/construction of media messages and public communication; the content/messages of communication; and the impact of media communication on public and political action.

(13)

12

government sources are given higher priority than NGOs and environmental pressure groups (Hansen, 2011: 12). At the same time, other authors have discussed the tensed relationship between journalists and scientists; something which has caused general miscommunication problems between them (Reed, 2001).

Scholars have also examined the climate change messages which appeared in the media. As a result, they identified serious flaws like inaccuracies in climate change reporting (Bell, 1994; Schneider,1990; Tankard and Ryan, 1974). In some cases, media representations have also created an impression of controversy and uncertainty in the scientific field. Trumbo (1996) discovered that politicians and special interest groups started dominating the climate change debate. As a result, the balance of sources changed – the focus shifted from science to policy and industry. This led to confusion regarding the certainty of global climate change (Trumbo, 1996; Williams 2001 in Corbett and Durfee, 2004). Also, Antilla (2005) found large number of articles that framed climate change in terms of debate, controversy, or uncertainty which had detrimental effects on the public`s understanding of the issue. These results align with another study conducted by Zehr (2000) who stated that the popular press leaves an impression of uncertainty and disagreement among scientists. By contrast, studies of

European media coverage have found greater certainty about anthropogenic climate change, with smaller amount of skeptical voices being cited by the journalists (Brossard et al, 2004; Dirikx and Gelders, 2009 in Hansen, 2011).

Such findings show that climate change reporting may vary across different nations. Correspondingly,international textual studies on newspaper coverage of climate change have gained popularity in the recent years. Antilla (2005:340) lists some of them – mainly focusing on framing as well as ideological and social (re) construction of environmental problems, among other topics: Trumbo,1996 [US]; McComas and Shanahan, 1999 [US]; Nissani,1999 [US]; McManus, 2000 [Australia]; Taylor and Nathan, 2002 [UK]; Dispensa and Brulle, 2003 [US, New Zealand, and Finland]; Boykoff and Boykoff, 2004[US]; Carvalho, 2005 [UK].

(14)

13

With my research, I argue that comparing Norwegian and UK press coverage of climate change can reveal possible differences and similarities. This aims to paint a better picture of the way climate change is being reported in the media; in different cultural and geographical regions. Norwegian is also a distinctive language which is spoken as an official language in the country by a population of about 4, 9 people (International Energy Agency, 2011). In fact, there are two official forms of Norwegian: Bokmål and Nynorsk and the first of them is used in this study. Located in the far North of Europe, Norway is covered by snow in the winter, with limited amount of sunlight coming in this time of the year. Hence,

concerns for melting Arctic ice are relevant for people in Norway. It should also be

recognized that the petroleum sector is the backbone of the industry in the country, generating 22% of GDP and 47% of exports (International Energy Agency, 2011).

To be fair, there are some existent studies concerning climate coverage in Norway. Duarte (2010) wrote a master`s thesis which examines Norwegian climate change reporting from October 2007 to April 2008. The study concerns five Norwegian newspapers: Aftenposten, VG, Dagens Næringsliv, Bergens Tidende and Nordlys. The author found that skeptical voices were given a minimum amount of attention. As Duarte (2010: iii) concludes: ‘The results shows [sic] that there is less disagreement in the Norwegian press coverage of climate change,76% agrees with the consensus of the IPCC about anthropogenic climate change.’ Nevertheless, some voices were privileged over others. As a result, the debate was dominated by authorities like politicians, climate scientists and public spokespersons while grass roots organizations were poorly covered (Duarte, 2010).

On the other hand, Brattfjord (2015) conducted a comparative content analysis of three Danish and three Norwegian newspapers. This analysis was supplemented by qualitative interviews with six journalists working for these papers. Her results showed a surprising similarity between Norwegian and Danish coverage. Further, politics was a salient theme while politicians were often quoted as sources. Another important finding was the fact that the interviewed journalists emphasized the need of ‘solution journalism’. This type of journalism was also present in their work (Brattfjord, 2015: VII).

With my study, I aim to discover who the most represented voices are and how much

(15)

14

lens of different environmental discourses such as the ecological modernization storyline, for example.

Last but not least, my research compares cross – nationally between Norway and an English speaking country with distinctive journalistic traditions. Cross-national studies can fill a gap, especially when they concern small nations and languages which are not so widespread. Moreover, most of the available peer-reviewed literature (Antilla, 2005; Boykoff and

Boykoff, 2004; Boykoff and Boykoff, 2007) has discussed mainly research on informational bias and balance in climate change coverage; usually the US and UK standing in the focus of such analyses. There is a need for more comparative studies to explain and show different media coverage of the climate change problem as compared to Anglo-American journalism. This is particularly true in the case of Norway which remains underrepresented in research. Finally, climate change is a newsworthy global problem that may affect millions of people worldwide. Therefore, its media representations deserve further scholarly attention.

However, what is the connection between covering climate change and objectivity theories? It may turn out that the journalistic strive for objectivity (more specifically, one of its

components: balance in reporting) causes shortcomings in climate change reporting. Therefore, the next section of this chapter confronts objectivity theories with the subject of climate change. Further, it reflects on how ‘objective’ climate change representations have been throughout the years, according to previous research in the field.

3. Objectivity and climate change

In the near past, journalistic practices like objectivity, and particularly the component of ‘balanced reporting’, led to confusion and uncertainty about climate change. By following professional standards, most news outlets felt obliged to give equal attention to both sides in the climate change controversy (Antilla, 2005). Thus, they ended up quoting ‘climate

skeptics’ who were affiliated with the fossil fuel industry. Their ‘very cynical and deeply interested campaign’ aimed to discredit far more reliable climate change scientists; and balanced reporting helped them achieve their goal (Demeritt2001:328 in Antilla 2005: 350).

Likewise, Nissani(1999) found that media coverage of environmental issues was both

(16)

15

a big historical pattern; ‘phoney’ controversies about slavery, child labor, women rights, civil rights, smoking, to name but a few, have served the interests of specific actors and industries throughout the years (Nissani, 1999: 37). These industries and their ‘experts’ have found ways to back up their claims; this leading to general misinformation. As the author puts it: ‘They [the organizations who benefited from such harmful practices or products] have always been able to unearth yet one more reason why the status quo is best for us’ (Nissani, 1999:38). One example to illustrate this was given by Miller (1992) who argued that journalists

manufactured doubt about scientific findings which linked smoking and cancer. This happened under the influence of the tobacco industry, as well as under the ‘guise’ of objectivity (Miller, 1992 in Stocking and Holstein, 2009).

As already mentioned, some academics like Nissani (1999) have drawn clear parallels between the tobacco manipulation and the climate change case. Also, Gelbspan (2005:78), long-time editor and journalist, stated that the fossil fuel industry`s well-funded

disinformation campaigns managed to distort media representations of the climate change issue. Further, ‘greenhouse sceptics’ received payments from coal interest groups back in the mid-1990s. Another example was ExxonMobil which emerged as a ‘major funder’ of the climate change deniers (Gelbspan, 2005:78).

However, the question remains: why did journalists give equal attention to such sources (who indeed represented a dismissively small percentage of the scientific community)? One

explanation may be their adherence to the norm of objectivity, and particularly its

characteristics known as ‘balance’ (Dunwoody, 2005; McManus, 2009). Therefore, it can be argued that the component of balance has the potential to create problems in the case of climate change coverage; especially when journalists fail to provide the necessary context and verification.

(17)

16

With balanced reporting, journalists act as detached mediators presenting two conflicting sides in a dispute (Entman, 1989 in Boykoff and Boykoff, 2007). Thus, journalistic balance serves as a shield; it protects reporters` reputation and prestige. In fact, they may lack

scientific background and understanding, as well as the time to verify the competing scientific claims (Dunwoody and Peters, 1992 in Boykoff and Boykoff, 2007). Consequently, this leaves a false impression of existing uncertainty and doubt in the scientific community (Boykoff and Boykoff, 2007; Zehr, 2000). As Boykoff and Boykoff (2007) wrote, balanced coverage doesn`t always mean accurate coverage.

More specifically, the media practice of quoting competing sides may give equal weight to both arguments, even though the majority of evidence and opinion clearly falls to one side (Dunwoody, 2005; Stocking, 1999 in Corbett and Durfee, 2004). In the case of global warming, journalists cited many times ‘individual’ scientists such as Richard Lindzen, Fred Singer, Patrick Michaels, and Robert Balling Jr. These few ‘experts’ were given unreasonable amount of coverage because their opposing views created a sense of controversy; and this was in line with the journalistic value of balanced reporting (Zehr, 2000: 91). At the same time, there was no scientific debate, as the overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed scientists stated that anthropogenic climate change was a real threat (Dunwoody, 1999; Houghton et.al., 1992; Orkes, 2004; Stocking, 1999; Wilkins, 1993). According to Gelbspan (2005),

journalists failed to reflect the ‘relative weight of opinion’. They passed along ‘balanced’ stories without doing the necessary prior research, and this was a serious violation of readers` trust (Gelbspan, 2005: 79).

Determining what is true is a daunting task; therefore, it can`t be expected from media professionals who often lack time, resources and knowledge to probe deeper into complex issues like climate change. Consequently, the journalistic function of balance may be

problematic when it comes to scientific coverage. For instance, Dearing (1995 in Corbett and Durfee, 2004: 135) analysed media reporting on ‘maverick science’ and concluded that the journalistic norm of balance enhanced the credibility of fringe scientists. Stocking (1999:29 in Corbett and Durfee, 2004: 135-136) puts it as follows:

(18)

17

have been found to pit scientist against scientist, with little or no discussion of the reason for disagreements, and often without mention of the relative degree of scientific acceptance of the differing views. The resulting accounts of science give equal, but unequally deserving, weight to “dueling experts,” thus making the science appear more controversial and more uncertain than the bulk of scientists believe it to be.’

As a result, this can send a confusing message to the audience. As Corbett and Durfee (2004:136) formulate it: ‘Well, who knows what`s really true’ (even if both science and society have valued one claim more than the other). In the climate change case, among others, journalists have created an impression of a non-existent controversy and failed to reflect the existing consensus (Wilson, 2000 in Corbett and Durfee, 2004).

Various studies have confirmed that journalists can be blamed for creating an informational bias by misrepresenting the ‘top climate change perspective’ (Boykoff and Boykoff, 2007: 1191). Also, Boykoff and Boykoff (2004) have previously analysed the norm of ‘balance’ with regard to climate change coverage in the press (from 1998 to 2002) and stated that:

‘In the end, adherence to the norm of balanced reporting leads to informationally biased coverage of global warming. This bias, hidden behind the veil of journalistic balance, creates both discursive and real political space for the US government to shirk

responsibility and delay action regarding global warming.’ (Boykoff and Boykoff, 2004:134).

While adherence to journalistic norms represents a bedrock shaping mass media coverage of human contributions to climate change, political and economic factors also play a role (Boykoff and Boykoff, 2007: 1191). In other words, there is a complex interrelation between climate policy, public understanding and news coverage of climate change. Authors such as Hilgartner and Bosk (1988:58 in Boykoff and Boykoff, 2007: 1191) wrote that the mass-media is one of the vital ‘public arenas in which social problems are framed and grow’.

(19)

18

relation to the global warming problem. In turn, this helped to build an ‘uninformed public’ identity and contributed to inaction (Zehr, 2000: 98).

Nevertheless, media coverage of climate change is not a constant. Practices may vary across time and space. In 2006 the Institute for Public Research (ippr) and Energy Saving Trust researched the use of language about climate change. Segnit and Eraut (2008: 91) summarized the report and stated that: ‘In 2007 an emerging consensus was clear {…} However, it is the rhetoric, not the content, that has been modified {…}’.

Also, Boykoff (2007) continued studying the norm of ‘balanced’ reporting and the way it communicates the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change. He made an analysis of newspaper coverage in the US and the UK from 2003 to 2006 and concluded:

‘This research finds that 'balanced' reporting on scientific investigations of human-induced climate change in these newspapers is no longer evident, and thus suggests that we may now be flogging a dead norm’ (Boykoff, 2007: 479).

At the same time, his findings showed differences depending on the political, economic and cultural contexts of both countries. For example, there was a significant divergence from scientific consensus in the US in 2003-4, followed by a decline in 2005-6. At the same time, no major divergence was identified in UK reporting (Boykoff, 2007: 470). While policy actors in both the UK and US shared commitment to liberal capitalism and views of

exploitative interactions with nature, the two countries had different domestic environments (Boykoff, 2007:477). In the US, the Republican Party had been associated with resistance to climate policy implementation (the Bush administration being a prominent example).

Meanwhile, in the UK, the Labour and Conservative parties had followed climate policy discourse (Boykoff, 2007: 477). Further, climate change deniers were more often quoted in the US than in the UK; and this confused the public by sending controversial and biased messages (Boykoff, 2007: 478).

(20)

19

More recently, Saphiro (2014) wrote that journalists continue to cover the voices of

competing special interests due to reputational concerns. While most of the climate change researchers support the IPCC consensus, skeptical voices are still being quoted in the news (Oreskes, 2004; Doran and Zimmerman, 2009; Anderegg et al. 2010 in Shapiro, 2014: 7). The author argues that journalists are informed, but avoid taking sides and thus fail to truthfully reflect on the facts. As a result, the public remains uninformed and ignorant on climate change (Saphiro, 2014: 1).

Also, Grundmann and Scott (2014 in Shapiro, 2014) stated that the top 10 US newspapers routinely cited skeptical scientists in the period from 2000 to 2010. Similarly, Painter and Ashe (2012) revealed that news coverage of climate skepticism was prevalent in the US and the UK.; even though it was more common in the US. On the other hand, skeptical views were not widely covered in Brazil, China, France and India. Considering the results, the researchers suggest that similar studies can include countries like Norway, Canada, Australia and Eastern Europe, where climate skepticism is known to be dominating (Painter and Ashe, 2012: 7).

Following from this review, my research sets out to examine which voices and perspectives dominated the climate change debate surrounding the recent UN conference in Paris. It might be the case that the objectivity norm still leads to skeptical voices being

disproportionately covered both in Norway and the UK. By contrast, my analysis might reveal the opposite tendency. Therefore, the following section discusses theories on how objectivity might be modified in relation to climate change reporting.

3.1 Revising objectivity in climate change reporting

Objectivity is a normative ideal. Norms are usually described as prescriptions; a list of rules and principles which should guide our practices. However, these practices may differ in real life contexts under the influence of many factors such as location, time period, political system or topic. The climate change case, for example, shows that objectivity and balance may sometimes be deceptive; unable to represent a truthful reality. For this reason, some writers have suggested alternative ways of reporting on the global warming problem (Corbett and Durfee, 2005; Dunwoody, 2005; Tolan and Berzon, 2005; Ytterstad, 2012 et.al.). This is not to say that objectivity will be discarded, but rather modified according to the

(21)

20

namely flexibility. The objectivity norm is ‘flexible’ because journalism practitioners have applied it selectively; based on personal choice, topic and external influences.

However, why is it necessary (if at all) to modify journalistic practices in certain contexts? While norms like objectivity and balance are helpful for journalists, they can mislead audiences (Dunwoody, 2005: 90). As previously discussed, this can be the case when it comes to the global warming problem. Meanwhile, surveys show that media messages play a role in shaping the public`s beliefs. For this reason, the media coverage of a topic can legitimize or destroy it before the public; either downplay or emphasize its importance (Dunwoody, 2005).

Nevertheless, is it possible for journalists to report on climate change both truthfully and objectively? Dunwoody (2005) suggests one way to achieve this: the

‘weight-of-evidence’ approach. The idea is that journalists can retain their adherence to objectivity and balance, while showing their audience what is true. For example, they need to list all the different views in the global warming controversy. Yet, they have to determine where the bulk of evidence and expertise lies; it should be clear to the public that one opinion is widely supported and the other is not (Dunwoody, 2005:90- 91).

Another possible solution to improve reporting on climate change might be the inclusion of a broader scientific and political context (Corbett and Durfee, 2005; Tolan and Berzon, 2005). Corbett and Durfee (2005), for example, tested how controversy and context affect readers` perception about the (un)certainty of global warming. For their experiment, they used a news story based on an actual scientific study which found that a section of the Arctic sheet was thickening. They created four versions of it – a version which included neither context nor controversy, only context, only controversy and both context and

controversy. The results showed that the students who read the story with context were most certain about global warming, while students who read the story with neither context nor controversy were the least certain (Corbett and Durfee, 2005: 88). This means that the inclusion of context can enhance understanding about the climate change problem (Corbett and Durfee, 2005: 89). Further, the authors argue that media coverage is a ‘snapshot’.

(22)

21

Further, McManus (2009) proposed yet another alternative. He argued in favour of ‘empiricism—the scientific method of inquiry based on careful observation from multiple perspectives and logic that Walter Lippmann proposed for journalism nearly a century ago.’ (McManus, 2009: 78). Empiricism differs from objectivity because it doesn’t pretend to reflect reality. On the contrary, it recognizes that media representations are only a partial version of what is true. Moreover, as bias is inescapable, McManus (2009) suggests that journalists should try to compensate through diversity (both of staff and quoted sources). Finally, empiricism seeks the truth through long observation. As journalists don`t have

unlimited time for observations, their work can be subject to revision. According to the theory of ‘empiricism’, this is not a problem as long as the media is transparent about it (McManus, 2009: 78).

However, how do journalists themselves perceive objectivity in climate change reporting? Hiles and Hinnant (2014) investigated how highly experienced environmental journalists view the professional norm of objectivity over time. They found that most of the participants valued the norm even if they rejected or redefined it. The journalists in the research particularly dismissed the component known as ‘balance’ and argued for ‘weight-of-evidence’ approach (2014: 428) as defined by Dunwoody (2005).

Nevertheless, the respondents` attitudes varied. Some said that objectivity is ‘a lofty goal’ or the ‘cornerstone of journalism’. They argued that professionals needed to weigh different sides and come to independent conclusions; this being a healthy and informative way of reporting (Hiles and Hinnant, 2014: 445-446). On the other hand, others pointed out the flaws of objectivity:

‘Sometimes [. . .] people use this idea of so-called objectivity as a cloak for lying. ”Print my lies; otherwise you’re not objective.” Well, that doesn’t serve

anybody, except the person who’s lying,’ (Hiles and Hinannt, 2014: 446).

(23)

22

In Norway, Andreas Ytterstad (2012) interviewed current climate change journalists to find out how they understand the objectivity ideal. According to him extreme situations put objectivity to the test. For instance, Ytterstad (2012) referred to the Arab spring from 2011, a time when many journalists felt constrained by the professional norm of objective reporting. Correspondingly, many have claimed that climate change is one of the biggest crises of our time. As such, it challenges the journalistic ideal of objective reporting. Some scholars (Dunwoody, 2005; McManus, 2009) have wondered, if objective reporting was the most effective way of communication in the particular case. This argument should be seen in the context of the general political and public inaction in relation to climate change. For example, recently there was a rise in CO2 emissions in Norway (Ytterstad, 2012).

As climate change was not recognized as a visible problem, this might mean that information was not communicated to the public in the best possible way. Therefore, in Norway as well as in other countries, scholars observed a recent shift in reporting: from objective to more agenda-driven journalism. As a result, some climate change journalists have focused on climate change and politics (Ytterstad, 2012:3). One of Norwegian`s most famous and controversial climate change journalists Ole Mathismoen felt that it was his moral

obligation to inform Norwegian politicians and the public about the magnitude of the crisis. However, his personal beliefs contradicted the basis of journalistic professionalization in the country, namely the objectivity ideal (Ytterstad, 2012: 10). Also, Ellen Kongsnes who works for the Norwegian newspaper Stavanger Aftenblad, said she needed to free herself from the balance norm and be moralistic under the given circumstances. Why? Because most

Norwegian newspapers were covering the opposite viewpoint. After all the oil industry had been fueling the Norwegian economy for decades (Ytterstad, 2012: 11).

(24)

23

Furthermore, the scholar argues in favour of a ‘critical realism’ approach to climate change journalism (Ytterstad, 2012: 20). He means that it is difficult to define reality; it is much more complex than a simple divide between two contrasting sides in a controversy. More specifically, Ytterstad (2012) discusses the critical realism concept as defined by Roy Bhaskar (1978) – a philosophical position that refers to what we know about the world; but also the fact that our knowledge (idea) of the world differs from what it actually is. Therefore, journalists need to go beyond balance routines and probe deeper into news events (Ytterstad, 2012:21). Hacket and Zhao 1998 (in Ytterstad, 2012: 21) explain it in the following way:

‘Critical realism upholds one positive side of the journalistic regime of objectivity – the impulse towards skeptical, investigative, critical examination of contemporary events – but also exposes the other negative side – the sacrifice of this investigative spirit to routine, safe, standardized, and therefore superficial practices, such as “balance”.’

Finally, it might be the case that our whole understanding of objectivity is a

misconception. As Collier (2003) wrote, objectivity may not mean seeing the world from a distance. Many famous thinkers, from Socrates to Spinoza, emphasized the need to ‘precisely be objective about the things that we are and ought to be passionately concerned about’ (Collier, 2003: 140 in Ytterstad, 2012: 22). Most likely, one thing we should be concerned about is global climate change. The journalist Åse Brandvold, among others, perhaps had some objective reasons to claim that we are heading towards extinction, if we fail to limit the temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius (Ytterstad, 2012: 22).

(25)

24

4. ‘Solution journalism’

Hypothetically, let us assume that journalists have chosen to put ‘false balance’ aside and their reporting conveys the message that human-induced climate change is a real threat to our planet. What follows? Usually, when there is a problem, we naturally look for solutions; and in such cases, journalists are expected to include them in their reporting.

Various environmental discourses have appeared throughout the years to offer answers. Some of them complement each other while others compete in the ‘market place of ideas’. In the second edition of his book ‘The Politics of the Earth: Environmental

Discourses’, John Dryzek organizes, compares and contrasts between different environmental discourses. Dryzek`s 25 years of teaching and writing in the environmental field have helped him conduct such an extensive classification. The author makes sense of this proliferation by using the method of ‘discourse’. He describes it in the following way:

’{...} a shared way of apprehending the world. Embedded in language, it enables those who subscribe to it to interpret bits of information and put them together into coherent stories or accounts. Discourses construct meanings and relationships, helping to define common sense and legitimate knowledge.’ (Dryzek, 2005: 9).

Still, each discourse exists in relation to other discourses. These ‘shared terms’ provide room for debates, agreement and disagreement. Moreover, they make problem-solving possible (Dryzek, 2005: 9).

Dryzek`s (2005) approach might be relevant and useful for my study because the scholar has crafted a special checklist of elements for the analysis of discourses. This checklist might be confronted with the actual climate change coverage as observed in print newspapers in Norway and the UK. By applying Dryzek`s theories to my analysis, I aim to identify references to different environmental discourses, including the ecological modernization discourse. More specifically, lexical and grammatical choices, among other characteristics, can signal references to a particular environmental discourse.

(26)

25

- Storyline. It is the main story each discourse tells; often found in titles. - Basic entities recognized or constructed. The term means an ‘ontology’ of a

discourse; the way each discourse sees the world.

- Assumptions about natural relationships. This refers to notions of what is natural in the relationship between different entities.

- Agents and their motives. It is the actors or agents who take part in storylines. Different discourses may express different attitudes towards their motives. - Key metaphors and other rhetorical devices. By using rhetorical devices, the

authors put events in a particular light. Thus, they aim to convince their readers.

Storylines, for example, involve different actors, or agents. These actors might be human or nonhuman, politicians, scientists or activists. One discourse may portray one and the same person as an expert while the other may depict her/him as a phoney. Hence, some voices are being strengthened whereas others neglected (Dryzek, 2005: 18). Also, storylines usually include metaphors. In other words, rhetorical devices are being employed to represent a situation in a particular way. For example, some of the well-known metaphors imply that the Earth is a ‘machine’ (which can be reassembled) or a ‘living organism’ (which constantly grows and develops) (Dryzek, 2005: 18).

As for ‘basic entities’, they may be described as an ‘ontology’ of a discourse. This means that different discourses support different ideas; see the world in different ways. For example, some of them say that the actions of governments and policy actors matter while others concentrate on the human spirit in general (Dryzek, 2005: 17).

By using the 5- point checklist outlined above, Dryzek proposes the following

classification of discourses: survivalism, the promethean response, administrative rationalism, democratic pragmatism, economic rationalism, sustainable development, ecological

modernization, green consciousness and green politics (Dryzek, 2005). Each of these

(27)

26

In the context of this study, I focus on the discourse named ecological modernization. This storyline aims to reconcile economics and ecology, meaning that technology and business innovation are seen as a solution to the world`s environmental problems. The approach is efficiency oriented as it aims to make capitalism more sustainable without changing its basic system of production and consumption (Hunold et. al., 2001:3-4).

Dryzek (2005:169-172) analyses the storyline of ecological modernization by using the discourse elements mentioned previously. In the table below, Dryzek, (2005: 173) presents the main characteristics of the ecological modernization discourse. It should be noted that the author lists all discourse elements to form one coherent story. In this way, it would be easier for the reader to understand the overall meaning of the ecological modernization discourse

Chart 1: Ecological Modernization

Discourse Ecological Modernization

Storyline Capitalist political economy should be consciously adjusted so that environmental protection and economic development can reinforce one another.

Basic entities Complex systems

Nature as waste treatment plan Capitalist economy

The state

Assumptions about natural relationships Cooperation between government, business, environmentalists and scientists

Nature is subordinate to humans Relationship between environmental protection and economic growth

Agents and their motives Governments Businesses

(28)

27

Motivated by the public good

Key metaphors and other rhetorical devices

Tidy household: maximizing wellbeing and minimizing waste

Connection to progress Reassurance

In my analysis, I employ this model to check how much of the ecological modernization discourse (if at all) can be observed in the print quality press in Norway and the UK. In addition, studying elements like storyline, agents and motives and key metaphors in climate change coverage might help me distinguish between different types of environmental discourses.

Now that the concept of ecological modernization has been defined, it may be worthwhile to reflect on its detailed meaning, history and practical realization in different geographic regions. The term was first coined in the early 1980s by the German social scientists Joseph Huber (1982) and Martin Jänicke (1985) who observed its development in Germany. More specifically, it was defined as ‘restructuring of the capitalist political economy along more environmentally sound lines’ (Dryzek, 2005: 167). In other words, intervention should be conscious and coordinated as both industry and government see its interest in implementing environmental policies. But why is it profitable for businesses? For instance, let us take the example of pollution. Cleaning up is a waste of money; it would be cheaper to prevent the development of such problems in the first place. Moreover, companies can make profits in making and selling pollution prevention (Dryzek, 2005: 167-168).

Thus, the need of governments to promote economic growth can finally reconcile with environmental values. As a result, (moderate) environmentalists can take part in policy

making; with Norway being a prominent example of such inclusion (Dryzek et al., 2003: 64-5 in Dryzek, 2005: 168).

Apart from this, Dryzek (2005) also discusses how the notion of ecological modernization was practically realized in different countries. According to different rankings, Norway shows quite successful environmental policy performance. For example, Yale and Columbia

(29)

28

its faults like its prevailing support for commercial whaling, the country made pioneering efforts to include environmental values in policy making. Their former prime minister Gro Harlem Brundtland initiated the Bruntland Report from 1987- a document which defined the meaning of sustainable development. Moreover, despite being a corporatist country, Norway includes environmental groups into its policy making. The group known as Friends of the Earth Norway, for example, participates in policy making committees and is largely funded by the government. Representatives of Friends of the Earth in the USA and Britain have a different status; they try to impact government decisions from the outside (Dryzek et al, 2003: 22-27; Dryzek, 2005: 165).

On the contrary, the English speaking developed countries, the UK being one of them, failed to display such superior performance. One example can be their resistance to the so- called precautionary principle (meaning that decision–makers should anticipate harm before it occurred). When it comes to climate change the George W. Bush administration used scientific uncertainty as an excuse for inaction. It is also defining for Britain`s policy in relation to various regional and global pollution issues such as acid rain, carbon dioxide and coastal pollution (regards the period up to the late 1990s) (Dryzek, 2005: 164). Accordingly, Britain has been described as an actively exclusive state at least for the last ten years (Hunold et.al, 2001).

Also, Hunold et.al (2001) compared the level of ecological modernization in the USA, the UK, Germany and Norway. They concluded that Germany was in front, followed by Norway. Yet, the Norwegians pursued ecological modernization in a weak form. At the same time, the concept was poorly represented in the UK and the USA. Both countries were described as ‘structurally inhospitable contexts’, the USA taking the lead (Hunold et.al 2001: 23). Based on these findings, my hypothesis is that the storyline of ecological modernization may be observed (to a greater extent) in the Norwegian press.

(30)

29

particularly the balance component) need to be revised in relation to climate change reporting. The so – called ‘solution journalism’ appears as one possible alternative (Bratfjord, 2015). Following from this, the third section focuses on Dryzek`s (2005) classification of

environmental discourses, and specifically the ecological modernization discourse.

All these theories are in the following used to develop my methodological chapter. More specifically, they have helped me formulate several sub – questions that look for skepticism towards human-induced climate change as well as different environmental discourses. My research choices, including the use of CDA and Fairclough`s threefold model, have also been inspired by the theories presented above.

CHAPTER II: RESEARCH FOCUS AND METHODOLOGY

I use this chapter to once again present the focus of this study. Moreover, the method and the rationales for my choices are discussed.

While the UK and Norway share many similarities, their political and media systems have their distinctive characteristics. Therefore, I might expect this to impact their press coverage of climate change. In this respect, the comparative research approach allows me to contrast between four newspapers in two countries. Many researchers have to date worked on subjects like climate change and objectivity. However, with my study, I offer a new perspective that has not been given enough attention: a meaningful comparison illuminating how the press covers climate change in the UK and Norway.

Also, it should be noted that this research was inspired by a particular happening highly relevant to the climate change problem. I refer to the recent climate change summit which took place in Paris last year. Considering that such events are expected to trigger big media interest, it is important to look into how prominent broadsheets in two distinctive countries reflect on the subject. As a result, I formulated the main research question in the following way:

(31)

30

Specifically, I want to examine the specific attitudes and ideological structures hidden behind their discourse. To do that, I chose one print newspaper per country with outspoken position regarding the subject: the Guardian in the UK and Aftenposten in Norway. The idea behind it was to compare them with their competitors in the respective countries – the Daily Telegraph and Adresseavisen. Further, my sub – questions correlated with the literature review outlined above, namely objectivity standards (‘false balance’) in climate change reporting and the ecological modernization storyline. The analytical method of CDA is used because it shows underlying meanings by taking into account language use, production process and wider social context. Considering these dimensions, my sub – questions aim to reveal if (to what extent) the theoretical concepts outlined above can be observed in the actual coverage:

SubQ1: What are the main subthemes and how do they link to climate change? SubQ2: Which actors and voices are the most represented?

SubQ3: What are the differences and similarities in climate change coverage in the respective newspapers?

SubQ3: How much skepticism with respect to human-induced climate change can be observed?

SubQ4: How much of the ecological modernization discourse can be seen? SubQ5: What other environmental discourses may be observed?

(32)

31

1. Research Design

This study of climate change coverage employs a qualitative strategy. I chose to use this approach because newspaper discourse often encapsulates ideological structures. In turn, these ideologies may imply meanings related to the environmental discourse of ecological modernization. In addition, it might be the case that newspapers in Norway and the UK portray the same topic in contrasting ways which refer to socio-political, professional and cultural differences. Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) recognizes that many variables play a role as discourses can`t exist without social meanings. In other words, linguistics and social structure are mutually shaping (Kress and Hodge, 1979 in Titscher and Jenner, 2000: 145).

On the other hand, content analysis has been described as a ‘objective, systematic, and quantitative description of the manifest content of communication’ (Berelson, 1952:18 in Tirscher and Jenner, 2000: 57). Being an established and reliable method, it was previously used to study the subject of climate change. Researchers like Boykoff and Boykoff (2004; 2007), Bratfjord (2015) and Duarte (2010), among others, relied on quantification in the collection and analysis of their data. By contrast, my qualitative research design centers on ‘words rather than quantification’ (Bryman, 2004:19 - 20). Such studies move beyond countable measurement as they look for deeper connotative level of meaning. Furthermore, there is an emphasis on the way individuals interpret their social world. Following from this, qualitative strategies view social reality as a ‘constantly shifting emergent property of individuals` creation’ (Bryman, 2004: 20).

This study is not only qualitative, but also comparative. Bryman (2004: 53) describes the concept of a comparative design as follows:

‘Put simply, this design entails the study using more or less identical methods of two contrasting cases.’

Thus, if we compare between two or more meaningful cases, we can gain better

(33)

32

Adresseavisen) in two countries a day before, during and a day after the UN climate talks in Paris. Cross-national research implies that cultural, social and political settings should be taken into consideration. Apart from that, I analyse two media organizations per country and this adds an extra layer of distinction. As said, this is important because analyzing several meaningful cases gives us better understanding of social phenomena (Bryman, 2004)

2. The Cases

My research has a threefold function. First of all, it aims to investigate climate change coverage a day before, during and a day after the UN Climate Change Conference in Paris, 2015. On such meetings, governments come together to reach international agreements concerning climate change mitigation. In other words, large numbers of states meet to discuss binding commitments, targets for emission reductions, financial mechanisms and ‘common but differentiated’ responsibilities of developed and developing countries3_{. International}

summits appear to be an arena, where politicians take decisions that have huge implications for world`s population. Therefore, it is important to research how media outlets (in this case print newspapers) cover such events.

Secondly, I make a cross – national comparison between two countries – Norway and the UK. While these nations share some common European features, they are also distinct on many levels, and this is discussed later on in this section.

Thirdly, I decided to select two newspapers per country. To me, this enhances the reliability of the study as one media outlet can by no means be representative of the tendencies within a country. The basis of my choice is explained more thoroughly in the section below named ‘The Sample’.

2.1. UN Climate Change Conferences/Paris 2015

(34)

33

for developed countries and laid the foundations for the Kyoto Protocol. The latter was indeed adopted in 1997.5

More recently, the thirteenth UN Conference was held in Bali in 2007. It refers to the Bali Action Plan which includes categories like mitigation, adaptation, technology and

financing. 6 Yet, the next meeting which took place in Copenhagen was described as a failure; the results were hindered either by UN`s complex regulations or manipulative political affairs (Lahn, 2013:15 in Brattfjord, 2015: 8).

In this respect, the Paris UN Climate Conference in 2015 (also known as COP 21) was seen as paramount. It was supposed to enact important agreements regarding the period after 2020 (Lahn, 2013 in Brattfjord, 2015). The French Minister of Foreign Affairs and

International Development formulates it in the following way: 7

‘Everything must be done to make the Paris conference a success. {…} It will be my role to get across this message with a single aim: to achieve in Paris on 11 December the success the whole planet is expecting’

COP 21 hosted 150 presidents and prime ministers who gathered together to reach a binding agreement. The long – term goal of the summit was to reaffirm the goal of limiting global temperature increase below 2 degrees Celsius, while urging parties to make efforts to keep the temperatures under 1.5 degrees. However, the countries still needed to ratify the agreement. For this reason, the agreement opened for signature on April 22, 2016.8 At the opening ceremony of COP 21, the Executive Secretary, Christina Figueres, urged the delegates to apply political leadership. This quote is significant because it shows the seriousness of the climate change problem: 9

(35)

34

UN summits undoubtedly have big impact on the way we deal with climate change. As for the public, it gains understanding of these complex happenings through the media. Therefore, we need to critically examine how journalists cover climate change, and especially in the periods when major UN Conferences take place. Eide & Kunelius (2012: 17 in

Brattfjord, 2015: 22) formulate it in the following way:

‘The summits (…) offer a fruitful opportunity for collecting a set of transnational data to illuminate and compare diversity in journalism`s performance around the world’.

With my study, I aim to compare journalistic performance in Norway and the UK around the most recent UN Conference, namely COP 21 which took place in Paris last year

2.2 Norway and the UK

As early as March 2015, Norway submitted its 2030 climate target to the UN

Framework Convention on Climate Change. The country showed ambitious climate change policy as well as a desire to finance developing countries, with allocations of nearly 6 billion NOK. 10_{While in Paris, Norwegian`s Prime Minister Erna Solberg stated:}11

‘Norway will do its share. We will reduce emissions by 40 % by 2030 compared to 1990 levels. Norway is also a major contributor in the field of climate finance. We intend to remain so.’

Also, the UK government has set a serious climate change target; it involves cutting carbon emissions by 57% by 2032, compared to 1990 levels. 12 In his speech in Paris, former Prime Minister David Cameron said that since 97% of scientists confirmed that climate change is urgent and man-made, rich countries should transfer technology to poor and vulnerable countries. Furthermore, he meant that some nations already possess technology which works and can protect mankind against climate change. Cameron concluded in the following way: 13

(36)

35

Nevertheless, how are these two countries comparable? While Norway may be

considered much smaller and less influential than the UK, it is still well-positioned in various statistics concerning economy, education and energy, one of them being the OECD data.14

Norway`s real gross domestic product (GDP) is 61 542 US dollars per capita as opposed to the one of Britain - 41 452 US dollars per capita. At the same time, the UK`s population estimates of 63,7 million whereas it is only 5,1 million in Norway, with a lower income inequality.

As for oil and gas, they seem to be of importance in both countries. For example, they provided 68 per cent of the UK`s total primary energy in 2014. Moreover, offshore oil and gas extraction was the sixth largest contributor to their GDP. 15 On the other hand, Norway`s economy was transformed after they found offshore oil and gas fields in the late 1960s. Good management of these resources enabled them to achieve excellent standards of living. 16

Further, Norway scores quite well in terms of environmental sustainability. The country has low greenhouse-gas emissions, abundant hydroelectric power and good practice in many areas of environmental policy. 17 In the meantime, greenhouse-gas emissions were lowered in the UK in the past twenty years. Although the share of renewables increased, it is still low in comparison to other OECD countries (both the UK and Norway are members). 18

Based on this information, I can conclude that both Norway and the UK are important actors in the global climate change policy. Thereupon, this study aims to reveal how their quality newspapers cover the issue.

Moreover, both of them are democratic and economically advanced nations. Being European countries located close to each other, they share many similarities. Yet, their cultural and political settings have some distinctions which make my comparison more fruitful. These differences are outlined in the following section.

2.3 The Sample: Newspapers

Let`s talk about Climate Change