Framing the wild: A qualitative analysis of environmental news coverage during the 2020 coronavirus lockdowns | Intellect Skip to content
1981
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Journal of Environmental Media
  4. Online First Articles
  5. Online First Article
image of Framing the wild: A qualitative analysis of environmental news coverage during the 2020 coronavirus lockdowns

Abstract

News media coverage of the natural world frames perceptions and policies related to the environment. Studying its reporting brings insight for how meaning is assigned to humanity’s relationship with nature and wildlife. Through qualitative content analysis, this study examines digital articles on the environment, published from March to December 2020, amidst mass lockdowns due to the 2019 coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Claims about the impact of humanity being locked down were analysed using framing theory. Findings revealed four major frames generated in connection to (1) wildlife behaviour, (2) a new normal post-COVID, (3) climate change being displaced and (4) human–nature symbiosis. The results of qualitative inquiry offer a more nuanced understanding of how media frames the complex human–nature relationship, which tends to feature negative and hostile associations. This furthers the notion that such framing can limit perspectives, even if unintended, and arguably weakens viewing our relationship with nature as symbiotic.

© 2024 Intellect Ltd
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1386/jem_00104_1
2024-03-20
2024-05-03
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Atanasova, D. (2019), ‘Moving society to a sustainable suture: The framing of sustainability in a constructive media outlet’, Environmental Communication, 13:5, pp. 700–11, https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2019.1583262.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Badullovich, N., Grant, W. J. and Colvin, R. M. (2020), ‘Framing climate change for effective communication: A systematic map’, Environmental Research Letters, 15:12, pp. 123002–16, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aba4c7.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Benford, R. D. and Snow, D. A. (2000), ‘Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment’, Annual Review of Sociology, 26:1, pp. 611–39, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.611.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Billi, M., Urquiza, A. G. and Klenner, C. F. (2017), ‘Environmental communication and non-conventional renewable energy projects: Content analysis of Chilean mass media’, Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, 72, pp. 1218–37, https://doi.org/10.4185/RLCS-2017-1215-66en.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Blair, B., Zimny-Schmitt, D. and Rudd, M. A. (2017), ‘U.S. news media coverage of pharmaceutical pollution in the aquatic environment: A content analysis of the problems and solutions presented by actors’, Environmental Management, 60:2, pp. 314–22.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Busch, K. C. (2016), ‘Polar bears or people? Exploring ways in which teachers frame climate change in the classroom’, International Journal of Science Education. Part B. Communication and Public Engagement, 6:2, pp. 137–65, https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2015.1027320.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Cacciatore, M. A., Scheufele, D. A. and Iyengar, S. (2016), ‘The end of framing as we know it…and the future of media effects’, Mass Communication & Society, 19:1, pp. 7–23, https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2015.1068811.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Chan, N. (2020), ‘Pandemic temporalities: Distal futurity in the digital Capitalocene’, Journal of Environmental Media, 2020:1(Supplement 1), pp. 13.1–13.8, https://doi.org/10.1386/jem_00034_1.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Chew, C. and Eysenbach, G. (2010), ‘Pandemics in the age of Twitter: Content analysis of tweets during the 2009 H1N1 outbreak’, PLoS ONE, 5:11, pp. e14118–13, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0014118.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Creswell, J. W. (2014), Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Cruz, S. M. and Manata, B. (2020), ‘Measurement of environmental concern: A review and analysis’, Frontiers in Psychology, 11:363, pp. 1–14, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00363.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. D’Angelo, P. (2002), ‘News framing as a multiparadigmatic research program: A response to Entman’, Journal of Communication, 52:4, pp. 870–88, https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/52.4.870.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Daly, N. (2020), ‘Fake animal news abounds on social media as coronavirus upends life’, National Geographic, 20 March, https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/coronavirus-pandemic-fake-animal-viral-social-media-posts.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Dickinson, J. L., Crain, R., Yalowitz, S. and Cherry, T. M. (2013), ‘How framing climate change influences citizen scientists’ intentions to do something about it’, The Journal of Environmental Education, 44:3, pp. 145–58, https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2012.742032.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Diffenbaugh, N. S., Field, C. B., Appel, E. A., Azevedo, I. L., Baldocchi, D. D., Burke, M., Burney, J. A., Ciais, P., Davis, S. J., Fiore, A. M., Fletcher, S. M., Hertel, T. W., Horton, D. E., Hsiang, S. M., Jackson, R. B., Jin, X., Levi, M., Lobell, D. B., McKinley, G. A., Moore, F. C., Montgomery, A., Nadeau, K. C., Pataki, E. E., Randerson, J. T., Reichstein, M., Schnell, J. L., Seneviratne, S. I., Singh, D., Steiner, A. L. and Wong-Parodi, G. (2020), ‘The COVID-19 lockdowns: A window into the earth system’, Nature Reviews/ Earth & Environment, 1:September, pp. 470–81, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-020-0070-1.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. DiFrancesco, D. A. and Young, N. (2010), ‘Seeing climate change: The visual construction of global warming in Canadian national print media’, Cultural Geographies, 18:4, pp. 517–36, https://doi.org/10.1177/1474474010382072.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Dotson, D. M., Jacobson, S. K., Kaid, L. L. and Carlton, J. S. (2012), ‘Media coverage of climate change in Chile: A content analysis of conservative and liberal newspapers’, Environmental Communication, 6:1, pp. 64–81, https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2011.642078.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Entman, R. (1993), ‘Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm’, Journal of Communication, 43:3, pp. 51–58.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Hainsworth, J. (2020), ‘Don’t forget climate change in pandemic, federal minister warns’, Business in Vancouver, 24 September, https://biv.com/article/2020/09/dont-forget-climate-change-pandemic-federal-minister-warns.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Hedding, K. J. (2017), ‘Sources and framing of fracking: A content analysis of newspaper coverage in North Carolina, New York, and Pennsylvania’, Environmental Communication, 11:3, pp. 370–85, https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2016.1269819.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Hsieh, H. and Shannon, S. E. (2005), ‘Three approaches to qualitative content analysis’, Qualitative Health Research, 15:9, pp. 1277–88.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Jacobson, S. K., Langin, C., Carlton, J. S. and Kaid, L. L. (2012), ‘Content analysis of newspaper coverage of the Florida panther’, Conservation Biology: The Journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 26:1, pp. 171–79, https://doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01750.x.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Jenner, E. (2012), ‘News photographs and environmental agenda setting’, Policy Studies Journal, 40:2, pp. 274–301.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Keller, T. R., Hase, V., Thaker, J., Mahl, D. and Schäfer, M. S. (2019), ‘News media coverage of climate change in India 1997–2016: Using automated content analysis to assess themes and topics’, Environmental Communication, 14:2, pp. 219–35, https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2019.1643383.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Kenyon, T. (2017), ‘Globally, concern for the environment is rising – and this has implication for brands’, Growth from Knowledge (GfK), 5 October, https://www.gfk.com/blog/2017/05/globally-concern-environment-rising-implications-brands.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Kolandai-Matchett, K. and Armoudian, M. (2020), ‘Message framing strategies for effective marine conservation communication’, Aquatic Conservation, 30:12, pp. 2441–63, https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.3349.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. LexisNexis (2023), ‘Nexis Uni: LexisNexis Academic’, https://internationalsales.lexisnexis.com/products/nexis-uni.
  28. Lindgren, E., Lindholm, T., Vliegenthart, R., Boomgaarden, H. G., Damstra, A., Strömbäck, J. and Tsfati, Y. (2022), ‘Trusting the facts: The role of framing, news media as a (trusted) source, and opinion resonance for perceived truth in statistical statements’, Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 00:0, pp. 1–24, https://doi.org/10.1177/10776990221117117.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Littlejohn, S. W., Foss, K. A. and Oetzel, J. G. (2017), Theories of Human Communication, 11th ed., Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, Inc.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Maher, T. M. (2001), ‘Framing: An emerging paradigm or a phase of agenda setting?’, in S. D. Reese, O. H. Gandy and A. E. Grant (eds), Framing Public Life Perspectives on Media and Our Understanding of the Social World, New York: Routledge, pp. 83–94.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Mattouk, M. and Talhourk, S. N. (2017), ‘A content analysis of nature photographs taken by Lebanese rural youth’, PLoS ONE, 12:5, pp. 1–14, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0177079.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Maynard, L. (2018), ‘Media framing of zoos and aquaria: From conservation to animal rights’, Environmental Communication, 12:2, pp. 177–90, https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2017.1310741.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. McGrath, M. (2020), ‘Climate change: World mustn’t forget “deeper emergency”’, BBC News, 22 April, https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-52370221.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Miller, M. M. and Riechert, B. P. (2001), ‘The spiral of opportunity and frame resonance: Mapping the issue cycle in news and public discourse’, in S. D. Reese, O. H. Gandy and A. E. Grant (eds), Framing Public Life Perspectives on Media and Our Understanding of the Social World, New York: Routledge, pp. 83–94.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Ndhlovu, M. P. (2021), ‘The fifth estate: Analyzing climate change punditry in the Zimbabwean newspaper columns’, Environmental Communication, 15:3, pp. 418–29, https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2020.1863826.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Nijland, H. J., Aarts, N. and van Woerkum, C. M. J. (2018), ‘Exploring the framing of animal farming and meat consumption: On the diversity of topics used and qualitative patterns in selected demographic contexts’, Animals (Basel), 8:2, pp. 1–23, https://doi.org/10.3390/ani8020017.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Ofori-Parku, S. S. (2016), ‘“Whale deaths” are unnatural’, Science Communication, 38:6, pp. 746–75, https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547016677832.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Owens, B. and Hakai Magazine (2021), ‘Nature isn’t really healing’, The Atlantic, 30 May, https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/05/pandemic-lockdowns-nature-wildilfe/619054/.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Patton, M. Q. (2015), Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods, 4th ed., Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Peters, J. D. (1999), Speaking into the Air: A History of the Idea of Communication, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Peters, B. G. and Hogwood, B. W. (1985), ‘In search of the issue-attention cycle’, The Journal of Politics, 47:1, pp. 238–53, https://doi.org/10.2307/2131074.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Pink, S., Horst, H., Postill, J., Hjorth, L., Lewis, T. and Tacchi, J. (2016), Digital Ethnography: Principles and Practice, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Planck-Gesellschaft, M. (2020), ‘COVID-19 lockdown reveals human impact on wildlife’, Science Daily, 22 June, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/06/200622133020.htm.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Potter, J. (2017), ‘Framing the terms and conditions of digital life: New ways to view “known” practices and digital/media literacy’, Learning, Media and Technology, 42:4, pp. 387–89, https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2017.1397019.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Potter, W. J. and Levine-Donnerstein, D. (1999), ‘Rethinking validity and reliability in content analysis’, Journal of Applied Communication Research, 27:1999, pp. 258–84.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Pratkanis, A. and Aronson, E. (1992), Age of Propaganda: The Everyday Use and Abuse of Persuasion, New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Reese, S. D. (2007), ‘The framing project: A bridging model for media research revisited’, Journal of Communication, 57:1, pp. 148–54, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00334.x.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Reese, S. D., Gandy, O. H. and Grant, A. E. (eds) (2001), Framing Public Life: Perspectives on Media and Our Understanding of the Social World, New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Rutz, C., Loretto, M. C., Bates, A. E., Davidson, S. C., Duarte, C. M., Jetz, W., Johnson, M., Kato, A., Kays, R., Mueller, T., Primack, R. B., Ropert-Coudert, Y., Tucker, M. A., Wikelski, M. and Cagnacci, F. (2020), ‘COVID-19 lockdown allows researchers to quantify the effects of human activity on wildlife’, Nature Ecology & Evolution, 4:September, pp. 1156–59.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Sapiains, R., Beeton, R. J. S. and Walker, I. A. (2016), ‘Individual responses to climate change: Framing effects on pro-environmental behaviors’, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 46:8, pp. 483–93, https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12378.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Stake, R. E. (2006), Multiple Case Study Analysis, New York: Guilford Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Tankard, J. W. (2001), ‘The empirical approach to the study of media framing’, in S. D. Reese, O. H. Gandy and A. E. Grant (eds), Framing Public Life Perspectives on Media and Our Understanding of the Social World, New York: Routledge, pp. 95–105.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Uggla, Y. and Olausson, U. (2013), ‘The enrollment of nature in tourist information: Framing urban nature as “the other”’, Environmental Communication, 7:1, pp. 97–112, https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2012.745009.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Vaismoradi, M., Turunen, H. and Bondas, T. (2013), ‘Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study’, Nursing and Health Sciences, 15:3, pp. 398–405, https://doi:10.1111/nhs.12048.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. VERBI Software (2019), MAXQDA 2020 (computer software), Berlin, Germany: VERBI Software.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Weder, F., Koinig, I. and Voci, D. (2019), ‘Antagonistic framing of sustainability by energy suppliers’, Corporate Communications, 24:2, pp. 368–90, https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-01-2018-0014.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Williams, L., MacNaghten, P., Davies, R. and Curtis, S. (2017), ‘Framing “fracking”: Exploring public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing in the United Kingdom’, Public Understanding of Science (Bristol, England), 26:1, pp. 89–104, https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515595159.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Xu, J. and Han, R. (2019), ‘The influence of place attachment on pro-environmental behaviors: The moderating effect of social media’, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16:24, pp. 5100–16, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph1624510.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Zellmer, A. J., Wood, E. M., Surasinghe, T., Putman, B. J., Pauly, G. B., Magle, S. B., Lewis, J. S., Kay, A. M. and Fidino, M. (2020), ‘What can we learn from wildlife sightings during the COVID-19 global shutdown?’, Ecosphere, 11:8, pp. 1–9.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1386/jem_00104_1
Loading
  • Article Type: Article
Keywords: content analysis ; framing theory ; COVID-19 ; nature ; wildlife ; human nature symbiosis ; environmental communication

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a success
Invalid data
An error occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error