Conflicting Climate Change Frames in a Global Field of Media Discourse

Jeffrey Broadbent, John Sonnett, Iosef Botetzaigas, Marcus Carson, Anabela Carvalho, Yu-Ju Chien, Christofer Edling, Dana Fisher, Georgios Giouzepas, Randolph Haluza-DeLay, Koichi Hasegawa, Christian Hirschi, Ana Horta, Kazuhiro Ikeda, Jun Jin, Dowan Ku, Myanna Lahsen, Ho-Ching Lee, Tze-Luen Alan Lin, Thomas MalangJana Ollmann, Diane Payne, Sony Pellissery, Stephan Price, Simone Pulver, Jaime Sainz, Kelichi Satoh, Clare Saunders, Luisa Schmidt, Mark CJ Stoddart, Pradip Swarnakar, Tomoyuki Tatsumi, David Tindall, Phillip Vaughter, Paul Wagner, Sun-Jin Yun, Sun Zhengyi

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


Reducing global emissions will require a global cosmopolitan culture built from detailed attention to conflicting national climate change frames (interpretations) in media discourse. The authors analyze the global field of media climate change discourse using 17 diverse cases and 131 frames. They find four main conflicting dimensions of difference: validity of climate science, scale of ecological risk, scale of climate politics, and support for mitigation policy. These dimensions yield four clusters of cases producing a fractured global field. Positive values on the dimensions show modest association with emissions reductions. Data-mining media research is needed to determine trends in this global field.
Original languageEnglish
JournalSocius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - 2016 Oct 25

Subject classification (UKÄ)

  • Sociology (excluding Social Work, Social Psychology and Social Anthropology)


  • climate change
  • comparative
  • cosmopolitan
  • frame conflict
  • global warming


Dive into the research topics of 'Conflicting Climate Change Frames in a Global Field of Media Discourse'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this