Følger News Corp op på sit klimaforandringer? Analyse af dens oversvømmelsesdækning tyder på ikke

For flere måneder siden lancerede de australske Murdoch-medier en ny klimaændringskampagne, der advokerer en vej mod netto-nul-emissioner i 2050. Lanceringen inkluderede et 16-siders wraparound-tillæg i alle dets tabloider, der understøtter behovet for klimahandling.

Vi forventer normalt ikke, at nyhedsmedier kampagner for politiske og sociale formål. Alligevel var her en af ​​de mest magtfulde medieorganisationer i landet, hvilket ikke kun antydede, at den tidligere har holdt en redaktionel holdning imod klimahandlinger, men også erklærede en plan for at vende denne holdning.

I annonceringen af ​​lanceringen sagde News Corp, at en væsentlig årsag til, at klimaindsatsen er gået i stå i Australien, er "debatten er blevet offer for en kultur med konstant klage."

"[...] så her vil du kun se positive historier:ægte, praktiske og pragmatiske løsninger, der vil hjælpe planeten og også hjælpe Australiens interesser."

Kan en leopard ændre sine pletter? Min analyse af Murdoch-forretningernes seneste oversvømmelsesdækning tyder på ikke.

Klimaændringer nedtonet i oversvømmelsesdækning

Klimaændringer rapporteres på en række måder i nyhedsmedier for at hjælpe publikum med at forstå årsagerne og konsekvenserne samt de politiske reaktioner.

Ekstreme vejrbegivenheder såsom skovbrande og oversvømmelser giver journalister mulighed for at vise, hvordan klimaændringer bidrager til alvoren af ​​naturkatastrofer på en presserende og visuel måde.

Men min analyse af den seneste oversvømmelsesdækning i Murdochs nyhedsmedier viser, at selvom begreberne "klimaændringer" og "oversvømmelser" blev placeret sammen i en række artikler, er disse forretninger stadig langt bagefter andre, når det kommer til at understrege sammenhængen mellem ekstreme vejrbegivenheder og vores opvarmende planet.

Jeg så på 171 artikler (både nyheder og meninger) i store australske trykte og online nyhedsmedier fra 1. til 13. marts, der nævnte klimaændringer og oversvømmelser sammen – og dem, der bagatelliserede forbindelsen mellem de to.

Der var en vis dækning, der gjorde linket i mindst én Murdoch-outlet, news.com.au. Dette omfattede en rapport om Klimarådets advarsler om klimaændringernes indvirkning på oversvømmelser, og en anden om klimaændringernes indvirkning på fødevarepriserne.

Alligevel var det samlede antal artikler, der forbinder klimaændringer med oversvømmelser i Murdoch-butikkerne (som også inkluderer The Australian, Herald Sun, Daily Telegraph og Courier Mail) bagefter ABC News, de ni aviser, The Guardian og The Conversation.

Analysen viser også, at Murdoch-forretningerne var de eneste nyhedsorganisationer, hvor stemmer hævdede, at oversvømmelserne ikke var forværret af klimaændringer.

As reported by Crikey, The Guardian and ABC's Media Watch, conservative commentators such as Andrew Bolt and Chris Kenny continue to muddy the water when it comes to the impact of climate on extreme weather.

For example, Kenny wrote in The Australian on March 4:"The pretense that climate policies can relieve us of these natural traumas is a ridiculously emotive and deceptive ploy."

The Australian's Chris Mitchell even complained that other media outlets such as the ABC put too much emphasis on the link between climate change and flooding.

How the media advocate on issues

This analysis suggests the Murdoch outlets are not overtly advocating for climate action, nor linking catastrophic flooding with the need for political action aimed at achieving net zero by 2050.

Indeed, editorial hostility toward climate change is alive and well among the most powerful voices at the Murdoch outlets, with coverage that is seemingly more interested in advocating against climate action than for it.

This provides insight into different styles of news coverage and their influence on democratic debate.

Although Australian audiences expect media outlets to produce news that is objective, ideologically neutral and independent of politics, journalists and commentators sometimes play the role of "advocates" for particular issues and causes.

This style of journalism is not widely understood because it clashes with the idealized expectation that journalists shrug off their own perspectives to report without fear or favor.

In a recent study I conducted, I propose there are three styles of advocacy journalism—radical, collaborator and conservative. And each one either enhances or degrades democratic debate.

What I call "radical advocacy" is when journalists deliberately campaign to increase the diversity of voices in news media, particularly when those voices are marginalized from mainstream debate.

An example is The Guardian's "Keep it in the ground" campaign, which is transparently aimed at improving the public's understanding of climate change. This style of journalism—although subjective and biased—arguably has a positive influence on democracy since its mission is to increase understanding of a crucial global issue and rally the public to join the cause.

"Collaborator advocacy" journalism is when media organizations cooperate with government, such as when they broadcast flood warnings, advise the public what to do in an emergency or agree not to publish the locations of troops at war.

This style of advocacy can be good for democracy when it is deemed in the public interest. It can, however, be detrimental if the government controls media coverage to the point at which opposition voices are deliberately excluded.

The third style of advocacy—"conservative advocacy"—is one I've coined to describe journalism and commentary that promotes the agenda of powerful players in a political or social debate.

An obvious example is the Murdoch media traditionally siding with big fossil fuel and oil interests through their longstanding editorial hostility to policies designed to address climate change.

Conservative advocacy degrades democracy by locking less powerful voices out of the debate, spreading what some would deem misinformation and deliberately downplaying or countering scientific research and evidence-based policy.

If the Murdoch media follow through with their promise to advocate for net zero by 2050, their campaign would fit within the radical definition. But since these outlets are historically entrenched in a conservative tradition, this shift to a more radical position on climate might prove difficult to achieve.