Keywords
media
news
newspapers
water
floridan
aquifer
springs
framing
Categories
How to Cite
Abstract
Local and regional news media often have a major impact on public awareness of and interest in water challenges. It is not simply what the media report that affects public perceptions, but also how they report it. A study of nine years of water reporting from six newspapers in the Floridan Aquifer region revealed a hierarchy of frames used to relate water conditions to human interests. The dominant reasons provided for readers to care about water conditions were economics, human health, and ecosystem impacts (in that order). Ecosystem impacts receive comparatively little journalistic attention, and this may have unintended effects. For example, public interest in water issues may not be as high as it would be if ecosystem impacts were robustly covered. Water news framing can also impact the objectives of water policy. If ecosystem impacts are not emphasized in the media, they may not be adequately attended to in governance.
References
Archibald, E. (1999). Problems with environmental reporting: Perspectives of daily newspaper reporters. The Journal of Environmental Education, 30(4), 27–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958969909601881
Autzen, C. (2014). Press releases—The new trend in science communication. Journal of Science Communication, 13(3). https://doi.org/10.22323/2.13030302
Barthel, M. (2019, July 9). Newspapers fact sheet. Pew Research Center Journalism & Media. https://www.journalism.org/fact-sheet/newspapers/
Bechtel, M. M., Hainmueller, J., Hangartner, D., & Helbling, M. (2015). Reality bites: The limits of framing effects for salient and contested policy issues. Political Science Research and Methods, 3(3), 683–695. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2014.39
Brewer, P. R. (2002). Framing, value words, and citizens’ explanations of their issue opinions. Political Communication, 19(3), 303–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/01957470290055510
Davis, J. J. (2016). The effects of message framing on response to environmental communications. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 72(2), 285–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769909507200203
de Groot, J. I. M., & Steg, L. (2008). Value orientations to explain beliefs related to environmental significant behavior: How to measure egoistic, altruistic, and biospheric value orientations. Environment and Behavior, 40(3), 330–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916506297831
Entman R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x
Hundemer, S., Treise, D., & Monroe, M. (2022). A scarcity of biospheric values in local and regional reporting of water issues: Media coverage in the Floridan aquifer region. Journal of Applied Communications, 106(2). https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.2424
Lakoff, G. (2010). Why it matters how we frame the environment. Environmental Communication, 4(1), 70–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524030903529749
Mossler, M. V., Bostrom, A., Kelly, R. P., Crosman, K. M., & Moy, P. (2017). How does framing affect policy support for emissions mitigation? Testing the effects of ocean acidification and other carbon emissions frames. Global Environmental Change, 45, 63–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.04.002
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2024 UF/IFAS