Legitimization of Environmental Problems in Newsmagazines: Power, Propaganda, and
the Environment
A thesis presented to
the faculty of
the College of Arts and Sciences of Ohio University
In partial fulfillment
of the requirement for the degree
Master of Arts
Garrett M. Bunyak
June 2010
© 2010 Garrett M. Bunyak. All Rights Reserved.
2 This thesis titled
Legitimization of Environmental Problems in Newsmagazines: Power, Propaganda, and
the Environment
by
GARRETT M. BUNYAK
has been approved for
the Department of Sociology
and the College of Arts and Sciences by
Stephen J. Scanlan
Assistant Professor of Sociology
Benjamin M. Ogles
Dean, College of Arts and Sciences
3 ABSTRACT
BUNYAK, GARRETT, M., M.A., June 2010, Sociology
Legitimization of Environmental Problems in Newsmagazines: Power, Propaganda, and
the Environment (63 pp.)
Director of Thesis: Stephen J. Scanlan
This paper explores the role of the mass media in providing the public with
diverse solutions to the environmental problems facing society through an analysis of
media documents. Findings reveal that two frames dominate media solutions to
environmental problems: the free market and stimulus frames which reinforce the ecological modernization perspective of some environmental sociologists. The free market and stimulus frames both portray individuals as responsible for the problems facing the environment while they portray mechanisms that have degraded the environment, from elected leaders to free market economics, are part of the solution to the crisis. These frames simultaneously blame individuals for social problems and
downplay the power of the people to create change. Furthermore, the lack of ideological
diversity undermines the ability of the public to make informed decisions about their
environment. The public is forced to search elsewhere for alternative solutions to the
environmental crisis facing society. Ultimately these frames support Hermann and
Chomsky’s propaganda model that argues that views and opinions that challenge the
existing power structure will be left out of mass media coverage.
Approved: ______
Stephen J. Scanlan
Assistant Professor of Sociology
4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This thesis is possible because of the support I received from my faculty advisors at Ohio University including Leon Anderson and Michelle Brown. I would especially like to thank Steve Scanlan for his comments, counsel, and guidance at all phases of this project. I would also like to thank my mom, dad, and sister as well as the rest of my family and friends for putting up with me and keeping an open mind.
5 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Abstract 3
Acknowledgements 4
List of Tables 6
Chapter 1: Introduction 7
Chapter 2: Media, Framing, and the Environmental Crisis 12
Chapter 3: Methods 24
Chapter 4: Findings 29
Chapter 5: Discussion 45
Chapter 6: Conclusion 57
References 61
6 LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 3.1 Summary of Data Sources 28
Table 3.2 Types of Documents Examined 28
Table 4.1: Number of Articles Utilizing the Free Market and Stimulus Frame 35
7 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Introduction
Thomas Jefferson wrote, “enlighten the people, generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day.” Although not without his critics, Jefferson’s affirmation of the importance of a “free marketplace of ideas” as a means for people to protect and defend their freedoms and participate effectively in the decisions that affect their lives stands as a pillar of democracy. The competitive free market has left not only monetary and political power in the hands of an elite few, but also has led to the monopolization of informational power—the ability to control what information is available quickly and widely to the public. As control of
information becomes increasingly concentrated in the hands of the elite, the ability of the
public to make meaningful choices about their role in the social degradation1 of the
environment is increasingly threatened. The power to control the information that is
available to the public means that media2 may be organized to prevent dissemination of ideas that criticize or threaten the status quo of social and environmental degradation.
The increasing degradation of both nature and labor to a system of profit
accumulation is closely related to the increasing concentration of information control in
the hands of the elite. Information is critical for people to participate in democratic
decision making with regard to their lives and the environment. In this project, I explore
the performance of mass media in examining the environmental problems facing society
1 The “social degradation of nature” refers to the process by which social organization contributes to various ecological problems such as climate change, pollution of ecosystems, etc. This process is described extensively by Foster (2009). 2 For the purposes of this project, the media I discuss refers to mass media—those informational distribution channels intended to be quickly and widely distributed.
8 and the role of these media in empowering people to change the social relationship with nature. Jefferson said, “information is the currency of democracy.” As fewer and fewer
massive corporations control society’s informational sources and media outlets, threats to
democracy and all of the ecological systems of the planet are increasing. If people are
given access to information about the impact of social organization on the planet’s
ecosystems, then the people can be empowered to take control of their role in the social
degradation of the environment.
The trend toward elite control of the media is occurring at a time of tremendous
environmental upheaval. According to Foster in The Vulnerable Planet (1994: 11)
numerous problems make up this environmental crisis including:
Overpopulation, destruction of the ozone layer, global warming, extinction of species, loss of genetic diversity, acid rain, nuclear contamination tropical deforestation, the elimination of climax forests, wetland destruction, soil erosion, desertification, floods, famine, the despoliation of lakes, streams and rivers, the drawing down and contamination of ground water the pollution of coastal waters and estuaries , the destruction of coral reefs, oil spills, overfishing, expanding landfills, toxic wastes, the poisonous effects of insecticides and herbicides, exposure to hazards on the job, urban congestion, and the depletion of nonrenewable resources.
In his 2009 work, The Ecological Revolution, Foster goes on to further claim “every
major ecosystem on the earth is in decline” (46).
As a counterpunch to the environmental problems of the time, people,
corporations, and governments are all proposing solutions and taking action to protect the
environment, often referred to as “going green”. The various parties view this in
different ways, and I examine the dominant solutions to the environmental crisis as
presented by messages within mass media publications.
9 In applying the idea of a free marketplace of ideas to the issue of the environment,
advocates of democracy would hope that a diverse set of ideas about the threats to the natural environment and possible solutions would be available to the public. A free marketplace of ideas involves discourse from many different claims-makers with ideologically diverse points of view. This marketplace of ideas provides the necessary choices and autonomy for people to make reasoned and informed decisions that affect their lives and the lives of those around them—ultimately empowering individuals to take control of their role in society and their relationship with the environment. For people to
make meaningful choices about their role in the social degradation of nature, the public must have access to multiple options and ideas to encourage intellectual freedom in society. One area in which choice is limited is in the news media. Without choices or ideological diversity in the media, the public faces barriers in terms of making informed
decisions about their impact on the environment or any social issue.
In this study, I use quantitative and qualitative methods of document analysis on a sample of media articles about environmental problems and the proposed solutions to these problems to examine the extent of ideological diversity within mass news media. If democracy is a societal value, then social institutions would have to be organized to encourage the democratic process and to provide choices for the public. A democratic media would provide the necessary discourse to encourage reasoned informed decision making so people can take control of their relationship with their social and natural world. I set out to answer two questions in this project. First, do mass media messages provide legitimacy for the social causes of environmental problems and contribute to reinforcing the status quo of social environmental degradation? Second, do mass media
10 messages provide legitimacy for the existing power structure in society? I use frame
analysis to examine the extent to which media legitimizes or challenges the social
degradation of nature. Secondly, I examine the dominant frames in popular
newsmagazines to determine what types of ideas are supported within these documents
and whether these messages serve to legitimize the existing power structure in society.
Thus, the project focuses on media performance—the frames that media use to portray
solutions to environmental problems—and the implications of media performance.3
In Chapter 2, I introduce the role of the media in the framing process. Secondly, I explore the way in which social organization is resulting in the degradation of the natural world. I explore the dominant theories of environmental sociology to illustrate the ideologically diverse set of views that the mass media may sort through when determining what information to distribute quickly and widely to the public. Finally, I outline the propaganda model presented by Chomsky and Hermann (2003) as a model that can be used to test the performance of media coverage of ecological issues.
In Chapter 3 I present the methods used to collect and analyze data. I chose to examine the messages in five widely distributed newsmagazines. Qualitative analysis was the primary means of investigating the extent to which media reinforce and legitimize present social organization and the status quo of environmental degradation. I do incorporate simple counting procedures, however, to supplement the qualitative analysis and help illustrate the systematic way in which media frame issues.
Chapter 4 presents findings revealing the two dominant frames used in mass media accounts of environmental problems, explaining the stimulus and free market
3 The project does not attempt to examine media effects on public discourse, attitudes, or opinion.
11 frames in detail. This chapter reveals the extent to which the documents in this study provide legitimacy for the existing power relations in society and the social degradation of nature.
In Chapter 5 I provide an analysis of the findings. I explore the way in which the dominant messages in media reinforce and legitimize the social degradation of nature.
Secondly, I explore the extent to which media messages reinforce the existing structure of power in society by downplaying the power of the people and portraying a social relationship with the environment that is fundamentally undemocratic.
Chapter 6 presents a brief conclusion and summarizes the contributions it makes to the literature on media performance, environmental sociology, and the propaganda model.
12 CHAPTER 2: MEDIA, FRAMING, THE ENVIRONMENTAL CRISIS AND PROPAGANDA
I begin this chapter by briefly introducing the concept of frames and the process of framing and discussing the role of mass media in the framing process. Then, I explore the way in which the environmental crisis is not a natural event but rather the result of present social organization. To illustrate the social degradation of nature, I explore the dominant theories used in the field of environmental sociology including ecological modernization theory and treadmill of production theory. The purpose of this is to illustrate the diversity of thought on which mass media are able to draw upon to provide the public with a diverse set of ideas on which to make informed decisions. An additional purpose is to briefly explain each theory so that connections and comparisons can be made between a variety of approaches to environmental problems and media accounts of these. The chapter ends by explaining the propaganda model of Chomsky and Hermann and the anti-democratic tendencies of a corporate owned media.
Frames, the Framing Process, and the Media
According to Goffman (1974: 21) frames are “schemata of interpretation” that allow individuals “to locate, perceive, and label” their life experiences. Furthermore,
Cooper suggests that framing involves the “identification of problems and their causes, along with suggested remedies” (2002: 37) while Boykoff (2006) thinks of frames as identifiable lenses or simply ways of understanding experiences. Through these frames, people are able to understand their experiences as they interact with the social and natural world. While frames are specific lenses through which to view the world, framing is a process in which many actors attempt to make sense of the surrounding world.
13 Furthermore, the framing process may evolve into a contest involving the efforts of
different actors to gain support for a cause or movement (Benford and Snow: 2000). In the contest, frames and counter-frames are presented in a multi-organizational, perhaps multi-institutional, arena (Benford and Snow: 2000).
The media play a critical role in the framing contests. The media are the arbiter of framing contests because the public relies extensively on the media for information gathering while the media implement and synthesize their own frames based upon the
wealth of available sources, ideas, and opinions available for dissemination (Boykoff
2006). Thus, the media play a crucial role in determining which frames, ideas, and
messages are spread to the general public by processing, sorting, and distributing
information from diverse sources.
As Robinson points out, many studies investigate the role of the media in the
framing process (2009) because of the significant influence of the media in public
discourse. For example, scholars have explored the role of the media in relation to a
range of issues including the Ku Klux Klan (McVeigh et al, 2004), global warming
(McCright and Dunlap, 2000), sustainable development (Lewis, 2000), and others. In
fact, Lewis finds that certain opinions and ideas dominate media coverage of sustainable
development while other opinions are simply left out—undermining the Jeffersonian idea
of a free marketplace of ideas. Furthermore, Bell (1994) contends that limited media
discourse on environmental issues contributes to public misunderstanding of
environmental concerns.
Not only is the media integral to providing people with the ability to engage in
meaningful decision making, media coverage and media frames can also shape public
14 attitudes and individual perceptions of social issues (Cooper 2002). Thus, a diversity of
opinions about social and environmental problems and a range of solutions to these
perceived problems can ensure people can make informed decisions and have the ability
to take control of their role in the social degradation of the natural world. Expanding on
the media’s integral role, Boykoff argues that the media world is “a crucial site for the
construction of reality, an ever-unfolding discursive locale that influences public opinion on social issues and delimits societal assumptions and public moods” (2006: 202).
Hansen (1991) makes a case that linear approaches that attempt to uncover links
between media coverage and public opinion are faulty. Linear approaches are those that
“gloss over the interactive nature of meaning construction among and between
institutions in society” (Hansen 1991: 447). Hansen declares “the social construction of
environmental issues cannot be reduced to a question of information flowing from certain
‘source’ institutions through the mass media to a wider public and to other institutions”
(448). While other institutions as well as individual societal agents are important to the
process of social construction, the media are the arbiter of the framing contests as they
process, pick and choose which ideas are made widely available. The media, then,
determine which messages are spread quickly and widely throughout society, especially
for those that lack access to other information distribution channels. If a limited
discourse is available for public consumption, and gathering information becomes more
difficult, this increased burden to gather information is placed on the shoulders of the
public. An ideologically limited media contributes to the disempowerment of the public
in regards to the people’s ability to access information about a complex social world.
15 Gamson et al (1992: 375) concur that readers interpret and understand media frames in an “active process in which context, social location, and prior experience can lead to quite different decodings.” Again, all the facets of socialization and the “cultural givens” (Hansen: 1991) of a society influence interpretations of mass media, but ideologically diverse media do much to overcome social indoctrination and allow people to participate in reasoned decision making. The importance of ideological diversity is critical for the people to constantly protect their freedoms and interests as well as be informed about their role in social processes. As a result, research by Lewis (2000) and
Bell (1994) that illustrates limits on diversity of ideas within the media raises serious concerns about the degree of freedom and democracy in society.
Social Construction of Environmental Problems and the Media
The media play a critical role in allowing people to make sense of their relationship with the social and natural world—a diversity of opinions is necessary to allow folks to make informed decisions that protect their social, environmental, and economic interests. In analyzing the framing of environmental issues, researchers must be careful not to fall into the trap of strict constructionism. Strict social constructionists argue that “there are no particular conditions of society that are inherently problematic or pathological” (Hubbard, DeFleur and DeFleur 1975: 23) believing instead that social problems exist only as public perceptions.
Spector and Kitsuse believe “the explanation of subjective elements of social problems—the process by which members of groups or societies define a putative condition as a problem—is the distinctive subject matter of social problems” (1975: 146).
While not as staunchly constructionist as Hubbard, DeFleur and DeFleur, by emphasizing
16 the social construction of problems Spector and Kitsuse do not give enough room for students of social problems to consider the objective threats from real problems that face society such as global environmental change and unnecessary environmental degradation caused by mankind.
Dunlap and Catton, identify the serious problem for environmental sociologists in observing a strict constructionist perspective (1994). They argue that a pure constructionist approach portrays environmental problems such as Global Environmental
Change (GEC) as public perceptions rather than objective realities. A staunch constructionist approach thus 1) discourages investigation of the role of society in causing and solving environmental problems; 2) induces a level of relativism which undermines the objectivity of GEC; 3) fails to analyze societal-environmental interactions; and 4) has the possibility of slipping into the dangers of
“exemptionalism.” That is, as Dunlap and Catton argue “we need to overcome our deep- seated assumption that our species is separate from the rest of nature and exempt from ecological constraints” (1994: 24). People are responsible for their role in the social degradation of nature and need the necessary information to understand social processes that cause environmental problems. Objective threats to ecosystems such as climate change, pollution, or mountaintop removal that are the consequence of social organization can be addressed if enough people act to change the relationship between society and nature.
These strict constructionist arguments often focus only on the “perceiving” end of the social problem and ignore the socially constructed causes of the objective problems themselves. Evidence suggests that social organization contributes to objective threats to
17 the environment. Foster (2009) argues that social organization of the political economy directly threatens planetary ecosystems, degrades nature and labor, and reduces both labor and nature to mere commodities. Foster attributes the ecological and social perils of our time to “the destructive uncontrollability of capitalism, emanating from its dual character as a system of class and imperial exploitation and as an enslaver and destroyer of the earth itself” (2009: 51). Foster writes, “it has become increasingly difficult to separate the class and imperial war inherent to capitalism from war on the planet itself”
(43). To Foster, then, the only way to address these threats is through a global ecological socialist revolution that “generate(s) the conditions of equality, sustainability, and human freedom . . . would necessarily draw its major impetus from the struggles of working populations and communities at the bottom of the global capitalist hierarchy” (2009:
263). Just as society is presently organized to destroy nature, according to Foster, society can be reorganized to “regulate the human metabolic relation with nature” (2009: 263).
The main line of reasoning is that political economic organization is not a natural process
but rather a social, historical, and political development and the side effects of capitalism and competition in society must be changed with “a revolutionary transformation of society . . . equality and sustainability must coevolve if either is to emerge triumphant
(Foster 2009: 53). Ideally, the media would at least present the idea that social
organization may threaten the survival of humanity—if capitalism is indeed destroying the Earth.
In addition to the ideas of Foster (1994, 2009), Dunlap and Van Liere (1978) describe the increasing diffusion and significance of the “New Environmental Paradigm,”
or NEP. The NEP emerged as an important challenge to the existing Dominant Social
18 Paradigm (DSP). The DSP involves a widespread belief in “abundance and progress, our devotion to growth and prosperity, our faith in science and technology, and our commitment to a laissez-faire economy, limited governmental planning and private property rights” (Dunlap and Van Liere 2008: 19). According to Dunlap and Van Liere, the DSP is fundamentally anti-ecological and results in environmental degradation. On the other hand, the NEP involves a worldview that considers “limits to growth, the necessity of achieving a ‘steady-state’ economy, the importance of preserving the balance of nature, and the need to reject the anthropocentric notion that nature exists solely for human use” (Dunlap and Van Liere 2008: 19). The NEP involves beliefs that growth for the sake of growth may be harmful to nature, that people are responsible for their impact on ecosystems, and that the present relationship between society and nature should be altered as the present relationship is unsustainable.
Ecological modernization theorists, however, embrace many of the widespread
DSP beliefs in abundance and progress, faith in science and technology, and commitment to laissez-faire economics. Ecological modernization theory argues that a sustainable relationship with the planet can be achieved under a system of capitalism. The theory assumes that capitalism is flexible enough to allow technological modernization that is environmentally friendly (Barbosa 2008). According to ecological modernization theorists, new and greener technologies will allow the free enterprise system to be a part of a sustainable relationship to the environment. Growth and progress through technological innovation are best achieved through the free enterprise system. However, ecological modernization theory fails to address the underlying power dynamics and profit structure that is tied into a system of free enterprise. These dynamics force
19 individuals to compete and inequality flourishes. In this competition, nature is increasingly devalued and abused for the sake of profit and capital accumulation.
Critics of ecological modernization theory and the DSP on the other hand, argue the system of capitalism and laissez-faire economics are actually to blame for environmental problems. Treadmill of production theory argues that as “the economies of human societies became more complex, they began to exercise additional pressure on the environment through processes of interchange involving withdrawals and additions”
(Barbosa 2008: 33). In other words, as capitalists seek profit, the system must continually produce and grow, leading to more and more resources being taken from the environment and more and more waste being created and dumped back into the environment— eventually the system becomes unsustainable and collapses. As Foster writes, the
“treadmill of production describes capitalism as an unstoppable, accelerating treadmill that constantly increases the scale of the throughput of energy and raw materials as part of its quest for profit and accumulation, thereby pressing on the earth’s absorptive capacity” (Foster 2009, 48). Technology may contribute to solving environmental problems, but not under the system of capitalism.
The diversity of thought within environmental sociology provides the media with a wealth of information to distribute to the public. Gamson et al write, “a media system suitable for a democracy ought to provide its readers with some coherent sense of the broader social forces that affect the conditions of their lives” (1992: 373). The environmental crisis is already affecting the whole of society, and the media would ideally be exploring the multiple views and ideas of environmental sociologists.
20 The Corporate Media and Power
According to Domhoff (2010: 139)
ownership and control of the mass media—newspapers, magazines, books, radio, movies, and television—are highly concentrated and growing more so all the time. Members of the upper class own all of the large media companies and these companies have extensive interlocks with other large corporations. In addition, the media rely on corporate advertising for the lion’s share of their profits, making them dependent on other corporations.
Domhoff continues, noting that the mass media “play their most important role in the
power equation by reinforcing the legitimacy of the social system through the routine
ways in which they accept and package events” (2010, 139). One of these routine ways
in which the media provide legitimacy for the status quo is through the selection of frames presented to the public. According to Domhoff, then, the mass media can be expected to legitimize the social degradation of nature as well as the existing power structure.
Previous research has explored the extent of ideological diversity of media in terms of environmental issues. Lewis found that the lack of radical environmentalists and local grassroots environmentalists as journalistic sources contributes to the lack of ideological diversity within discourse on sustainable development (2000). Ownership of the media, the means by which information is spread within society, has become increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few corporations (Campbell 2008). Domhoff suggests that media content “is most importantly shaped by forces outside of them, which means that the corporate leaders, politicians, experts, and celebrities with the ability to make news have more impact on what appears in the media than editors and reporters”
(141). As these information monopolies have grown, ideas and information have become
21 increasingly homogenized, posing serious threats for democracy and informed decision making.
Fine-tuning this perspective, Herman and Chomsky have developed the propaganda model, explained here by Herman (2003: 2)
What is the propaganda model and how does it work? Its crucial structural factors derive from the fact that the dominant media are firmly imbedded in the market system. They are profit-seeking businesses, owned by very wealthy people (or other companies); and they are funded largely by advertisers who are also profit- seeking entities, and who want their ads to appear in a supportive selling environment. The media also lean heavily on government and major business firms as information sources, and both efficiency and political considerations, and, frequently, overlapping interests, cause a certain degree of solidarity to prevail among the government, major media, and other corporate businesses . . . Government and large non-media business firms are also best positioned (and sufficiently wealthy) to be able to pressure the media with threats of withdrawal of advertising or TV licenses, libel suits, and other direct and indirect modes of attack. The media are also constrained by the dominant ideology . . .
The media, according to Chomsky and Herman, are thus a tool with which to control the ideological discourse within society and as a mechanism of social control to evoke cooperation among the masses that are exploited by elites.
Frames that emphasize reduced consumption or other important tenants of an ecological worldview are antithetical to the interests of those in control of the media. Thus, media that promulgate ideas about limits to growth and other aspects of the New Environmental Paradigm or examine the consequences of the profit motive in capitalism that are critical to treadmill of production theory are undermining the “buying mood” of their audience.
The propaganda model argues that owners of mass media have a vested interest in ignoring these systemic critiques and upholding aspects of the status quo where elites have the greatest amount of wealth, autonomy, and influence.
22 Hermann and Chomsky do not contend that elites are directing the media
constantly but rather, “the propaganda model describes a decentralized and non-
conspiratorial market system of control and processing, although at times the
government or one or more private actors may take initiatives and mobilize
coordinated elite handling of an issue” (2003: 3). According to the propaganda
model, media are expected to focus on and reinforce DSP beliefs and ecological
modernization theory because these perspectives do not challenge the existing
power structure or examine the social degradation of nature in a critical way.
Using Chomsky and Herman’s model, researchers should expect relatively little ideological diversity from these large corporate news organizations. If the only ideas available for contemplation reinforce the status quo, then the public can barely be expected to challenge the existing relationship between themselves and the social and natural world. For although media might not directly affect public opinion to the extent that some scholars argue, they have a tremendous power in legitimizing the status quo
(Domhoff 2010: 139). As Hermann argues, “The power of the U.S. propaganda system lies in its ability to mobilize an elite consensus, to give the appearance of democratic consent, and to create enough confusion, misunderstanding, and apathy in the general population to allow elite programs to go forward” (2003: 4). If the media reinforce the ideas of the DSP and ecological modernization theorists, then they are effectively legitimizing the status quo of social inequality and environmental degradation. Thus, the elites that benefit the most from the exploitation of the planet have a vested interest in legitimizing this system—these elites also own the media.
23 Summary
The media are an important arbiter of information in society—diverse media are
crucial to a well-informed public that can protect and defend freedom and democracy and
ultimately people and the environment as well. Those critical of the way the media
present social problems argue that the public must be provided with the necessary
information to understand their role in the social degradation of the environment. Critics
argue that large corporations, however, control the vast majority of the media with which
most people interact. As the media are beginning to focus more on environmental issues,
the information distributed by mass media in regards to the relationship between society
and nature may well determine the ability of the public to understand whether or not the
profit motive, competitive economic organization, and oligarchic control of the planet’s
natural resources are the underlying causes of environmental degradation. The range of
theories of environmental sociologists provide the media with a wealth of ideologically diverse arguments from which to select and distribute—certain ideas and opinions would
get substantial coverage according to the propaganda model while other ideas would be
largely ignored. The propaganda model would suggest that mass media would
systematically portray frames that legitimize the status quo of environmental degradation.
24 CHAPTER 3: DATA AND METHODS
In this chapter I explain the process of data collection and the methods of analysis
used to analyze media frames about solutions to environmental problems. I examine media frames to illustrate the extent to which the existing structure of power is
legitimized in society. Secondly, examining the frames will reveal whether or not media
messages provide legitimacy for the social causes of environmental problems and contribute to reinforcing the status quo of environmental degradation. This study explores media performance and discusses the implications of media performance, but
does not examine media effects—the public may or may not buy the messages the media is selling.
Examining media frames of environmental issues has precedent in the work of
Lewis (2000) and Boykoff (2006). Boykoff writes, “a systematic reading of newspaper articles, op-eds, and television transcripts from major mass-media outlets rendered the data” (2006: 209) when she studied media frames of the Global Justice Movement. In this analysis I systematically examine five widely read and well known magazines to determine the ideological diversity in their treatment of the “green” movement. The analysis seeks to determine if the magazines include frames that challenge the status quo of environmental degradation, legitimize existing power relations, and provide diverse
ideas for public consumption.
Researchers commonly select data sources based upon their wide distribution and
position within the market—especially for research on mass media. For example,
Boykoff uses this justification for data selection in her study of media coverage of the
global justice movement when she writes, “data sources include six major US
25 newspapers . . . and five influential television networks . . . these newspapers and television entities constitute a powerful and significant segment of the US mass-media system (2006: 209). Thus, I select Time Magazine and Newsweek because they are the two most widely distributed weekly newsmagazines in the United States.
I include three additional magazines to expand the potential ideological diversity of the sample and because of their large readership within certain ideological circles. The
Nation, self described as the “flagship of the left,” claims to provide voice for the
progressives and liberals while The National Review, on the other hand, is self described
as “conservative.” Finally, I include The Economist in this study based on an expectation
of it being a more moderate, middle of the road, magazine and because of the intimate
connection between economic production and the environment. Furthermore, The
Economist is a magazine that is widely read across a large number of geographical
regions. By selecting these newsmagazines that claim to represent ideologically diverse
interests, the study aims to evaluate the actual amount of their ideological diversity and examine the consequences of the frames that portray solutions to environmental
problems.
In the fall of 2009, I collected data using online media archives at Ohio
University. Borrowing from Rauch et al (2007), I searched article titles for each
magazine using the following terms: “> green <” “> environmental <”, where “<”
indicates that trailing letters and phrases are permitted and “<” indicates that preceding
letters and phrases are permitted. The inclusiveness of these criteria enabled me to create
a unique and comprehensive data set in which green issues were covered within these
magazines. Lewis (2000) collects her data by searching for keywords “sustainable
26 development” in Newspaper Abstracts. Desiring more in-depth coverage, however, I
chose to perform the search within the titles of the documents. By searching within the titles, the sample is more likely to include documents that primarily focus on
environmental issues rather than simply mentioning something about the environment.
The data collection period is 2008, the most recent full calendar year at the onset
of this investigation and therefore most recent coverage for inclusion within the data set.
The goal of this study is not to examine the changes in green messages over a period of
time but rather to examine the ideological diversity of green messages in recent media
coverage at a time when socially created environmental problems are increasingly
threatening the planet’s ecological systems (Foster 2009). Examining recent coverage is
critical because of the gradual proliferation of environmental issues in the news.
According to Boykoff, “moving from the 1990s into the new millennium, the amount of
media coverage of climate change continued to rise. This reached a highwater mark in
2006 and into 2007” (2009: 437). Although Boykoff points to a decline in coverage in
2008, environmental issues such as climate change continue to carry great weight in
public discourse. I seek to explore whether recent media coverage of environmental
issues legitimizes existing power relations and the status quo of environmental
degradation.
The documents I collected were then analyzed for common themes and dominant
messages. For the purposes of investigating the diversity of ideas and dominant frames
within the sample, I emphasize the qualitative analysis. I used one round of open coding
to identify themes that emerged within the sample. I utilized the description of coding
provided by Lofland, Snow, Anderson and Lofland when they write “the essence of
27 coding is the process of sorting your data into various categories that organize it and render it meaningful from the vantage point of one or more frameworks or sets of ideas.”
(2006: 200) As I began examining the data, I started to find many patterns and themes, some of which dominated the discussion of solutions to environmental problems.
After organizing my data into these coding categories for each magazine, I performed a second round of focused coding to take a more in depth look at the themes that most strongly related to my research objectives and the discourse provided by the news magazines. Lofland et al. write, “once you begin focused coding, then, you have already decided that some number of your earlier codes are appropriate for categorizing your data more thoroughly and for further analytic elaboration.” (201) Thus, I was able to select the important themes from initial coding and break them down by comparing and contrasting the messages that were provided in media.
I use both qualitative and quantitative methods to analyze the data. I use simple counting to classify documents in ways that help illustrate the trends within the data.
These simple counting procedures were conducted following qualitative analysis.
Boykoff describes a similar method, “I read and coded all 358 of these news packets.
Through this reading of news articles, op-eds, and television transcripts, the following five predominant frames were reached inductively . . .” (2006: 211). After Boykoff finds the major frames within the documents she uses simple counting to determine the exact number of documents that use each frame.
Table 3.1 illustrates the data examined in this study. The National Review, the magazine that claims a conservative voice, produced zero relevant articles that met the search criteria. Fifty two relevant documents matched the search criteria. The Economist
28 produced the largest number (26) of relevant documents—two documents from The
Economist had no discussion of environmental issues and were removed from the data before examination. Three Newsweek articles 1 document from Time Magazine were removed due to irrelevancy. I examined each of these documents for one round of open coding and multiple rounds of coding and analysis of the major themes.
Table 3.1 Summary of Data Sources
The Newsmagazine The Nation Time The Newsweek National Magazine Economist Review
# Articles 4 9 26 13 0
Various types of documents were collected for the analysis. Table 3.2 illustrates the types of documents that I examined.
Table 3.2 Types of Documents Examined
Product Articles Editorials Other Reviews
38 2 4 8
The following chapters examine the extent to which mass media messages legitimize the existing power structure and critique or legitimize the status quo of environmental degradation. The chapters examine these questions by looking at the way media frame issues and the choices available for public consumption through mass media.
29 CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS
Introduction
In this chapter I explore the extent of ideological diversity within mass media solutions to the environmental crisis by examining the dominant messages within a sample of data for this project. Nearly all media accounts emphasize the importance of technology and economic growth in overcoming society’s crisis with nature thus reaffirming the unquestioned faith in science and technology, commitment to free enterprise economics and devotion to economic growth tied to the Dominant Social
Paradigm (DSP). The overriding messages emphasize the ideals of the DSP and ecological modernization perspective offered by some environmental sociologists and fail to call into question the underlying social causes of environmental problems. Thus, the public, while they may not believe everything they see and hear from mass media, are left without the alternative frames necessary to begin to effectively challenge the status quo.
My findings thus focus on a major theme: the way in which media reinforce the
DSP and ecological modernization theory that emphasizes economic growth, free
enterprise economics and technological innovation as solutions to environmental
problems. Secondly, I elaborate on two sub-themes that emerged from the data. What I
call the “free market frame” focuses on competitive free enterprise as a driver of
economic growth and technological innovation—in this frame, people are encouraged to
vote for environmentally friendly products and producers are seen as meeting the demands of environmentally-friendly consumers. Next, what I view as the “stimulus frame” claims the government plays a role in encouraging technological innovation and economic growth, ultimately enacting policies that encourage competition, innovation,
30 and growth. In the stimulus frame, people participate in the electoral process and then elected leaders make environmentally-responsible decisions on behalf of the governed.
Ultimately, the dominant frames reinforce the status quo of environmental degradation and fail to illuminate the social causes of environmental degradation. Furthermore, media frames tend to downplay the power of the people by portraying corporations and elected leaders as those with the power to make the important changes that will save the
Earth.
Dominant Media Frames: Technology, the DSP, and Ecological Modernization
The most dominant message in mass media accounts about the environment is that technology, free enterprise economics and economic growth are the end all be all solutions to the environmental problems. “There is an unbelievable migration of talent from traditional technology to clean technology” cites one account from The Economist, for example. While technology is viewed as the solution to these problems, this account and many others within the mass media emphasize the importance of improved and more environmentally friendly technology in solving environmental problems, reflecting the
DSP and ecological modernization theorists. These accounts not only rely on technological innovation but also portray the system of free enterprise as the driver of innovation. A document from The Economist claims “environmental companies require large amounts of capital—for building a wind farm or a tidal barrage—or the patience to invest in new technologies . . . this means that the shares are likely to be volatile. The returns are highly uncertain because the big profits (if any) are many years away.”
Technological innovation, it is argued, is tied to the profit motive and free enterprise economics.
31 In fact, nearly all of the articles I examined failed to question the DSP ideals of
“abundance and progress, our devotion to growth and prosperity, our faith in science and
technology, and our commitment to a laissez-faire economy, limited governmental
planning and private property rights” as originally described by Dunlap and Van Liere
(2008: 19). Technology is viewed as all that is necessary for addressing environmental
problems from pollution to climate change. Consider the following account from The
Economist: “It is both good and bad that there are so many competing solutions to the
problem of climate change. When one technology falls out of favour, there is always
another to take its place.” Here the author implies that technology is the only solution to
environmental problems and this is the case in many documents. From an article in The
Economist lauding “a new underwater robot” that harvests “energy directly from the sea”
to “diesel powered light aircraft.” The newsmagazines discuss these and many forms of
technology.
Various technological innovations are discussed in great detail to provide justification for this supreme faith in technology that reinforces the DSP and ecological modernization theory. Consider discussions of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) for example. An article in The Economist praises GMOs claiming they “are safe for human consumption” and goes on to quote the boss of Tate and Lyle who notes, “we sit at a moment of history when GM technology . . . is a fact of life.” The use of GMO technologies is portrayed as both necessary, good, and inevitable. The article further states that
proponents of GMO’s are optimistic because a confluence of social, commercial and technological forces is boosting the case for technology. As India and China grow rich, the world is likely to need much more food, just as arable land, water
32 and energy become scarcer and more expensive. If they fulfill their promise, GMOs offer a way out of this bind, providing higher yields even as they require less water, energy and fertilizer.
GMO technology is viewed as a means to continue on a path of growth by producing
more and more food despite the increasing strain on the environment that increased consumption creates. The article goes on by saying,
“the most important reason to think that GMOs have a brighter future, however, comes not from any of the benefits they offer farmers, large though those may be. The big difference with the next generation of technology . . . is that it will also provide benefits to consumers.”
Again, GMO technology is seen as being able to ensure more efficient and responsible
use of the planet’s natural resources as well as allowing continued growth that benefits
producers and consumers. GMO technology is portrayed as a solution to the increasing
strains placed on the environment by humanity.
GMOs are not the only technology discussed as solutions to environmental
problems. An article in The Economist titled “Whirlybirds Go Green” argues that
“switching to diesel engines could make helicopters, and other aircraft, more efficient and
less damaging to the environment.” For example, “Diamond Aircraft, an Austrian firm,
is making a diesel-powered light aircraft which it says uses just 17 litres of fuel an hour, instead of the 35 litres that a similarly sized plane with a traditional piston engine would consume.” By improving technology, it is argued, various forms of aircraft can become friendlier to the environment. Other documents from The Economist discuss technologies such as “cellulosic ethanol,” “thin-film solar panels,” “clean coal,” “GMOs,” “light- emitting diodes,” among other “green” technologies important to ecological modernization ideals.
33 As further evidence Time Magazine discusses technologies ranging from “wind powered (ski) lifts” to “diesel-powered snowmaking compressors” while The Nation suggests the use of “solar photovoltaic panels” and Newsweek lauds technologies such as the “Nissan Altima Hybrid” which “proves you don’t have to sacrifice sporty driving dynamics and midsize roominess for improved enviro-friendliness.” Documents from each of the newsmagazines reinforce the faith in technology characteristic of the DSP by lauding new technologies as environmentally friendly. This faith in technology also reaffirms the devotion to growth and progress outlined by Dunlap and Van Liere. The new technologies, it would appear, allow continued economic growth while solving the environmental crisis.
As an outgrowth of such progress and innovation, corporations are often portrayed positively in that they are seen as taking care of the environmental crisis. One article in The Economist claims
Nokia . . . has been looking at making mobile phones entirely from recycled materials such as plastics from drinks bottles and old tires. Sony Ericsson . . . recently announced a project called GreenHeart, which proposes various things the company would like to include in future devices, such as bio plastics and recycled materials, a low power charger and online rather than paper-based user manuals.
Claims such as this about corporations like Nokia and Sony make it seem as if these companies are taking the initiative on utilizing environmentally friendly technologies and have the best interest of the environment in mind when making production decisions.
These accounts ignore claims that “private corporations are institutions with one and only one purpose: the pursuit of profit” (Foster 2010: 263).
34 A Time Magazine article offers another technological solution to environmental
problems. First, the article argues that improvements in efficiency are already being
made: “last year’s federal energy bill raised corporate average fuel economy standards for
the first time in three decades, to 35 m.p.g. for cars by 2020.” The article goes on to
argue that new technologies must be developed, “there are staggering things that
technology can do . . . but we need to make this happen in as short a time as possible . . .
That’s where government can help. There may be nothing like free enterprise to unleash
innovation, but there’s nothing like government to put a whip hand in the process.” In
this case, government is portrayed as being a major player in the solution to the environmental crisis by implementing policy that encourages free enterprise and technological innovation in terms of greener automobiles. Corporations still compete in the market but must meet certain standards set by the government.
Technology, then, is seen as the primary mechanism through which environmental problems will be solved. This emphasis on technology and economic growth reinforces the ideals of the DSP and the beliefs of ecological modernization theorists. In fact, 24 out of 26 documents examined in The Economist discussed improved technology or economic growth or both as a solution to environmental problems. All 13 of the documents examined in Time Magazine and The Nation discussed technological innovation or economic growth as solutions to environmental problems. The documents examined from Newsweek were the least likely to discuss technological and growth based solutions to environmental problems—only 7 out of 13 articles, slightly more than half, directly reinforced the faith in technology or emphasized
35 economic growth or both. There were no documents from The National Review that met the search criteria for this examination.
This focus on technology and economic growth reflects the DSP and reinforces the ideas of ecological modernization theorists. Technology and economic growth are viewed as the best solution to environmental problems but there is some debate within the media about the way in which technological innovation is most likely to occur. In this analysis I identify two primary frames that emphasize the values of the DSP and ecological modernization theorists. These frames focus on economic growth and free enterprise economics, as well as an emphasis on little or no government regulation. First, the “free market frame” emphasizes the need for a lack of regulation so that incentive is encouraged in a competitive economy and consumers are seen as responsible for voting for environmentally friendly products. Second, the “stimulus frame” is similar to the first in many ways—the major difference being that government should play a role in stimulating technological development, protecting the competitive free market, and helping consumers navigate the market. Table 5.1 illustrates the number of documents in which the free market or stimulus frame or both were found.
Table 4.1: Number of Articles Utilizing the Free Market and Stimulus Frame
Both Free Either Free Free Market Stimulus Market and Market or Total Articles Frame Frame Stimulus Stimulus Frames Frame
40 27 24 43 52
36 The Free Market Frame
The free market frame emphasizes the benefits of competitive free enterprise in
encouraging technological development. The Economist quotes Adam Grosser, a partner
at Foundation Capital: “there is an unbelievable migration of talent from traditional
technology to clean technology. They have had their social conscience energized, and
they believe there is a lot of money to be made.” According to Mr. Grosser, the free
market allows folks to “exercise their capitalist desires and feel self-righteous at the same
time.” The main emphasis of the free market frame is that competitive free enterprise
encourages technological innovation as well as economic growth. This account is an
exemplar of the free enterprise frame, one of the two dominant frames media use to
explain environmental problems and prescribe solutions.
Consumers, the frame suggests, have the opportunity to make environmentally
responsible decisions: “Consumers are responsible for the goods they consume and the
carbon emitted to produce them” (The Economist). This quotation characterizes the free
market frame and the environmental consequences of consumer buying decisions. The
first justification for consumer responsibility is the idea that people have a choice.
People can vote for environmentally friendly products based upon their purchases while
implying producers will meet the demand of the consumers.
This frame argues that free enterprise leads to increased choices for consumers.
An article in The Economist titled “Want to drive Green?” declares “one way to save fuel
and be kinder to the environment is to drive a smaller car. Or you can buy a hybrid, which is also cleaner and meaner with petrol using a combination of an internal- combustion engine and an electric motor.” The article goes on to claim that “the choice
37 will be much bigger” as technology and “tough competition” lead to a variety of consumer options. The competitive free market is seen as a driver of technological innovation and economic growth once again. In fact, the author’s claims suggest that we can be “kind” to the environment by driving vehicles that emit less pollution.
Furthermore, “competition” is the driving force behind these technological innovations and has thus resulted in more and more choices for the general public.
In this frame, the market will provide the consumer with whatever choices they demand. In The Economist, one article discusses the “looming electricity shortage in
Great Britain.” The article focuses on the demand for cleaner energy in the face of the
“shortages.” “The market is beginning to react: several new gas-fired power stations are on the drawing board. Advocates point out that they are cheap, quick to build and relatively clean.” The market is portrayed as reacting to the increased demand for energy as well as the demand for cleaner energy—growth and progress on both fronts. The article goes on to discuss technological innovations in the burning of coal—so called clean coal technology: “there may be a way to benefit from coal’s (availability) without suffering from its dirtiness. Carbon capture and storage is a technology that aims to siphon off planet-heating carbon-dioxide and store it safely underground.” As the demand for cleaner energy rises, the market is seen as responding in two primary ways. First, the market encourages competition and technological innovation such as “clean coal” technology. Secondly, the market is seen as being able to provide increasing amounts of energy and continued growth as a result of innovation.
The market is often viewed as meeting the demand of consumers in this frame. A
Newsweek document lauds Clorox for launching its eco-friendly line of cleaning products
38 called Green Works, claiming the company “got the message.” These types of claims
portray corporations as developing products and technologies to meet the demands of
eco-friendly consumers. The frame justifies individual consumer responsibility by
claiming that people have access to the information necessary to make informed
decisions in a system of free enterprise. “A growing number of online green guides help
consumers choose food, toys, cosmetics, and household products made by socially
responsible companies” (Newsweek). The Article names goodguide.com,
cosmeticsdatabase.com, and climatecounts.org as a few of these green guides thus further encouraging participation and spending in the free market as good for the environment.
In sum, the free market frame makes a number of claims. First, technology and further economic growth are viewed as the end all be all solutions to environmental problems. Second, competitive free enterprise that encourages “tough competition” is the best way to encourage technological progress and economic growth. Third, consumers are responsible for the products they consume and the consequences of the production of
these products. At the same time, corporations and businesses, it is implied, will produce
whatever the new environmentally responsible consumer demands.
Big Green Brother: “Going Green: What could be redder, whiter and bluer?”
The second dominant frame is similar to the first in a number of important ways.
The stimulus frame also emphasizes technological innovation and economic growth as
solutions to environmental problems. The important difference between the two frames
is that the stimulus frame believes the government plays some role in encouraging
innovation and free enterprise. The following selection from Time Magazine is an
exemplary example of the stimulus frame, arguing that technological innovation is
39 essential in addressing climate change and that government can invest in policies that
encourage this innovation: “there may be nothing like free enterprise to unleash
innovation, but there’s nothing like government to put a whip hand to the process.” The
article continues, “the Federal Government budgets about $5 billion per year for research
and tax incentives for renewables and energy efficiency. With a federal budget of $2.9
trillion . . . there is clearly money to be spent if we decide to reprioritize.” The government is portrayed as in charge of decision making—government can enact policies that encourage research, technological innovation, and economic growth in the name of environmental solutions. This selection does not often view the government as a regulator of free-enterprise but rather an investor in the competitive system. The following quote also exemplifies this frame:
(B)y devising a coherent strategy that mixes short-term solutions with farsighted goals, combines government activism with private-sector enterprise and blends pragmatism with ambition, the U.S. can, without major damage to the economy, help halt the worst effects of climate change and ensure the survival of our way of life for future generations.
This selection from Time Magazine emphasizes the ability of government to encourage competition in the private sector—competition aimed at improving the relationship between society and the environment. Once again, the claim reinforces the importance of private ownership and free enterprise—the government is seen as a protector of the enterprise system and private property, which encourages competition.
Time Magazine, The Economist, Newsweek and The Nation all discuss the possibility of another important example of the stimulus frame: the so-called “Green New
Deal” that “would rebuild and reshape the economy of planet Earth in ways reminiscent of the programs that President Franklin Roosevelt used to revitalize the economy of the
40 United States during the Great Depression.” (Newsweek) The Green New Deal is an
outstanding example of the stimulus frame. The Green New Deal is summed up by one
critic when he writes two pressing problems face the world: economic meltdown and
global warming. Conveniently, a solution presents itself that apparently solves both:
governments should invest heavily in green technology, thus boosting demand while
transforming energy and business (The Economist). In this article, the author goes on to
say that while cap and trade would make polluters pay for the their CO2 emissions and
should be pursued, subsidizing “clean energy requires politicians to decide on the best
way of delivering (clean energy), and their judgment is likely to be worse than the
market’s” (54). This quotation illustrates the key difference between the free market and
stimulus frames. The stimulus frame argues government should invest in the competitive
free enterprise system to encourage innovation. The free market frame claims that the
market will lead to the most efficient use of technology based upon the demands of
environmentally friendly consumers.
The author goes on to further say that “the world needs America to lead the fight
against climate change. But if Mr. Obama goes about it the easy way, rather than the right
way, he will discredit the cause he espouses and thus damage the planet instead of saving
it.” The argument implies that decisions regarding the environment are made by those in power such as President Obama. The argument that America should lead the way in the
fight against climate change is justified in a Time Magazine article: “We’ve learned from
think tanks and war colleges that the outcome of any crisis is usually determined by one
dominant global player that has the innovators who can churn out the technology, the
financiers who can back it and the diplomatic clout to pull the rest of the planet along.”
41 Statements such as these portray power as being in the hands of individual elected leaders
such as President Obama or dominant world powers such as the United States. The
stimulus frame argues that elected leaders are responsible for protecting the interests of
the population.
In an article titled “Working Together for a Green New Deal” in The Nation, a
well intentioned argument ends up reinforcing the status quo of environmental
degradation and economic exploitation by framing the solution to the problem within the free enterprise system. First, the article argues that “the answer to our social, economic, and ecological crises can be one and the same: a green economy strong enough to lift
people out of poverty.” The article claims that a broad electoral coalition is necessary just as “farmers, workers, and ethnic minorities . . . all joined forces at the ballot box to support FDR and his Congressional backers as they worked to revive the world economy.” The goal, then, is to “win government policy that promotes the interests of green capital and green technology over the interests of gray capital in a way that spreads
the benefits as widely as possible”. Just as the free market frame argues that people have
an impact impact by voting for the products they consume, the stimulus frame argues that
people make their impact through the way in which they vote in the electoral process.
According to the stimulus frame, elected leaders and global powers make the decisions
that control the way society interacts with the environment. The stimulus frame portrays
these elected leaders as enacting policies that lead to technological innovation and
economic growth in the market system.
In a Time Magazine article titled “Why Green is the New Red, White, and Blue” a
litany of authors describe “how America can lead the way to a greener world.” Again,
42 America is viewed as a dominant global power that is capable of leading the fight against environmental destruction. The authors claim that a “vast majority of people increasingly agree that climate change is a global emergency, there’s far less consensus on how to fix it. Industry offers its plans, which too often would fix little. Environmentalists offer theirs, which too often amount to naïve wish lists that could cripple America’s growth.”
The idea that solutions to the environmental crisis may threaten economic growth is seen
as an immediate reason to reject the solutions of environmentalists. Growth and
innovation are essential and government funded research and policies can encourage both
according to the stimulus frame.
Another article discusses the role of government in The Economist. According to
this article, Paul Epstein of Harvard Medical School claims “the impact on nature and
directly on humanity of global warming will swamp all other environmental factors. As
alterations to the climate lead to mass migrations, epidemics will spread; as temperate
zones warm up, tropical diseases like malaria will surge; storms will overwhelm sewer
systems; heat waves will push ozone layers up.” The next sentence proclaims “He may
be right.” Saying he “may be right” undermines the science behind the environmental
crisis. “At the moment, perhaps 2 billion people have no formal access to modern
energy—they make do with cow dung, agricultural residue and other solid fuels which
are far from healthy.” The article continues noting “a mixture of economic growth and
transparent governance may offer the only chance of avoiding that disaster. Everyone
will gain if poor countries find a way to leapfrog over the phases of development which
in so many other places did terrible harm to the environment.” The solution to
environmental problems is again tied to economic growth, further reinforcing the DSP—
43 and the implication that poorer countries are the source of environmental problems ignores the continued destruction of the environment by the United States and other wealthy states—suggesting the use of new technologies to reduce the environmental impact of economic growth in poorer countries.
At times, significant overlap is seen between the stimulus and free market frame—after all, they are similar in many ways. This overlap is illustrated in a
Newsweek article about the way in which consumers should be aware of what is known as “greenwashing”:
The more details you get, the better, says the Federal Trade Commission. Instead of going for the box that says ‘less waste,’ buy one that says ’20 percent less material.’ If a product has those three little green chasing arrows, check to see if the box offers more info, like whether it’s recyclable or recycled, whether the symbol refers to the product or the package and what percentage is actually made of recycled materials. Be aware of what the environmental marketing company Terra Choice calls ‘hidden trade-offs’: products that claim one environmental virtue, like energy efficiency, but deliver another sin, like hazardous contents. Finally, don’t get smitten with the word ‘biodegradable.’ Most of that stuff ends up in landfills anyway, and still takes a long time to go away.
If consumers were not confused and intimidated before reading this Newsweek clip, then they probably are now. The FTC, a government agency, is portrayed as helping consumers navigate the market. Again, the existence of the competitive market is assumed, and the government’s role is not direct regulation but rather to provide consumers with ways to make environmentally responsible decisions in the market. The individual consumer is again responsible.
Summary
Media reinforce the DSP by emphasizing free enterprise economics, technological innovation, and economic growth. The ideas of ecological modernization theorists—that
44 the free enterprise system can coexist with the environment—are also systematically
reinforced in the documents I examined. Two dominant frames reinforce the DSP ideals
and ecological modernization theory—the free market and stimulus frames. The free market frame argues that the competitive market is the avenue towards economic growth
and technological innovation. The free market frame claims that people can vote through
the products they consume and that producers will meet the demands of environmentally
friendly consumers. The stimulus frame claims that government plays a role in
encouraging competitive free enterprise, technological innovation, and economic growth.
In this frame, people are involved in the electoral process—then, elected leaders and
those with power will make the right decisions for the environment.
The pervasiveness of the dominant frames is problematic in a number of ways.
First, the arguments within these newsmagazines completely ignore the systematic social
degradation of the environment under a system of free enterprise. The arguments ignore
the antidemocratic nature of both the free market and stimulus frame. In the next chapter,
I explore these implications.
45 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION
The documents examined in this study portrayed solutions to environmental
problems as necessitating technological change and economic growth. Thus, these media
reinforce the ideals of the DSP and ecological modernization theorists. Two sub frames
emerged in the findings. The free market frame suggests that the unregulated market will
lead to economic growth and technological innovation as consumers demand
environmentally friendlier products and services. The stimulus frame argues that elected
leaders will make key decisions on the best policies to encourage enterprise and
innovation. The dominant and sub-themes in the documents all fail to call into question
the underlying social causes of environmental problems. The public, then, is left with a
narrow set of ideas from which to draw conclusions about the environmental crisis facing
local and global societies.
In this chapter, I discuss the way in which media frames fail to provide an
ideologically diverse set of solutions to environmental problems. I examine the way
these frames undermine the power of the people, legitimize existing power relations, and
justify the status quo of environmental degradation. I then discuss the implications of the two sub-frames that work to reinforce the DSP and ecological modernization theory.
These findings lend support for applying the propaganda model to understanding environmental concerns, ultimately arguing that certain ideas and opinions will be left out of media coverage. The findings conform to what is referred to as the propaganda model in a number of ways—especially by emphasizing the importance of the free market in addressing environmental problems.
46 A Lack of Diversity—A Lack of Critique
Documents from The Nation to Newsweek fail to provide the ideological diversity necessary for the public to make informed decisions. Importantly, even former of these, the so called “voice of the left,” presents ideas that align with the dominant social paradigm such as a faith in technology and an emphasis on economic growth. Obviously technology may become more environmentally friendly or be used in ways that cause less harm to ecological systems or even contribute to the cleaning up of the mess humans have created. These events, however, are only possible if the social causes of the misappropriation of technology or practices and policies that discourage technological innovation are addressed. This reinforces ideas from Foster (2009: 61), who in reference to the social economic system of capitalism writes, “the inner logic of such a system manifests itself in the form of an incessant drive for economic expansion for the sake of class-based profits and accumulation. Nature and human labor are exploited to the fullest to fuel this juggernaut . . . ” Mass media accounts completely ignore the underlying power dynamics that lead to the use of technologies in ways that degrade the environment or powerful forces that effectively subsidize technologies that are environmentally disastrous. Foster writes, “in this sense, new technology cannot solve the problem since it is inevitably used to further the class war and to increase the scale of the economy, and thus the degradation of the environment” (2009: 28). Instead, media accounts that emphasize economic growth within a free enterprise system legitimize the existing power relations and downplay the power of the public.
The same frames appear in each of the newsmagazines examined in this study— from The Nation to The Economist. Thus, legitimacy for the status quo of environmental
47 degradation is systematic in my sample—and importantly this is the case from left to
right. The lack of diversity of ideas within these accounts is a threat to democratic
decision making because the public must be informed to make reasoned decisions in a
democracy. By limiting the number of choices provided to the public, the mass media
effectively act in a way to prevent the public from making meaningful decisions about
their society and environment. A free marketplace of ideas, on the other hand, is
liberating for the public. But, with the lack of ideas in mass media accounts, the public is
forced to look elsewhere for meaningful choices. In effect, difficult barriers arise to
meaningful decision making.
The mass media threaten democracy in another way. The messages of the free
market and stimulus frames downplay the power of the people while proposing fundamentally undemocratic solutions to environmental problems. By legitimizing the existing power structure, the public is led to believe that their only role in decision making about the environment is the choice of products they purchase in the market or voting in elections. The public can sit back and trust the market or elected leaders to make the right decisions about society’s relationship with nature.
The Anti-Democratic Nature of the Free Market Frame
The free market frame ignores the fundamentally anti-democratic aspects of competitive free enterprise economics. As people compete for profits, winners and losers emerge. People may earn more for any number of reasons from talent, opportunity, or avarice—the factors that determine economic success in this system are unimportant for present consideration. As those with economic power accumulate wealth they are able to continue to build upon their wealth. Monopolies, oligopolies, and other forms of
48 hegemony eventually develop. The environment is not excluded from the detrimental
impacts of competition for success in this marketplace.
The focus on free enterprise, technology, and economic growth ignores the power dynamics of free enterprise economics and the impact of this system on the environment.
The free market frame argues that consumers are able to vote for environmentally responsible products. The inequality built into the system of competitive free enterprise ensures that this type of “voting” is antithetical to not only democratic decision making about the use of natural resources but also a democratic economy. In effect, the frame fails to acknowledge the power dynamics inherent in the competitive free enterprise system. These power dynamics result in the monopolization of private property, concentration of power over decision making and ultimately control of society’s relationship with the environment.
Competitive free enterprise reduces the number of choices available as monopolization occurs and wealth accumulates in the hands of the competitions winners—labor, nature, discourse, and choices are all homogenized until choices become so slim that folks must go outside the system to meet their needs for survival and creativity. The environment is exploited because of the profit motive and the possibility of wealth accumulation. As this juggernaut drives on people have fewer and fewer choices while at the same time are losing control over the natural environment on which they depend for survival. Instead, power over the environment becomes concentrated in the hands of economic elites. Look no further than the mass media to illustrate the way in which choice is threatened by elite rule. The lack of ideological diversity within the
49 mass media I examined forces the public to look elsewhere for alternative solutions to
environmental problems.
Thus, the free market frame ignores a number of important anti-democratic and anti-ecological components of political economic organization. The profit motive that exists in the free enterprise system leads to exploitation of labor and nature. The mass media, then, are playing an important role as an institution in upholding and legitimizing the status quo of socially founded environmental and social degradation by reinforcing
the theories of ecological modernization and the DSP. By focusing on free enterprise
solutions to environmental problems the mass media fail to inform the public of the
complexity of the political economic exploitation of nature or their cooperative role in
this vile process.
The Anti-Democratic Nature of the Stimulus Frame
The second dominant frame legitimizes the status quo as well—while appearing
to be an alternative to the free market frame, the stimulus frame plays at least as
important of a role in legitimizing the status quo.4 The stimulus frame is at least as anti-
democratic in nature as the free market frame. While the free market frame suggests that
people have the ability to vote for environmentally friendly products in the market, the
stimulus frame suggests that the impact of the people is in the electoral process. Elected
leaders are then portrayed as making decisions that lead to more environmentally friendly
enterprise in the free market system. These leaders, however, make decisions based upon
any number of interacting interests and often society’s relationship with nature is not
4 In many ways corporations and governments rely on one another in order to legitimize existing power relations in society and foster cooperation with the status quo.
50 perceived as the primary interest. This frame is undemocratic in the sense that the free enterprise system is left largely intact, thus allowing wealth accumulation and inequality to a large extent. In addition, the frame is undemocratic by downplaying the power of the people to solve the environmental crisis—instead portraying elected leaders as in charge of these problems.
For example, accounts that argue for a Green New Deal discuss the role of FDR in combating the economic woes of the Great Depression. The emphasis on the importance of FDR is critical because the power of the millions of workers, poor, and disenfranchised that hit the streets in protest is not mentioned and as a result these accounts downplay the power of the people. 5 Elected leaders are viewed as the agents of
social change and people can sit back and count on them to make decisions in their best
interest. In his book Lies My Teacher Told Me, Loewen (2007, 11) argues that history
textbooks “turn flesh-and-blood individuals into pious, perfect creatures without conflict,
pain, credibility or human interest.” . Loewen refers to this process as “heroification”.
Textbooks, according to Loewen also tend to lend more weight in historical social change
such as the New Deal, Civil Rights, the Women’s movement to a few leaders in these
movements and downplay the power of the people. For example, Loewen writes that
by presenting government actions in a vacuum, rather than as responses to such institutions as multinational corporations and civil rights organizations, textbooks mystify the creative tension between the people and their leaders. All this encourages students to throw up their hands in the belief that government determines everything anyway, so why bother, especially if its actions are usually so benign. Thus, our American history textbooks minimize the potential power of
5 Many people are involved in the environmental movement. Their efforts to address environmental problems are outside the scope of this project. This growing movement is impressive given the intense propaganda used within the media accounts I examined and speaks to the fact that many people will work hard to protect nature even when there are barriers to information put in place by those with power.
51 the people and, despite their best efforts, take a stance that is overtly antidemocratic (243).
In much the same way, media accounts downplay the power of the people in the process of fighting environmental problems by emphasizing the importance of elected leaders and global hegemons such as the United States in fighting against the environmental crisis.6 The documents I examined in this study exaggerate FDR’s role in
the Great Depression much like history textbooks exaggerate his role in Loewen’s study.
The Green New Deal is framed in each of the newsmagazines examined in this study in a
way that also exaggerates the role of elected leaders—the elected leaders are portrayed as
those that drive change. America is viewed as a leader in the fight against the
environmental crisis and President Obama is looked to for policy solutions. People are
led to believe that the leaders are in charge of decision making and that there is no need
for people to get involved. Mass media accounts of environmental problems seem to
legitimize the idea that government “determines everything anyway.”
In fact, people must get directly involved because people have less impact over
the actions of their elected leaders than the corporations that thrive in the free enterprise
system. Domhoff points out, in his class dominance theory, that corporate influences
over the political process in America are much more important than the impact of
individual citizens (2010). Zinn (2005) illustrates that the electoral coalition that put
FDR in office was not the only reason FDR ended up signing the New Deal legislation.
Rank and file strikes and insurrections, sit-ins, and worker’s rebellions forced both union
and state concessions. Zinn (2005 :403) goes on, however, to point out that:
6 The findings do suggest that people play a role in addressing environmental problems as consumers but ignore the power dynamics that affect what goods are available in the market, at what price, etc.
52 When the New Deal was over, capitalism remained intact. The rich still controlled the nation’s wealth, as well as it laws, courts, police, newspapers, churches, colleges. Enough help had been given to enough people to make Roosevelt a hero to millions, but the same system that had brought depression and crisis—the system of waste, of inequality, of concern for profit over human need—remained.
In effect, the New Deal satisfied enough of the plebeians to avoid further rebellion or revolution. The workers and laborers of today would be much more likely to fight for their freedoms if mass media discuss the impact of rank and file workers and grassroots action more often instead of emphasizing working for government concessions that leave the system of coercion largely intact. The level of alienation and fatalism that being isolated may cause would also be addressed if the public could read about others that have taken action in similar situations. Instead, the media give most of the credit for historical and current change to elected leaders and the institutionalized political process which is fundamentally anti-democratic. The stimulus frame argues that people are best suited to leave decision making up to their elected leaders. These leaders will find the best way to stimulate the market, encourage economic growth and technological innovation.
Together, the free market and stimulus frames simultaneously blame individuals for social problems and downplay the power of the people to create change. These frames put responsibility on the shoulders of the public while claiming that the public should allow the market and elected leaders to control society’s relationship with nature.
If humanity is going to survive, then the public must take control of this relationship and work together to create a new relationship with the environment. The media make this task more difficult by avoiding systematic critiques of social organization.
53 The Propaganda Model
Hermann and Chomsky’s model would suggest that the DSP and ecological modernization theories would be more likely to appear in news coverage of environmental problems—DSP and ecological modernization views tend to legitimize the existing power structure and social degradation of the environment. My examination of media performance provides support for the propaganda model. Hermann and
Chomsky’s propaganda model describe five filters that are the source of media propaganda: ownership, advertising, sources, flak, and anti-communist ideology.
According to Hermann:
The fifth filter--anticommunist ideology--is possibly weakened by the collapse of the Soviet Union and global socialism, but this is easily offset by the greater ideological force of the belief in the 'miracle of the market' (Reagan). There is now an almost religious faith in the market, at least among the elite, so that regardless of evidence, markets are assumed to be benevolent and nonmarket mechanisms are suspect. (11)
The performance of media in providing solutions to environmental problems is seriously affected by this unbridled faith in the market. My examination revealed a constant faith in the market where the proposed role of the state, if any, was to stimulate competition and market economics.
Hermann (2003: 4) continues noting,
The model does suggest that the mainstream media, as elite institutions, commonly frame news and allow debate only within the parameters of elite perspectives; and that when the elite is really concerned and unified, and/or when ordinary citizens are not aware of their own stake in an issue or are immobilized by effective propaganda, the media will serve elite interests uncompromisingly.
These parameters almost certainly include free enterprise economics. The media I examined provide evidence that free enterprise economics are one such parameter. Not
54 coincidentally, those with the most power continue to benefit the most from the veiled
and malevolent hands of the market. Furthermore, the media I examined seem to seek to
immobilize the public by downplaying the power of the people and portraying elected
leaders and markets as the entities that will solve environmental problems.
While the media portray America as a leader in the fight against environmental
degradation, in reality America is an oppressive state that has caused most of the world’s
environmental problems as an imperial force around the globe and led the war on the
environment for hundreds of years with policies that create a welcoming environment for profit-hungry capitalists, free enterprise, wealth accumulation, and global domination.
By reinforcing the DSP and ecological modernization theory, the solutions provided by mass media are more free enterprise, more American style growth, more technologies, and more “progress”.
These accounts do not address the underlying structural problems that are the primary source of all environmental problems. Power is concentrated in the hands of political and economic elites. If common people come together, however, then a radical transformation of society would not only be possible, but people would experience tremendous mental, physical, and creative growth as a result, and society may be all the better off economically as well7. The media, however, lack discourse and the public is
forced to look elsewhere for alternative solutions to environmental problems. Thus,
information gathering and decision making are made more difficult, undermining the
public’s ability to fight against the social degradation of nature.
7 Foster (2010) points to socialist movements in the periphery of the world economy that are working towards “sustainable human development” as examples. Although these models are not perfect, they are evidence of the possibility of liberating social reorganization.
55 Conclusion: An Antidemocratic Media
Mass media accounts of environmental problems are anti-democratic in a number
of ways. First, the accounts lack ideological diversity, focusing nearly exclusively on
technological innovation and economic growth as solutions to environmental problems with only slight disagreements within the sample on the best way to encourage technological innovation. These accounts reaffirm the DSP by emphasizing faith in technology as well as a belief in competition and free enterprise. Nearly all systemic critiques of present social organization ignore the mass media. Thus, readers are left without the frames necessary to question present political economic organization.
Accounts may question the way the game is being played, but they do not question the
game itself. In order to make meaningful choices, the public must seek out information
from other informational sources—informed decision making is becoming increasingly
difficult.
Secondly, the available frames that are shown downplay the power of the people,
thereby undermining critical thought about democratic practices and the role of the
individual in society. The free market frame is fundamentally anti-democratic because of
the immense inequalities associated with competitive free enterprise. The stimulus frame
is just as anti-democratic for two reasons. The frame emphasizes the dominant and
oppressive political institutions of our time and portrays elected leaders as having more
control than they actually do while downplaying the power of ordinary people.
The documents I examined, from right to left, support the propaganda model’s
argument that certain ideas are systematically filtered out of mass media. The ideas that
are left out are those that call into question the existing structure of power in society.
56 People are forced to look elsewhere for alternative solutions to environmental problems—making informed decision making about the environment more difficult. A media that provide these choices would do much to liberate the public by enabling quick and easy access to important information about the social degradation of the natural environment.
57 CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION
This project examines the extent to which mass media accounts of environmental
problems reinforce the status quo of environmental degradation and legitimize present
power dynamics. The reinforcement and legitimization of DSP beliefs and ecological
modernization theory weakens the ability of the public to access a diverse set of ideas.
Although people are not brainwashed by media messages that are fundamentally
undemocratic, the undemocratic aspects of mass media undermine the public’s ability to
stand up and challenge the existing power structure. Media accounts examined for this
project are undemocratic in a number of ways. First, the accounts offer little discourse
about environmental problems and solutions, undermining the ability of people to
question the status quo. The public, then, is forced to look elsewhere for alternative solutions to environmental problems.8 In effect, information gathering is made more
difficult.
Secondly, media frames reinforce the status quo by reinforcing dominant beliefs
in technological innovation, free enterprise economics, and unlimited growth and
progress. The free market and stimulus frames ignore the existing power structure that
results in the misuse of existing technologies, the development of environmentally dangerous technologies, and the ultimate degradation of nature. Instead the accounts reinforce this power structure by legitimizing the present system of rule by political and economic elites while at the same time downplaying the power of the people.
8 Again, the impressive growth of the environmental movement is important. If the media disseminated more information to the public, then this movement may be even more powerful.
58 The data I present support and expand Chomsky and Hermann’s propaganda
model in that the messages in the newsmagazines are geared to encourage continued
growth, consumption, and wealth accumulation at the top through the free market while
the environment continues to suffer. Ultimately, the reason corporate owned media use
propaganda to control society may be less about profit and more about maintaining the
existing structure of power in society. Certainly alternative economic systems could
produce more “profit” but these systems may not allow for the types of economic, social,
and informational inequalities that exist in present social organization and
disproportionately benefit the elites. The media messages I examined reinforce the
existing power structure and primarily serve the interest of those with the most
distributive power in society.
This project has explored the performance of the mass media in providing access
to a diverse set of solutions to environmental problems. Environmental sociologists offer
many systemic critiques of capitalism, free enterprise, growth, and the status quo. These
criticisms are ignored or rebuked in media portrayals. I have extended Chomsky and
Hermann’s model to examine the effects of propaganda on access to information about
the environment.
Sociologists can identify some conception of an ideal society and examine the
extent to which the reality of life within society matches up with that ideal. If a society values choices or democracy, then studying the extent to which media provide choices
and encourage informed decision making seems critical.
In an interview with David Barsamian, Chomsky (1992: 1) said that
59 “any stance that one takes with regard to social issues . . . assuming that it has any moral basis at all . . . is ultimately based on some conception of human nature. That is if you suggest things should be reformed in this or that fashion and there’s a moral basis for it, you are in effect saying, ‘ human beings are so constituted that this change is to their benefit. It somehow relates to their essential human needs.’ If the study of humans were ever to reach the point of a discipline with significant intellectual content, this concept would have to be understood and articulated.”
Chomsky’s point is important for sociologists, especially those that agree with Marx’s
idea that the point of sociology should be to change the world. If sociologists want to
promote change through research and theory, then the “moral basis” for that change must
be articulated. Only by articulating these values and beliefs is objectivity possible. The
media can be arranged in a way that empowers people to make meaningful decisions
about their role in the social degradation of nature—providing the necessary choices to
make human decisions and actions meaningful, encourage creative and free thinking, and
ultimately contribute to human freedom. Chomsky claims that social science has a moral
foundation and can be used to promote a more democratic, free, and equal society—I
have developed this project based upon the idea that people should be free to make
meaningful choices about their impact on the environment.
By emphasizing frames that reinforce the undemocratic, repressive, and
environmentally dangerous social structure, these newsmagazines effectively make information gathering more difficult and make the public less free. The fact that so many members of the public are standing up and fighting for the environment despite the intense propaganda within mass media is an indication that people want to take control of their relationship with society and nature. The media could make this task a lot easier on all of us.
60 My examination of media frames does not examine media effects and is thus
limited in terms of explaining the continued resistance to the system of capital
accumulation and environmental degradation. This resistance continues despite the lack
of ideological diversity within mass media. The resistance is a testament to the ability of
the public and individuals to critically analyze their environment and overcome the forces
of control and coercion that emanate from societal power relations. Furthermore, this
resistance is possibly aided by the existence of alternative forms of media. Future research may explore the reasons people turn to these other forms of literature for information. What factors enable people to access these ideas? What factors contribute
to this ability? Answers to these questions may provide avenues to ensure that a wider
audience is able to gain access to these critical ideas.
61 REFERENCES
Barbosa, Luiz. 2008. “Theories of Environmental Sociology.” Pp. 25-44 in Twenty
Lessons in Environmental Sociology edited by Kenneth Gould and Tammy Lewis:
Oxford University Press.
Bell, Allan. 1994. “Climate of Opinion: Public and Media Discourse on the Global
Environment.” Discourse & Society 5(1):33-64.
Benford, Robert D. and David A. Snow. 2000. “Framing Processes and Social
Movements: An Overview and Assessment.” Annual Review of Sociology
26(1):611-639.
Boykoff, Jules. 2006. “Framing Dissent: Mass-Media Coverage of the Global Justice
Movement.” New Political Science 28(2):201-228.
Boykoff, Maxwell. 2009. “We Speak for the Trees: Media Reporting on the
Environment.” The Annual Review of Environment and Resources 34:431-57.
Campbell, Elizabeth. 2008 “Corporate Power: The Role of the Global Media in Shaping
What We Know About The Environment” in Twenty Lessons in Environmental
Sociology edited by Kenneth Gould and Tammy Lewis: Oxford University Press.
Chomsky Noam and David Barsamian. 1992. “Chronicles of Dissent: Interviews with
David Barsamian.” Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press.
Cooper, Alice Holmes. 2002. “Media Framing and Social Movement Mobilization:
German Peace Protest Against INF missile, the Gulf War, and NATO peace
enforcement in Bosnia” European Journal of Political Research 41(1):37-81.
Domhoff, G William. 2010. “Who Rules America: Challenges to Corporate and Class
Dominance.” New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
62 Dunlap, Riley E. 2008. “The New Environmental Paradigm Scale: From Marginality to
Worldwide Use.” The Journal of Environmental Education. 40(1):3-18.
Dunlap, Riley E. and William R. Catton, Jr. 1994. “Struggling with Human
Exemptionalism: The Rise, Decline and Revitalization of Environmental
Sociology.” American Sociologist 25(1)5-30.
Foster, John Bellamy. 2009. “The Ecological Revolution: Making Peace With the
Planet.” New York, NY: Monthly Review Press.
Gamson, William, David Croteau, William Hoynes, and Theodore Sasson. 1992. “Media
Images and the Social Construction of Reality.” Annual Review of Sociology
18:373-93.
Goffman, Erving, 1974. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of the
Experience. New York: Harper Collins.
Hansen, Anders. 1991. “The Media and the Social Construction of the Environment.”
Media, Culture, and Society 13(4):443-458.
Herman, Edward S. 2003. “The Propaganda Model: A Retrospective.” From
Propaganda, Politics, Power, Volume 1, 2003: 1-14. http://human-
nature.com/reason/01/herman.pdf. Accessed June 5 2009.
Hubbard, Jeffrey C. Melvin L. DeFleur, and Lois B. DeFleur. 1975. “Mass Media
Influences on Public Conceptions of Social Problems.” Social Problems 23(1):22-
34.
Lewis, Tammy L. 2000. “Media Representations of ‘Sustainable Development’:
Sustaining the Status Quo?” Science Communication 21(3):244-273.
Loewen, James. 2007. “Lies My Teacher Told Me.” New York, NY. Touchstone.
63 Lofland, John, Et al. 2006. “Analyzing Social Settings: A Guide to Qualitative
Observation and Analysis.” Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
McCright, Aaron M. and Riley Dunlap. 2000. “Challenging Global Warming as a Social
Problem: An Analysis of the Conservative Movement’s Counter-claims.” Social
Problems 47:499-522.
McVeigh, Rory, Daniel J. Myers, and David Sikkink. 2004. “Corn, Klansmen, and
Coolidge: Structure and Framing in Social Movements.” Social Forces 83(2):653-
690.
Rauch, Jennifer, Sunitha Chitrapu, Susan Tyler Eastman, John Christopher Evans,
Christopher Paine, and Peter Mwesige. 2007. “From Seattle 1999 to New York
2004: A Longitudinal Analysis of Journalistic Framing of the Movement for
Democratic Globalization.” Social Movement Studies 6(2):131-145.
Robinson, Erin. 2009. “Competing Frames of Environmental Contamination: Influences
On Grassroots Community Mobilization.” Sociological Spectrum 29(1):3-27.
Spector, Malcolm and John Kitsuse. 1973. “Social Problems: A Reformulation.” Social
Problems 21(2):145-159
Zinn, Howard. 2005. “A People’s History of The United States.” Harper Collins. New
York, New York.