The Pros And Cons Of Framing

Framing has the ability to “bring attention to, legitimize, and provide interpretive context for the abstract, complex, and often unfamiliar topics associated with environmental issues” (Doyle, 2007; Lakoff, 2010). Framing can also alter how the public will understand and interpret climate change (Boykoff, 2007; Nisbet, 2009). In my 50 articles alone, I came across examples that described how oil’s critics were “more determined than ever to shut down our energy sector" (09 Dec 2015: A.4) and there is a need to “counter the negatives expounded by the environmental movement” (11 Apr 2015: C.1.) so that the oil industry is not seen as “pariahs” (15 Aug 2015: C.1.). There were even articles that took an overt stance and did not mention any other

Based on the genre of news reporting, whatever the author chooses to present first to readers will be the most important. A common trend uncovered in this analysis was for authors to foreground industry spokespeople and then cite environmental viewpoints. This was also the case for the news articles that were focused solely on environmental issues. For example, an article (24 Apr 2015: B.1.) about climate change and its potential concerns cite BP’s and Statoil’s CEOs before giving other stakeholders a chance to voice their concerns. The same article also used the majority of its paragraphs to highlight how industry will be hurt by efforts to mitigate climate change. At the phrase level, I discovered a frequently occurring trend where speakers would mention the need to address economic issues in the province and then mention climate change last. According to Huckin (1997), what is mentioned last in journalistic discourse can easily be interpreted as less important given the top down feature previously mentioned. As an illustration, a piece from (17 June 2015: A.6.) first mentions the need for a climate change strategy that is “pragmatic enough not to damage the provincial economy.” It also cites only one part of Premier Notley’s speech where she says. “We need to consider the economic health of the province, we need to

This was obvious from even a cursory reading of the articles before reading through them again as Huckin suggests. Huckin also encourages analysts to question what perspectives and arguments are absent from the text. In an article that covered Calgarians gathering in a park on the eve of the Paris climate negotiations, a mother was reported to be in attendance to teach her daughter about climate change and “why it matters” 30 Nov 2015: A.3. However, I noticed that there was no mention of the reasons why climate change matters. This is an ironic omission within an article that covers a rally about climate change in the city. Another woman is labeled as a “concerned citizen” and is described as believing in climate change. She is quoted saying that she “wants to make an impact” (ibid) but the author excludes any reasons why the interviewee is concerned. As a result of this omission, it is conceivable that uncritical readers could read into climate change as an issue that others disbelieve. Another example in the Herald excludes the implications of non-action is when the City of Vancouver is cited as wanting the NEB to consider greenhouse gas emissions (20 Jan 2015: D.1.). The author does not go into detail and I was left probing for