Ekspertkilder i dansk klimajournalistik
”Partseksperter” og aktivisme i klimajournalistikken
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7146/journalistica.v18i1.140327Keywords:
climate journalism, experts with an agenda, think tanks, activism, action instructionsAbstract
The climate field is often cited as an example of 'post-normal science' - a highly politicized field where research, attitudes and values are in many cases entangled with each other. Following on from this, the term post-normal science communication has been used to indicate that the journalistic norm of objectivity is being challenged and gradually replaced by a more activist approach. However, recent research indicates that journalistic activism is generally not accepted as a norm by climate journalists. But do we still see a shift in journalistic practice towards activism in source selection and the way sources are used? This is examined in the present article via a quantitative content analysis of 200 articles from four specialized climate media and news desks in Denmark. The analysis shows that privately employed non-researchers are frequently used as expert sources. Almost four out of 10 privately employed expert sources come from think tanks. Of these, CONCITO is by far the most used source. These "experts with an agenda" most often appear in the role of expert without having to legitimize their own status as an expert through new knowledge. Overall, the analysis indicates that climate journalism largely gives voice and authority to experts with an agenda, and that both publicly employed researchers and privately employed non-researchers are often used in action-directing functions, that is, different forms of journalistic activism. It points to a possible discrepancy between climate journalists' role perception and journalistic practice.
References
Albæk, E. & Munk Christiansen, P. & Togeby, L. (2004). Eksperter i me-dierne: Dagspressens brug af forskere 1961-2001. Magtudrednin-gen.
Albæk, E. et al. (2009). Eksperter i valgkamp: Proces eller indhold? Journalistica, 3(1), 86-102. https://doi.org/10.7146/journalistica.v3i1.2035
Albæk, E. (2011). The interaction between experts and journalists in news journalism. Journalism 12(3), 335–348. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884910392851
Andersen, K. & Larsen, E. G. (2016). Hvilken periode skal analyseres? Uge 46 som dataindsamlingsstrategi i journalistikforskningen. Journalistica, 10(1), 126-146. https://doi.org/10.7146/journalistica.v10i1.24891
Anderson, A. (2017). Source influence on journalistic decisions and news coverage of climate change. In M. C. Nisbet, S. S. Ho, E. Mar-kowitz, S. J. O'Neill, M. S. Schäfer, & J. Thaker (Eds.), Oxford Re-search Encyclopedia of Climate Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Areia, N. P. & Intrigliolo, D. & Tavares, A. & Mendes, J.M. & Sequeira, M.D. (2019). The role of media between expert and lay knowledge: A study of Iberian media coverage on climate change. Science of Total Environment, 682: 291-300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.05.191
Arnoldi, J. D. (2005). (Medieskabt) Ekspertise i medierne. Dansk Soci-ologi, 16(3), 9-24. https://doi.org/10.22439/dansoc.v16i3.725
Blach-Ørsten, M. & Kristensen, N.N. (2016). Think tanks in Denmark–Media visibility and Network Relations. Politik, 19(1): 22-42. https://doi.org/10.7146/politik.v19i1.27399
Blom, J. N. & Rønlev, R. & Reinecke Hansen, K. & Kruse Ljungdalh, A. (2021). The Potentials and Pitfalls of Interactional Speculations by Journalists and Experts in the Media: The Case of Covid-19. Jour-nalism Studies, 22(9), 1142-1160. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2021.1925950
Boyce, T. (2007). Journalism and Expertise. Journalism Studies, 7(6), 889-906. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616700600980652
Bray, D. & von Storch, H. (2017). The normative orientations of cli-mate scientists. Science and Engineering Ethics 23 (5), 1351–1367. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-014-9605-1.
Bro, P. (1998). Journalisten som aktivist. Om presse, politik og demo-kratisk dialog. Fremads Debatbøger.
Bro, P. (2004). Aktionsjournalistik. Historie, holdning og håndværk. Syddansk Universitetsforlag.
Bro, P. (2012). Historien om den nyttige nyhedsformidling. In U. Haa-gerups En Konstruktiv Nyhed, (pp. 129-143). Forlaget Ajour.
Brüggemann, M. (2017). Shifting roles of science journalists covering climate change. In M. C. Nisbet, S. S. Ho, E. Markowitz, S. J. O'Neill, M. S. Schäfer, & J. Thaker (Eds.), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Change Communication. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.354
Brüggemann, M., & Engesser, S. (2014). Between consensus and deni-al: Climate journalists as interpretive community. Science Com-munication, 36(4), 399–427. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547014533662
Brüggemann, M. & Lörcher, I. & Walter, S. (2020). Post-Normal Science Communication: Exploring the Blurring Boundaries of Science and Journalism. Journal of Science Communication 19(3). https://doi.org/10.22323/2.19030202
Douglas, A. L. & Caburnay, A. C. & Cohen, L. E. (2011). How Much Is Enough? New Recommendations for Using Constructed Week Sampling in Newspaper Content Analysis of Health Stories. Communication Methods and Measures, 5:1, 76-91. DOI: 10.1080/19312458.2010.547823
Duarte, K., & Eide, E. (2018). Når vitenskapen skal «ut». Norsk Medie-tidsskrift, 25(3), 01–18. https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.0805-9535-2018-03-02
Eskjær, M. F. (2019). Et tabt årti? Dansk klimadækning siden COP15. Politik, 22(3). https://doi.org/10.7146/politik.v22i3.117726
Flyvbjerg, B. (2010). Fem misforståelser om casestudiet. In Kvalitative metoder (pp. 463–487). Hans Reitzels Forlag.
Friedman, S. M. (2015). The changing face of environmental journal-ism in the United States. In A. Hansen & R. Cox (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Environment and Communication (pp. 144–157). Oxon: Routledge.
Funtowicz, S. O. & Ravetz, J. R. (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Futures 25 (7), 739–755. https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-3287(93)90022-L
Hayes, A. F. & Krippendorff, K. (2007). Answering the Call for a Stand-ard Reliability Measure for Coding Data. Communication Methods and Measures, 1(1), 77-89. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312450709336664
Hopmann, D. N. (2014). Casevalg og repræsentativitet: Hvem eller hvad skal jeg undersøge? In D. N. Hopmann & M. Skovsgaard, Forskningsmetoder i journalistik og politisk kommunikation (pp. 43-60). Hans Reitzels Forlag.
Johansen, K. R. & Johansen, J. D. (2022). Ekspertkilder i landsdækken-de danske dagblade: Hvem er de, og hvilke roller og funktioner optræder de i? Journalistica, 2022, 86-111. https://doi.org/10.7146/journalistica.v16i1.132421
Kelstrup, J. D. (2016). Tænketankes brug af dagbladene som et mar-ked for politiske idéer i Danmark. Politik, 19(1). https://doi.org/10.7146/politik.v19i1.27392
Kelstrup, J. D. (2020). Policyprofessionelle i danske tænketanke: ud-dannelse, erhvervserfaring og synlighed i Folketinget og lands-dækkende aviser. Politica, 52(1), 59–75. https://doi.org/10.7146/politica.v52i1.130798
Lacy, S., Riffe, D., Stoddard, S., Martin, H., & Chang, K.-K. (2001). Sam-ple Size for Newspaper Content Analysis in Multi-Year Studies. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 78(4), 836-845. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900107800414
Laursen, B. & Trapp, L. N. (2021). Experts or Advocates: Shifting Roles of Central Sources Used by Journalists in News Stories? Journal-ism Practice, 15:1, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2019.1695537
Nicolaisen, P. B. (2022). Role Perceptions in Climate Science Commu-nication. Environmental Communication. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2022.2152848
Nicolaisen, P. B. (2022). A State of Emergency or Business as Usual in Climate Science Communication? A Three-Dimensional Perspec-tive on the Role Perceptions of Climate Scientists, Climate Jour-nalists, and Citizens. Science Communication, 0(0), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1177/10755470221136220
Nicolaisen, P. B. (2023). Sea Change or Still Water? A triadic analysis of ideal roles, the relevance of science and experience, and quality as-surance in the public climate debate. Politicas ph.d.-serie, Institut for Statskundskab, Aarhus Universitet.
OECD (2007). Working Party of National Experts on Science and Tech-nology Indicators. Revised Field of Science and Technology (FOS) Classification in the Frascati Manual. DSTI/EAS/STP/NESTI(2006)19/FINAL.
Peters, H. P. (1995). The interaction of journalists and scientific ex-perts: co-operation and conflict between two professional cul-tures. Media, Culture & Society, 17(1), 31-48. DOI:10.1177/016344395017001003
Peters, H. P. (2014). Scientists as Public Experts: Expectations and Re-sponsibilities. In M. Bucchi & B. Trench, Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology, 2nd edition (pp. 70-82). Routledge.
Peters, H. P. & Heinrichs, H. (2005). Öffentliche Kommunikation Über Klimawandel Und Sturmflutrisiken: Bedeutungskonstruktion Durch Experten, Journalisten und Bürger. Schriften des For-schungszentrum Jülich.
Riffe, D. & Aust, F. C. & Lacy, R. S. (1993). The Effectiveness of Random, Consecutive Day and Constructed Week Sampling in Newspaper Content Analysis. Journalism Quarterly, 70:1, 133-139.
Schäfer, M. S. & Painter, J. (2020). Climate journalism in a changing media ecosystem: Assessing the production of climate change-related news around the world. WIREs Clim Change. 2021; 12:e675. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.675
Schrøder, K. C., Blach-Ørsten, M. & Eberholst, M. K. (2020). Danskernes brug af nyhedsmedier 2020. Roskilde Universitet. Danskernes brug af nyhedsmedier https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4063341
Skovsgaard, M., van Dalen, A. & Bisgaard, K. (2018). Et ædelt fag under stigende pres? Udviklingen i journalisternes professionelle idea-ler og deres opfattelser af det daglige arbejde som journalist 2009-2015. Journalistica 12(1), 4-26. https://doi.org/10.7146/journalistica.v12i1.105539
Sundblad, E.-L. & Biel, A. & Gärling, T. (2009). Knowledge and Confi-dence in Knowledge About Climate Change Among Experts, Jour-nalists, Politicians, and Laypersons. Environment and Behavior, 41(2): 281-302. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916508314998
Verkest, S. (2023). Negotiating interpretive power: Interpretive prac-tices in journalist-scientist interactions. Journalism 0(0), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849231192149
Weldingh, L. (2023). Begivenhedsstyret eller emnestyret klimajour-nalistik?: En indholdsanalyse af danske dagblades klimadækning mellem 2018 og 2021. Journalistica - Tidsskrift for forskning i journalistik 17(1). https://doi.org/10.7146/journalistica.v17i1.135010
Wien, C. (2014). Commentators on daily news or communicators of scholarly achievements? The role of researchers in Danish news media. Journalism, 15(4), 427-445. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884913490272
Williams, A. (2015). Environmental news journalism, public relations and news sources. In A. Hansen & R. Cox (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Environment and Communication (pp. 197–206). Oxon: Routledge.
Willig, I., Blach-Ørsten, M. & Burkal, R. (2022). What is ‘Good’ Climate Journalism? Public Perceptions of Climate Journalism in Den-mark. Journalism Practice, 16(2-3), 520-539. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2021.2016069
Ytterstad, A. (2011). Klimakrisen utfordrer objektivitetsidealet i norsk journalistikk. Norsk Medietidsskrift, 18(4), 323–344.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Kresten Roland Johansen, Jakob Dybro Johansen
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Forfattere, der publicerer deres værker via dette tidsskrift, accepterer følgende vilkår:
- Forfattere bevarer deres ophavsret og giver tidsskriftet ret til første publicering, samtidigt med at værket er omfattet af en Creative Commons Attribution-licens, der giver andre ret til at dele værket med en anerkendelse af værkets forfatter og første publicering i nærværende tidsskrift.
- Forfattere kan indgå flere separate kontraktlige aftaler om ikke-eksklusiv distribution af tidsskriftets publicerede version af værket (f.eks. sende det til et institutionslager eller udgive det i en bog), med en anerkendelse af værkets første publicering i nærværende tidsskrift.
- Forfattere har ret til og opfordres til at publicere deres værker online (f.eks. i institutionslagre eller på deres websted) forud for og under manuskriptprocessen, da dette kan føre til produktive udvekslinger, samt tidligere og større citater fra publicerede værker (se The Effect of Open Access).
