How do traditional media outlets and social media differ in their accounts of climate negotiations and what impact does this have on the general public? New research answers this question and reveals significant differences in what media chose to focus on and fragmentation in the public’s information about important climate policy events. The research is among the first to rigorously analyze and compare mainstream and social media coverage of a major event in climate policymaking.

Understanding how different forms of media influence the way we learn about key climate negotiations is increasingly important in a world where the mediums through which we acquire information is undergoing a radical shift. As mainstream news outlets continue to lose their monopoly on the sharing of information, how are key figures in the social media sphere discussing climate issues on public forums such as Facebook and Instagram?

A recent paper conducted by CMCC researcher Mary Sanford with the research associate at the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism and senior teaching associate at Oxford University, James Painter, compares how mainstream news outlets in Australia, India, the UK, and the US, and prominent activists, politicians, international organizations, and celebrities on Facebook and Instagram reacted to COP26, the UN climate conference held in Glasgow, Scotland in 2021.

“The core message is that the two media arenas differed significantly in their appraisals of COP26, suggesting fragmentation in the information consumed by the public about important climate policy events,” says Sanford, who believes that this could hinder public awareness and mobilization for climate action and policy support.

The main result emerging from the research is that mainstream media portrayed the summit as a step in the right direction, with several major outlets calling it a success, whereas key figures and thought leaders on social media were far more critical of the summit, characterizing it as a failure when it comes to reaching global mitigation and adaptation goals.

Topics discussed by account type in full dataset. Sample interpretation: The horizontal teal bar (6th from the left) corresponding to negative framing of political leaders is larger for activist accounts (top row) than it is for the accounts of right-leaning politicians (second row from the bottom, third horizontal bar from the left). Source: Sanford et al, 2024.

Mainstream outlets were also revealed to have focused significantly more on claims that China and India weakened the emissions deal, while praising the US and EU for their collaboration towards progress. In contrast, activists on social media were keen to emphasize the collective failure of all delegations to commit to stronger action.

“These differences raise questions about how the public may go about making sense of contrasting appraisals, who to trust and why, and how increasing fragmentation of media diets – whereby younger generations are getting more of their news from social media versus older generations still preferring mainstream news sources – influence public opinion on climate policy,’ says Sanford.

This study is one of the first to rigorously analyze and compare mainstream and social media coverage of a major event in climate policymaking. It unearths differences that have not yet been considered in the literature, but that scholars are now starting to give more attention to.

“Smaller-scale qualitative studies such as this one are important to establish ground truths about new phenomena, especially given the ferocious pace with which the digital communication and media landscapes continue to evolve,” says Sanford. “The divergences we detected between mainstream and social media in the appraisals of COP26 reflect the tremendous challenge we face in constructing cohesive narratives about climate change and climate policy, a prerequisite for effectively mobilizing public opinion and sentiment.”

More information:

Mary Sanford conducted this study as part of her PhD research at the University of Oxford, Oxford Internet Institute.

Mary Sanford, James Painter, Oxford Open Climate Change, Volume 4, Issue 1, 2024, kgae006, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfclm/kgae006