Whither the "moral imperative"? : the focus and framing of political rhetoric in the climate change debate in Australia

    Research output: Chapter in Book / Conference PaperChapter

    3 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    Like most complex issues, climate change has many dimensions with competing and conflicting values and agendas. These are debated using frames which filter perspectives through the lens of existing ideological beliefs and worldviews (Goffman, 1974). Frames, according to Nisbet and Mooney (2007), use language to "organise ideas, defining a controversy to resonate with core values and assumptions". Unpacking how an issue is framed is important in order to expose the underlying assumptions and power relationships upon which knowledge production in any particular discourse is founded (O'Brien et al., 2010b). The media play a pivotal role in both the production and reproduction of different frames, or what Gamson and Modigliani (1989: 3) call "interpretative packages". These make suggested meanings available for the attentive public through linguistic devices such as metaphors, catchphrases, historical examples and visual images. They also act to construct reasoning devices such as appeals to causal relationships and to principles such as moral arguments (Gamson and Modigliani, 1989: 3-4). Lakoff (2008) contends that because repeated frames are cognitively reinforced, the discourse becomes "internalized,” as Foucault (1972) would argue, making it difficult to think outside the boundaries of those recurring frames.
    Original languageEnglish
    Title of host publicationEnvironmental Conflict and the Media
    EditorsLibby Lester, Brett Hutchins
    Place of PublicationU.S.A.
    PublisherPeter Lang
    Pages187-200
    Number of pages14
    ISBN (Electronic)9781453911464
    ISBN (Print)9781433118920
    Publication statusPublished - 2013

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Whither the "moral imperative"? : the focus and framing of political rhetoric in the climate change debate in Australia'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this