The Media Politics of Oil Spills

Alison G Anderson
{"title":"The Media Politics of Oil Spills","authors":"Alison G Anderson","doi":"10.1016/S1353-2561(02)00048-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This paper considers the ways in which news values shape the reporting of oil spills and the constraints under which media practitioners work. A series of oil spills since the late 1960s [including the Torrey Canyon (1967), the <em>Exxon Valdez</em> (1989), and the Sea Empress (1996)] have attracted considerable attention from the news media. The focus is upon the dynamics through which news sources, with their own particular vested interests, compete to secure representation of the issues. Media discourse on risk and the environment is, to a significant extent, a discourse dependent upon the voices of official “experts”. Environmental organizations, industry, scientists and government offer their own particular competing accounts of the “reality” of the situation. Issues concerning differential access to the news media are crucial when considering who comes to define the event. Accordingly, the article examines the strategies adopted by the various news sources involved in influencing the symbolic representation of public issues.</p><p>Media practitioners are faced with great problems in interpreting and explaining these competing claims. Relatively few journalists and broadcasters have a scientific training and perhaps one of the greatest problems is that by simplifying complex scientific information one inevitably distorts it. Frequently researchers make the assumption that it is possible to demonstrate a direct causal link between news media coverage and public attitudes. However, the paper calls for great caution in interpreting “public opinion” concerning environmental issues and concludes by arguing that news media representations may more usefully be viewed as the outcome of a battle among a selective range of news sources, each seeking to provide their own definition of the public representation of the issues.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":101181,"journal":{"name":"Spill Science & Technology Bulletin","volume":"7 1","pages":"Pages 7-15"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2002-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/S1353-2561(02)00048-8","citationCount":"42","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Spill Science & Technology Bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1353256102000488","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 42

Abstract

This paper considers the ways in which news values shape the reporting of oil spills and the constraints under which media practitioners work. A series of oil spills since the late 1960s [including the Torrey Canyon (1967), the Exxon Valdez (1989), and the Sea Empress (1996)] have attracted considerable attention from the news media. The focus is upon the dynamics through which news sources, with their own particular vested interests, compete to secure representation of the issues. Media discourse on risk and the environment is, to a significant extent, a discourse dependent upon the voices of official “experts”. Environmental organizations, industry, scientists and government offer their own particular competing accounts of the “reality” of the situation. Issues concerning differential access to the news media are crucial when considering who comes to define the event. Accordingly, the article examines the strategies adopted by the various news sources involved in influencing the symbolic representation of public issues.

Media practitioners are faced with great problems in interpreting and explaining these competing claims. Relatively few journalists and broadcasters have a scientific training and perhaps one of the greatest problems is that by simplifying complex scientific information one inevitably distorts it. Frequently researchers make the assumption that it is possible to demonstrate a direct causal link between news media coverage and public attitudes. However, the paper calls for great caution in interpreting “public opinion” concerning environmental issues and concludes by arguing that news media representations may more usefully be viewed as the outcome of a battle among a selective range of news sources, each seeking to provide their own definition of the public representation of the issues.

石油泄漏的媒体政治
本文考虑了新闻价值塑造石油泄漏报道的方式以及媒体从业人员工作的限制。自20世纪60年代末以来,一系列石油泄漏事件(包括多利峡谷(1967),埃克森瓦尔迪兹(1989)和海皇后(1996))引起了新闻媒体的极大关注。重点是新闻来源,通过他们自己的特殊既得利益,竞争,以确保代表问题的动态。在很大程度上,媒体关于风险和环境的话语依赖于官方“专家”的声音。环保组织、工业界、科学家和政府都对“现实”情况给出了各自不同的说法。在考虑由谁来定义事件时,与新闻媒体的不同访问有关的问题至关重要。因此,本文考察了各种新闻来源在影响公共问题的象征性代表时所采取的策略。媒体从业者在解读和解释这些相互矛盾的主张时面临着很大的问题。相对而言,很少有记者和广播员受过科学培训,也许最大的问题之一是,通过简化复杂的科学信息,人们不可避免地会扭曲它。研究人员经常假设,有可能证明新闻媒体报道与公众态度之间存在直接的因果关系。然而,这篇论文呼吁在解释有关环境问题的“公众舆论”时要非常谨慎,并在结论中提出,新闻媒体的表现可能更有用地被视为一场有选择性的新闻来源之间的斗争的结果,每个新闻来源都试图提供他们自己对问题的公众表现的定义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信