The latest issue of Nordicom Review brings together two new studies on environmental journalism, theorising how sustainability can be framed in journalism, alongside research tracing how the language of climate coverage has evolved in Danish media over time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Clarifying the Concept of Sustainable Journalism<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n In \u201cSustainable Journalism Redux: What Are the \u2018Cornerstone\u2019 Media Frames of a Sustainable Future?\u201d, Peter Berglez<\/a>, Ulrika Olausson<\/a>, and Mart Ots<\/a> address the growing but often loosely defined concept of sustainable journalism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n The term \u201csustainable journalism\u201d has been used in several ways within journalism studies \u2013 sometimes referring to the economic sustainability of news organisations, and at other times to journalism that supports sustainable development goals. While the authors acknowledge the advantages of such a broad perspective, they also note that when the concept comes to represent too many things simultaneously, it becomes difficult to distinguish it from other forms of journalism, such as development journalism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n Addressing the need for greater terminological precision, the researchers theoretically elaborate sustainable journalism as a set of particular media frames. <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n They introduce three analytical frames: the three-pillar frame, which brings together the environmental, social, and economic dimensions of sustainability; the time-reflexive frame, which situates events within longer temporal horizons by linking past developments, present conditions, and future consequences; and the cross-spatial frame, which highlights the global interdependencies of sustainability issues by connecting local developments with national and international dynamics.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Changing Language of Climate Reporting<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n A second article in the same issue, \u201cShifting Semantics: A Longitudinal Study of Keywords in Climate Change Reporting\u201d by Mikkel Fugl Eskj\u00e6r<\/a> and Florian Meier,<\/a> focuses on how climate change has been described in the news.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n The researchers analyse over 46,000 Danish news articles published between 1990 and 2021 to track the use of three widely known terms: greenhouse effect, global warming, and climate change. <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n Their findings show a clear shift in terminology over time. In the 1990s, climate reporting was dominated by the term \u201cgreenhouse effect\u201d. In the 2000s, \u201cglobal warming\u201d became more prominent, before gradually giving way to \u201cclimate change\u201d, which emerged as the dominant term in the 2010s. <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n Using computational semantic analysis, Fugl Eskj\u00e6r ad Meier show that each term is associated with different associations and kinds of discourse.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n The term \u201cgreenhouse effect\u201d tends to appear in technical discussions closely tied to atmospheric science and greenhouse gases. By contrast, \u201cclimate change\u201d appears in a wider range of contexts, including discussions of environmental crises, societal impacts, and global political challenges.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n