At the outset, it must also be conceded that many researchers focus on print media because there are established print media databases available such as Pro-Quest and Lexis-Nexis, whereas for radio, TV, online and social media, comparable data are difficult to collect. Thus, any decision to analyse print media as opposed to various forms of digital communication such as the online editions of media companies, postings to social media networks or personal blogs requires some robust justification, given the attraction of accessible data mentioned above, the decline in legacy print media reach (Kleis Nielsen and Levy, 2011; Westlund, 2013) and the over-representation of print in the academic literature. Firstly, in contemplating the media landscape in Ireland, it is apparent that legacy media companies still command considerable audiences when their print and digital offerings are taken into account. The Independent media group has reach
of 44% of the population over 18, while the Irish Times has a 37% reach. These companies rank second and third in terms of reach behind the public service broadcaster RTÉ (64%) (Kirk et al., 2016).
Other scholars, in selecting print media as a data source, did so because of the less ephemeral nature of the print product and because national print journalism has an agenda-setting effect on other media (Harcup and O’Neill, 2001). For instance, in their study of Australian, German and Indian media coverage of climate change, Schäfer, Ivanova and Schmidt chose to examine print media because the prestige press are seen as “leading media” whose coverage of issues influences other media (Schäfer et al., 2014, p. 159). In the case of Ireland, print media often set the agenda for the state broadcaster’s morning news radio programme, and journalists were the primary interview subjects here during the economic crisis (Rafter, 2014). A longitudinal study of the visual representation of climate change in the Canadian media also chose to examine print media. Young and Dugas contend that, while blogs and other online forms of communication have important contributions to make to the public debate on climate change, “they cannot reach the breadth of reach enjoyed by mainstream media” (Young and Dugas, 2011, p. 3). Particularly in the case of environmental issues, newspapers, in both their print and online editions, remain the “predominant source” of information for most people (Antilla, 2010, p. 245). An influential 2007 study of the influence of journalistic norms on media coverage of climate change also chose to study print media – as well as television coverage – because the newspapers examined (the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal) had a considerable influence on other smaller, regional newspapers (Boykoff and Boykoff, 2007, p. 5).
The coverage of climate change on social media has been studied by scholars, including Twitter coverage of IPCC AR5 (O’Neill, Williams, et al. 2015), Twitter usage around climate change protests (Segerberg and Bennett, 2011), participatory dynamics on YouTube (Porter and Hellsten, 2014) and in online reader comments (Koteyko, Jaspal and Nerlich, 2013) regarding the Climategate controversy. Social media content mentioning climate change or containing a climate change-related hashtag was the subject of an extensive study covering a year’s worth of tweets in four languages: Portuguese, Spanish, English and Russian. The researchers concluded that 40% more tweets in English are posted between 7am and 12 noon than at other times, leading to speculation that “this difference suggests that a sizeable amount of tweeting on climate change originates from a workplace, possibly as part of Twitter users’ work duties” (Kirilenko and Stepchenkova, 2014, p. 180). In other words, a considerable amount of Twitter activity is from “professional” tweeters, a finding at odds with portrayals of Twitter as a social media platform enabling the empowerment of non-journalists in breaking news and reporting from events (Newman, 2009; Hermida et al., 2011). Furthermore, the same study found that 34% of tweets referred to an existing online resource. Of the top 10 of these external resources, “nine belong to the prestige press, top popular science magazines, and news aggregators, and only one (ThinkProgress.org) is a blog” (Ibid: p. 180). These findings are in line with those reported by Brulle et al. (2012) in a study of 74 surveys of public concerns regarding climate change. They found that mass media coverage and elite cues were among the three most important factors in forming public opinion (the third factor was related to economic conditions).
The retransmission of Twitter messages is highly concentrated, with 50% of the retweets pointing to just 0.37% of Twitter users mentioned in climate change tweets. The top
mentions are an almost identical list of online prestige press outlets and news aggregators, with addition of popular bloggers and celebrities. The evidence of ‘‘core’’ resources is in agreement with prior studies (Kirilenko and Stepchenkova, 2014, p. 179). Hindman (2008) noticed that the political discussions in the Internet tend to be highly concentrated, with the majority of hyperlinks pointing to very few newspapers, journalists and prominent bloggers, which makes it hard for minorities and non-mainstream messages to be heard. In the context of Twitter discussions of the news, Heim (2013) found that the elite journalists dominate the discourse, while other research has found that 99% of stories linked to from blogs came from legacy outlets (Pew Research Centre, 2010).
Although there is some evidence to suggest that social media inadvertently exposes users to diverse political opinions (Brundidge, 2010), there are many who believe that social media, and especially Twitter, are merely echo chambers in which users are reinforced in their previously held beliefs (Wilhelm, 1998; Davis, 1999; Noveck, 2000; Mutz and Martin, 2001; Sunstein, 2001; Bimber and Davis, 2003; Galston, 2003). Social media allows users to select information and interactions, and this has resulted in a tendency to prefer partisan information (Bimber and Davis 2003). Similar balkanisation and self- segregation is also evident in political blog sites (Adamic and Glance, 2005).
The use of “pro-sumer” content (produced by people who both produce and consume it) is common, but this means that social media has become another source for journalists, rather than a means of collaboration between journalist and audience. Indeed, it is argued that social media has enhanced the power of journalists rather than diminished it because, thanks to postings on social media, they have access to places and events that they would
not have had in the past. Journalists become curators of social media content produced by others and their gate-keeping status in enhanced. (Phillips, 2015).
Although new media has been heralded as “one of the greatest tools in achieving a true democracy” (Head, 2009), scholars concede there are difficulties for citizens wishing to access reliable information (O’Neill and Boykoff, 2012). Digital literacy (skill in use of technology devices and search techniques) does not equate to information literacy (skill in evaluating the sources and reliability of information) (Nicholas et al. 2008), and the growth of new media and social media has contributed to the spread of skeptical, contrarian and denialist views (Lockwood, 2008). Contrarian discourse in new media has been used to justify the inclusion of contrarian views in mainstream media, while the rise in popularity of climate contrarian blogs has added to the volume of contrarian discourses (Ibid). As O’Neill and Boykoff (2012: p. 239) conclude, “Perhaps then, even more than with traditional media and communications vehicles, evaluating information (and knowing who and what to trust) is a key issue in climate engagement through new media.” In short, as Sunstein (2007, p. 143) remarks: “those who consult blogs will learn a great deal. But they will have a tough time separating falsehoods from facts.”
Social media are relatively popular in Ireland. On social media, 46% of Irish people use Facebook, while 14% use Twitter. This compares with figures of 40% and 11% respectively in the United States, and 29% and 14% respectively in the United Kingdom. Regarding online news consumption, the website of Ireland’s state broadcaster RTÉ is the most popular with 31% of the population accessing news here. However, print titles, despite being frequently dismissed as obsolete, provide news to a considerable audience. The Independent News and Media (INM) print titles (the Irish Independent, the Evening
Herald and the Sunday Independent) have a 33% reach, the Irish Times has a 25% reach, regional newspapers reach 25% of the population, Irish tabloid newspapers (the Irish Daily Mail, the Irish Mirror, the Irish Sun) reach 15%, and the Irish edition of the Sunday Times reaches 11%. It is evident that print media remain influential in the Irish media landscape. The relevance of so-called “legacy media” companies is even more striking when it is considered that the online versions of the INM titles and the Irish Times account for a combined 51% of the online news audience (Newman et al. 2015).
Consequently, it is reasonable to analyse print media on three grounds: (i) such an analysis would form part of a pre-existing body of scholarship which has examined print media and may therefore contribute to a global academic conversation on the mediation of climate change; (ii) social media coverage of climate change is of dubious value as a large proportion of social media content links to resources provided by traditional media outlets; (iii) taken together, the print and online versions of newspapers are by far the most important source of news for Irish people.