The Invisibility of the Pro-Economy Coalition in Media Debates on Climate Change

Boykoff & Boykoff (2004) famously identified a ‘balance as bias’ where the news media lets climate change deniers speak disproportionally in relation to their actual representation among the scientific community. However, recent studies show that the media increasingly marginalizes climate denialists (Brüggemann & Engesser 2017). At the same time, media discourses around the world have also become increasingly eco-modernist: in many countries, economic counter-arguments against climate change mitigation have to a large extent been replaced by arguments that economic growth and ambitious climate policies can exist side-by-side (Ylä-Anttila et al. 2018). By focusing on the case of Finland, we ask where did the economic counter-arguments go? Have organizations who prioritize economic growth over climate change mitigation changed their opinions or have they just disappeared from the media? We argue that the pro-economy coalition has become almost invisible in mainstream legacy media, but it still exists as an influential and active minority in the climate change policy network. The argument draws on a discourse network analysis of two leading newspapers (2013–2017) and a network survey of organizations trying to influence climate policy in Finland. Preliminary results suggest that arguments pitting economic competitiveness against mitigation are virtually absent in the media discourse. However, a substantial minority of organizations responding to the survey believe that national economic competitiveness or securing a national energy supply are more important goals than tackling climate change. These organizations – which include ministries, private companies, business interest groups, and trade unions – appear less often in the media than organizations who prioritize mitigation over economic goals. One possible explanation could be that these organizations appear less in the media because they are less influential or less interested to influence climate policy. Our results suggest that this is not the case. The members of the economy coalition are perceived to be as influential as other organizations in the network. Furthermore, the members of this coalition use lobbying as a strategy of influence but they seem to prefer to lobby outside of the media spotlight. They are less likely to use media strategies (e.g. publish press releases) than others, even when holding reputational influence and organization type constant. The study shows that even though a discourse prioritizing economic goals over climate change mitigation has become less visible in the legacy media, there are still influential and active organizations who think that this is the proper order of things. Boykoff & Boykoff (2004) argued that the balance of ‘objective’ journalism can be biased. In our case, the opposite seems to be true: the pro-economy coalition is hidden in the policy network, and virtually absent in the media. A general implication of this finding is that we should not focus on analyzing media discourses exclusively when the aim is to uncover discourses and power in national policy networks.