Journalism Needs to Get Political about Plastic Pollution: French vs US Approaches

Abstract

Purpose: This paper offers a first look into journalistic coverage on the enduring issue of marine litter. The presented study seeks to identify dominating news issue frames of marine pollution to analyse the prospective approaches of journalists.

Method: A content analysis of print news-of-record sources was conducted. The theoretical background of Cultural Studies and Political Consumerism Theory was employed to analyse environmental reporting in the United States and France.

Findings: The main result is that French sources focus primarily on proposed legislation and political commentary around the issue instead of ways for readers to solve the problem themselves. Journalists who assert legislation as the principal method for fighting marine debris eliminate plastic from the source. Conversely, American journalists predominantly framed the environmental threat of marine debris as a cultural issue. This individualistic approach aims to motivate privileged readers to make lifestyle changes that, notionally, will suppress global consumption of single-use plastics.

Research limitations/implications: The individualistic approach common in American news coverage aims to motivate privileged readers to make lifestyle changes that, notionally, will suppress global consumption of single-use plastics. This approach does not reflect the scientific communities overwhelming scepticism of oversimplistic solutions to this global environmental issue.

Originality/value: This foundational paper offers issue frames through which social science research on framing, rhetorical criticism and media effects of marine litter news coverage can build upon.

Citation

McKinnon, A. (2021), "Journalism Needs to Get Political about Plastic Pollution: French vs US Approaches", Topić, M. and Lodorfos, G. (Ed.) The Sustainability Debate (Critical Studies on Corporate Responsibility, Governance and Sustainability, Vol. 14), Emerald Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 191-204. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2043-905920210000015011