ABSTRACT
Frame contests and environmental politics In evaluating the factors influencing social movement strategies, media coverage, and political decisions, many framing scholars have followed the lead of sociologist William Gamson, adopting a “social constructivist” approach. According to this line of research, in order to make sense of political issues, citizens use as resources the frames available in media coverage, but integrate these packages with their own mental frames of reference forged by way of personal experience and conversations with others. Media frames might help set the terms of the debate among political actors and the public, but rarely, if ever, do they exclusively determine public opinion. Instead, as part of a “frame contest,” one interpretative package might gain influence because it resonates with popular culture or a series of events; fits with media routines or practices; and/or is heavily sponsored by powerful political actors (Gamson and Modigliani 1989; Gamson 1992; Price, Nir, and Capella 2005; Nisbet 2009a). The framing of an environmental issue can also influence broader public attention while also shaping the “scope of participation” in a political debate (defined as the types and numbers of groups who are involved in policy making). In fact, across the history of many policy debates, power has turned on the ability to not only control attention to an issue within policy contexts or in the media, but also to simultaneously frame the nature of the problem and what should be done (Nisbet and Huge 2006; 2007; Hansen 2011). If a group or coalition is favored by the status quo in environmental policy making, it is in their best interest to frame issues in highly technical, scientific, or legalistic ways and to downplay possible risks, since these interpretations tend to deflect wider news attention, and attract only narrow constituencies (Nisbet and Huge 2006; 2007, see also Schlichting 2013). Under these conditions, journalists lack the dramatic grist to produce coverage of an issue on an ongoing basis, meaning that overall news attention will remain low and sporadic (Nisbet and Huge 2006; 2007). But, on the other hand, if a group or coalition is disadvantaged by the status quo in policy making, it is usually in their best interest to reframe an environmental issue in terms of dramatic risks/costs and in moral ways. These interpretations are more likely to shift decision making from regulatory arenas such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to overtly political contexts such as Congress or the White House, where arguments emphasizing dramatic risks and morality have more sway. Under these conditions, it becomes potentially easier to mobilize a more diverse coalition of groups to challenge the status quo, to generate widespread media coverage, and to influence broader public opinion (Nisbet and Huge 2006; 2007, see also Cox 2010; Hestres 2013).
