Calling into the void? German forest dieback 2.0 debate on Twitter. A case study to operationalize the analysis of discursive power in hybrid media systems
Philipp Mack , Ida Wallin , Mariella Susann Zwickel , Jonas Pfistner , Lena König , Daniela Kleinschmit
{"title":"Calling into the void? German forest dieback 2.0 debate on Twitter. A case study to operationalize the analysis of discursive power in hybrid media systems","authors":"Philipp Mack , Ida Wallin , Mariella Susann Zwickel , Jonas Pfistner , Lena König , Daniela Kleinschmit","doi":"10.1016/j.forpol.2025.103447","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div><em>Forest dieback 2.0</em> is the common term for describing climate change-related forest damages that sparked a nation-wide debate in Germany starting in 2018. Referring to the “first” <em>forest dieback</em> in the 1980s that inspired environmental movements and policy changes, raises questions concerning today's mobilization potential. Political communication has been profoundly transformed, mainly through the spread of digital media. To understand the current debate, it is thus crucial to consider the complex entanglements in hybrid media systems. We contribute to the operationalization of analyzing discursive power in hybrid media systems, through Twitter-actor-networks as well as tweet-hyperlink-networks, representing a communication space where older and newer media logics blend. Results suggest a scattered debate characterized by insulated communication networks of few central actors. Whereas forestry frames dominate <em>original tweets</em>, nature conservation frames are more likely to be <em>amplified</em> through retweets. Despite having largest number of followers, legacy media actors show low <em>centralities</em> in the Twitter-network. However, their influence must be seen in regard to the referred hyperlinks. Interactions between tweets and hyperlinks revealed different mechanisms for how frames are <em>introduced</em> and <em>amplified</em>. Besides mainly following the cleavage between forestry and nature conservationists, alternative frames instrumentalize forest damages to call for climate action or climate change skepticism. Despite these controversies and insulated communication, the <em>forest dieback 2.0</em> debate on Twitter does not appear to be <em>destructively</em> polarized. Nevertheless, further research needs to carefully examine the polarization potential. Due to the limited outreach, however, the Twitter debate largely seems like a calling into the void.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":12451,"journal":{"name":"Forest Policy and Economics","volume":"172 ","pages":"Article 103447"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Forest Policy and Economics","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934125000267","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Forest dieback 2.0 is the common term for describing climate change-related forest damages that sparked a nation-wide debate in Germany starting in 2018. Referring to the “first” forest dieback in the 1980s that inspired environmental movements and policy changes, raises questions concerning today's mobilization potential. Political communication has been profoundly transformed, mainly through the spread of digital media. To understand the current debate, it is thus crucial to consider the complex entanglements in hybrid media systems. We contribute to the operationalization of analyzing discursive power in hybrid media systems, through Twitter-actor-networks as well as tweet-hyperlink-networks, representing a communication space where older and newer media logics blend. Results suggest a scattered debate characterized by insulated communication networks of few central actors. Whereas forestry frames dominate original tweets, nature conservation frames are more likely to be amplified through retweets. Despite having largest number of followers, legacy media actors show low centralities in the Twitter-network. However, their influence must be seen in regard to the referred hyperlinks. Interactions between tweets and hyperlinks revealed different mechanisms for how frames are introduced and amplified. Besides mainly following the cleavage between forestry and nature conservationists, alternative frames instrumentalize forest damages to call for climate action or climate change skepticism. Despite these controversies and insulated communication, the forest dieback 2.0 debate on Twitter does not appear to be destructively polarized. Nevertheless, further research needs to carefully examine the polarization potential. Due to the limited outreach, however, the Twitter debate largely seems like a calling into the void.
期刊介绍:
Forest Policy and Economics is a leading scientific journal that publishes peer-reviewed policy and economics research relating to forests, forested landscapes, forest-related industries, and other forest-relevant land uses. It also welcomes contributions from other social sciences and humanities perspectives that make clear theoretical, conceptual and methodological contributions to the existing state-of-the-art literature on forests and related land use systems. These disciplines include, but are not limited to, sociology, anthropology, human geography, history, jurisprudence, planning, development studies, and psychology research on forests. Forest Policy and Economics is global in scope and publishes multiple article types of high scientific standard. Acceptance for publication is subject to a double-blind peer-review process.