Browsing by Author "Salminen, Inna"

Diminishing biodiversity, and biodiversity loss as an environmental crisis, are becoming more and more prominent in the public discussion. In Finland, biodiversity and forests are inevitably intertwined. Historical use of forests and forestry have resulted in conflicts that influence the social context where the interrelationship between biodiversity and forestry is discussed. Finnish forests are defined through multiple, competing values and goals, which have led to polarization of political discussions about forests. Media have an essential role representing these different viewpoints and shaping general opinion. This study examines what kind of frames are used in the media, when discussing biodiversity and forestry, and what kind of existing forest discourses can be identified by the help of frames. Research data consist of 55 articles from Yle, 80 articles from Helsingin Sanomat and 65 articles from Maaseudun Tulevaisuus that have all been collected 1.1.2020−31.5.2021 and that discuss biodiversity and forestry. Research methods used were frame analysis and complementary content analysis. In the analysis, both issue specific frames and general news frames were identified. Issue specific frames suggest to the reader, how and what to think about biodiversity and forestry, what kind of relationship they have, what the relation can result in, and how possible controversies can be solved. Five different issue specific frames were identified: A frame that sees forestry as a threat to biodiversity, a frame that suggests nature conservation as a solution to biodiversity loss, a frame that considers biodiversity loss as a complex problem, a frame that suggests biodiversity conservation has negative impacts, and a frame arguing that integrating biodiversity preservation and forestry is possible. Integration frame was further divided into optimistic, critical, and continuous-cover forestry as a solution subframes. The integration frame was applied most often but the use of frames varied notably between different media outlets. Besides issue specific frames, journalistic texts were organized with general news frames, of which conflict frame was the most frequent one. Media frames fortified, built, as well as challenged, and evaluated existing forest discourses. In conclusion, the diversity of frames will uphold the inflammatory voices in forest discussion but also consolidate the voices of underdogs by questioning the current forestry practices and by relocating the focus from forestry into the societal consequences biodiversity loss will inflict.