Cláudia Herte de Moraes.
In this paper we present and discuss the construction and articulation of these discourses during the coverage of Rio + 20, a conference that had as its main theme the Green Economy. The brazilian magazines Veja, Isto É, Época and Carta Capital are analyzed. We use Journalism Theories, under the theoretical-methodological perspective of Discourse Analysis, to understand how the selections presented in each journal determine that the reports have a certain focus and, with this, we identify the "discursive framework" of each publication. However, to address the growing debate globally, since the IV Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the discourse that predominates in the articles analyzed is that of the green economy, and is then considered as the basis of the hegemonic discursive formation.
Aceptado: 15-01-2017 / Recibido: 21-02-2017
* Federal University of Santa Maria. Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil.
La economía verde como aversión discursiva al cambio climático en las revistas semanales brasileñas
Este artículo tiene el objetivo de presentar la construcción y articulación de discursos sobre el tema del cambio climático en la cobertura de Río + 20, realizada por las revistas brasileñas Veja, Isto É, Época y Carta Capital. Con el apoyo de las Teorias Del Periodismo y bajo el punto de vista teórico y metodológico de la Análisis del Discurso, analizamos las diferencias y regularidades de los discursos. Entendemos que desde la selección de los temas, de las fuentes de los reportajes, del foco, hay un punto de vista específico de cada publicación – es decir su "marco discursivo", que está en el lugar del movimiento discursivo del evento notificado, y que básicamente responde a la pregunta: "¿qué es lo que está sucediendo aquí?". Por otra parte, se observó que el discurso de las revistas se deriva de una formación discursiva hegemónica, de perspectiva económica, basado en los conceptos de modernización ecológica, de desarrollo sostenible, y por la percepción del riesgo y de la incertidumbre de la humanidad acerca de su futuro.
There are no doubts about the establishment of an environmental crisis on a global scale. The climate change becomes, in this new millennium, the main mass self-destruction threat, impacting the social imaginary and the debates on risks, dangers, uncertainties and also choices and paths generated by this inter-generational deadlock. Science is largely responsible for this scheduling, as well as the very socio-environmental problems that, for being harsh and diffuse, start to be perceived as an alert to various societies in the world. Climate change has been considered and environmental issue for more than 20 years, but only in 2007 it gained worldwide projection, with special focus on spreading the IV Report
of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which pointed out as unequivocal the thesis on global warming.
An effective debate by journalism is a way to point out the decision taking towards actions that may change the course of “development”1. In this context, observing journalistic talks about the climate change is important to perceive how connections among knowledge, ideologies 2and attitudes are socially issued. In this essay, the main results of recent researches are presented, where the theme was observed, indicating the discursive approaches of Brazilian general information magazines (Veja, Isto É, Época and Carta Capital) in covering the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, Rio+20. The research deepens the observation of the approach in its relations with journalistic newsworthiness, supported by Discourse Analysis (DA).
The production condition context of the observed discourses comes from the hegemonic ideology of big business, as it is globally put. Thus, the green economy (GE) general approach is presented as the “opposite” of the discourse on climate change, that is, now GE is trying to imposing itself as the answer to the global environmental crisis. The discursive location of journalism carries its social legitimization in reporting facts and, in addition, plants itself under an imaginary and credibility relation with its audience. From this privileged place, it is understood that journalism inflects the discursive approach, a notion that was developed as an analysis device and that gathers ideas of scheduling and newsworthiness to constructed senses their respective discursive formations3.
The environmental question is always permeated with different approaches, actors and topics that stand out, conflicts and definitions, not really definite. Thus, climate change is currently becoming the most broad-ranging and with the greatest coverage; is it associated to great catastrophes of social impact. The world concern on the issues has already been exemplified by Giddens (1999) in relation to the “manufacturing uncertainty” and in Beck, to the “world risk society” (1997). In the reflexive modernization and risk society, it becomes evident that transformations classified as systemic reach the understanding we have on the outreach of environmental issues, in the review of the relationship between the industrial society and the so-called natural resources. Moreover, social and environmental risks seem very close, even if threats are potentially directed, causing a great advance in the search for safety. It is also interesting to point out that the risk perception is only possible
Development here is used from a current notion of the Western thinking, which is close to the idea of economic growth as society’s fundamental matrix. However, we criticize this concept, since it is limited to economic aspects and is harmful to the life of the planet.
The discursive definition of ideology involves interpreting, since it is the ideology that gives sense to the world and, at the same time, denies the interpretation process. “What is produced in the relation between historical and symbolic is naturalized” and places man “in the imaginary relation with their material existing conditions” (Orlandi, 2010: 46).
Discursive Formation (DF) is one of the main notions of DA; it is considered as what may - or may not - be said in a
determined historical conjuncture, affected by ideology.
when society starts to take care of the “future” and, in this aspect, the central definition of
sustainable development concept is exactly the idea of a legacy for the “future generations”.
In the ecologic modernity scope (Buttel, 2000; Mol, 2000), we basically visualize the discourse that environmental advances and improvement may correct the visible ecologic unbalances in the industrial society. That is, there is a possibility of reversal in the industrialized societies, without economic de-industrialization or deceleration, partly contributing so that radical environmentalism is contested in its essence. Nevertheless, in this space there are still many disputes in relation to the type of sustainable development deriving from ecologic modernization. However, at least partially, the predominant discourse is tied to the market, associated to technological innovations, as much as possible, becoming one of the pillars defined by Giddens (2010) to face climate changes. According to the author, “Giddens’ paradox” affects almost all aspects of the current reactions to climate changes, and it in the middle of a series of other influences, even in the elites’ consumption, in geopolitics and in the role of industrialized countries.
In Giddens’ proposal (2010), climate change is a paradox for contemporaneity, between acting now or too late. Above all, in spite of our distrust in science, it is still the main support in the search for discourse legitimization and consensus within the international scope. Even if decisions are being made based on socio-environmental, economic and cultural asymmetries, the alarm of global risk reaches the entire world. Together with this, there is the so-called “precautionary principle”, which may be used both for good or bad. In the meantime, in this scenario, it is still faith in the knowledge about the world (and about nature) that dismissed the perspective of an unsurpassable catastrophe, thus keeping the “sustainable development” as a central matter in this debate.
An ecotechnocratic interpretation is connected to the systematization performed by Caporal & Costabeber (2000). For the authors, the ecotechnocratic vision is defined starting from the economic, liberal logic, which does not consider economic, social and environmental contradictions; it is strongly established in the ecological modernization, under the domain of technological optimism. In addition, this vision does not make room for biodiversity, including the cultural one, preaching the resolution of the growth problem.
On the other side, Capra (2006) brings the ecological vision as a basis for social change, since “deep ecology will need radical changes in our perception of the role of human beings on the planetary ecosystem” (p. 403). Looking at environmental questions from a different point of view is quite difficult, since we are constantly inundated by discourses on ecological modernity. Capra adds that is necessary to look for a new way of evaluating problems, since “[...] today we live in a globally interconnected world, where biological, physiological, social and environmental phenomena are all interdependent” (Capra, 2006, p.14). Thus, deep ecology is opposed to the instrumental vision of nature; it assumes that the other entities must be subjugated to the interests of human beings.
The possibility of understanding the indivisible character of the relationship man- nature happens, according to Morin (1997) only starting from a new paradigm, since “[...] it sustains the choice of words that will constitute the discourse chain”, that is, it controls
discourse:”[...] the set of basic logical relations interfering among base concepts, which, in turn, control culture and, therefore, also control a thought and a discourse (Morin, 1997, p.62-63)”. Contemporary rationality must be then modified, since the environmental issue belongs to the everyday life of all people, even if at their opening even to ecological ideas they did not perform man-nature union. This means that the ecological thinking brings important aspects for the solution of contemporary problems. “Ecological thinking is a way of thought that reflects the logic of natural reality and the complexity of living organization” (Morin, 1997, p.62). In relation to the idea of progress, activated by the inter-discourse 4of sustainable development, Morin evaluates that it carries a non-equal distribution of goods and, with this, it compromises the promised quality of life. Thus, the author illustrates the idea of complex thinking, for which it deconstruct notions that should be, therefore, auto critical and reflexive, containing denial, uncertainty, degradation (Morin, 2005). The rationalist vision of the world developed ideas and processes that rationalize what is real, but eliminate the contradictions.
Another author postulating the paradigm change to facing environmental issues is Enrique Leff, according to whom the so-called civilizing process that we are experiencing is based on “the instrumental and economic rationality that shaped the different spheres of the social body: technological standards, production practices, bureaucratic organization and the ideological apparatus of the State” (Leff, 2001, p.133). The role of the environmental issue is exactly to question the costs of this rationality and establish the need for democratic reforms. Leff (2001) points out that the capitalist rationality was associated to a scientific and technological rationality, in order to forecast and control reality, with the search for effectiveness between means and goals. The environmental knowledge questions this rationality as an instrument of nature domination. In this line of thought, knowledge cannot be reduced to market.
The perspective of environmental knowledge is also a support to search for the discursive formations that are understood as heterogeneous5. The hegemonic discursive formations, more oriented to capitalism than environmentalism, may contain some slip-offs in relation to the ecological thinking, towards complexity and environmental rationality. Thus, it is possible to understand that both the environmental sociologic theories constructed in the last decades (ecological modernization, risk society) and the proposals for a new rationality are pertinent for the analysis of the climate change themes in the discourses of Brazilian magazines, since there is a not always peaceful coexistence between different discursive formations within a predominant discursive formation.
An interpretation line of environmental bias is brought by Caporal & Costabeber (2000): it is the eco-social current, which, in general, contains the idea of structural
Interdiscourse is intended as the space of discursive memory, an archive where new discourse productions search for anchoring and dialog, allowing the “new” discourse to be perceived as something pertinent to the interlocutor, producing determined meaning effects.
We use the concept of heterogeneous Discursive Formation, also understood as an open DF. This is because we understand that contradictions are inherent to ideology and, in this moment, from the contradiction, other meanings coming from other formations may be observed.
changes, with the support of the eco-development concept appeared in the 1970s. This vision still uses the cultural (culture as a fundamental instance of relation with nature) and eco-socialist (green capitalism is not able to solve social problems) discourses. The eco-social discourse thus gathers various sources of emergent discourse influences, with emphasis on the solidarity between current and future generations. Another differential, in relation to the ecotechnocratic vision to which it radically opposes, is the respect for traditional technologies and also biodiversity and culture. In opposition, therefore, to a liberal development and critical to green economy. (Caporal & Costabeber, 2000).
In our view, the discursive question on climate crisis is a crucial point in the organization of these scenarios, which are created from a world system. Thus, we point out the compelling role of communication media, which are responsible for covering events related to the theme. We agree with Carvalho, who indicates the reproduction of media, selecting perspectives and social authors, proposing ways of seeing social issues (Carvalho, 2011). Particularly, the journalistic discourse is a part of the great web of social discourses about climate change, which are connected to ideological conceptions. We understand that this global question is also inserted in the scope of disputes about sustainable development, or, saying it in another way, directed to “our common future”. We highlight that the theoretical-political paradigm adopted in the research is committed to the creation of life sustainability, that is, we are in line with the eco-social current and environmental knowledge, perspectives that support the creation of a new spirit for Journalism.
Constructionist theories of journalism are among the theoretical models of the study, which has as a general functioning the distrust in relation to neutral language, since in this constructivist paradigm, we have that “[...] all representation is a subjective construction of reality” (Benetti, 2007, p.110). It is also an assumption of these theories the fact that means structure the representation of events, due to, among other factors, the organization of the journalistic work and its routines, establishing types and formats to deal with unexpected facts. Thus, we understand that journalists are participants of the construction of reality and that news are culturally marked narratives and therefore created from field discursive processes. The choice of journalists is not totally free, since from cultural institutional repertoires there is a general orientation.
Correia (2012) states that the social construction of reality 6by means of communication comes from the public dimension and information collective, since “[...] journalism works according to the rules of public discourse” (Correia, 2012, p.86). That is, discourses - for
As for the concept of the social construction of reality, by de Berger & Luckman (1996/2008), used in important reference works, such as in Tuchman (1993), Verón (1981) and Alsina (2009) — Meditsch (2010) points out that there is no clear relation in the work A construção social da realidade (1966), which mentiones the journalistic field as “[...] a reference used by individuals in the ‘conservation’ of the already interiorized reality” (p. 22). According to Meditsch, in a more recent work, Berger & Luckman start to recognize the key-role of the media, even if not exactly of Journalism. In addition, media are considered as actors, among others, that dispute the production of meaning - this is the perspective with which we agree (Meditsch, 2010: 22-24).
being ideological and political - need the visibility of communication means in order to be recognized in their validity claims. A way of constructing reality by Journalism is based on specific criteria, that is, on news-values. Thus, there is a great concern of journalistic studies about the selection operated starting from newsworthiness criteria, because they portrait to society a panorama that, in spite of being a way of reading reality, presents itself as “the reality” (Kunczik, 2002). News selection is considered a fundamental process in studies of the area, according to Sousa (2001), because newspapers are primarily based on the selection of events that are transformed into news.
In order to have a record of environmental problems in the means of communication, Hannigan (1995) identified five factors based on literature: in order to gain prominence, a potential problem must be launched in terms of resonance in existing cultural concepts (Kunst & Witlos, 1993); the problem’s potential must be articulated to the agendas of the established ones, especially politicians and scientists (Hansen, 1991); environmental problems must carry “social drama”, according to Palmlund (1992), bringing a dramatic representation with guilt and celebration games; it must be able to relate to the present, and not to a distant future. Finally, the problem must have an action agenda, at an international or local community level. That is, it is necessary that tangible results are presented, which implies that complex problems are left aside.
We thus realize that the environmental event, as proposed by Hannigan (1995), is limited to the characteristic typologies of the journalistic event. As for discourse, we mainly question the naturalization, operated by ideology, of the insensible exploitation of natural resources in favor of profit, related to social inequalities and, in some cases, to invisible ecocides, themes that are not part of the “pregnancy” system described by Charaudeau (2007). Climate change may be understood this way, it is slow and gradual, but growing in time, with perspectives of reaching in a larger scale the poorest and most vulnerable.
By indicating the study of the journalistic framework as a space to construct knowledge about a determined theme, it does not mean at all that Journalism “determines” world visions. Before, we understand that Journalism, as well as other social spaces, performs an “offer” of meanings, being therefore a part of the social construction of different discursive formations, places for the constitution of meanings. Discursive Formation (DF) is “[...] understood as mastering the knowledge constituted by discursive statements that represent a way of engaging with the current ideology, regulating what may and must be said, but also what may not, must not be said” (InduRisky, 1998, p.115). Thus, we study Journalism as a discursive practice, since it “[...] integrates discursive formation and the social group/s inside which discourse is produced” (InduRisky, 1997, p.20). With this, the institutionalization of Journalism is considered a part of its social legitimization, which gives it a privileged enunciation place.
We consider the framework as a sort of “variable”, a device for our discursive analysis.
We point out that the adopted framework perspective is based on Goffman (1986),
to whom the framework question refers to a set of significant elements that lead to an interpretation “picture”. Since we joined Discourse Analysis, we understand the framework as a “discursive framework”, insofar as the fact that beyond the journalistic approach, we have Discursive Formation (DF) as the basis for the selection, angle and emphasis of each text. Thus, during the analyses, we also identified DF’s and their inter-discursive relations.
Our observables are texts covering Rio+20 that indicate the climate change topic as the background of a broader debate about the choices for the future of humanity. We selected articles from the magazines and, at a first reading, we searched for discursive markers indicating the approach of the topic. We observed how economic, social, cultural, environmental or political questions were constructed, searching for the meaning effects starting from discursive analysis. It is important to highlight that we selected only “report” texts in the form of articles, that is, articles and interviews with specialists were discarded from the corpus. We present Table 1, identifying the magazines, publication dates and titles of the analyzed texts.
MAGAZINE | DATE | TITLE |
Veja | 06/13/2012 | Rio+20: O que esperar do encontro que celebra o triunfo da consciência ambiental Rio+20: A terra que queremos Rio+20 Ciência: Um dogma começa a derreter |
06/20/2012 | Rio+20: As reais questões ambientais que afetam as pessoas aqui e agora foram esquecidas Verdades inconvenientes Quem vai pagar a conta? | |
Isto É | 06/13/2012 | O que o Brasil vai levar para a Rio+20 |
06/20/2012 | Rio+20: Rio, capital da Terra | |
06/27/2012 | Especial/Rio+20 Está em nossas mãos Enquanto os líderes mundiais aprovam um documento de eficácia questionada, prefeitos, empresários e a sociedade civil assumem o comando das soluções para salvar o planeta | |
06/27/12 | 20 entraves para o desenvolvimento sustentável Quem tem o poder? O que líderes, prefeitos e empresários têm feito (ou não) pelo bem do planeta” A vez do povo Na base da conversa |
MAGAZINE | DATE | TITLE |
Época | 06/18/2012 | Rio+20 O futuro dele depende de nós O desafio de garantir riquezas e recursos para as próximas gerações Quanto vale o futuro Militantes em causa própria |
06/25/2012 | A ideologia do clima | |
Carta Capital | 06/13/2012 | Rio+20: O que esperar da Conferência das Nações Unidas Rio+20: Os objetivos, as discussões e as apostas da conferência O legado da Rio 92 Nossa produção de energia está entre as mais limpas do globo. E temos muito a avançar |
06/27/2012 | Rio+20, mais caos e mais enrolação |
Veja7 magazine, because of its position in the publishing market, is actually the biggest defender of the status quo as it is today in our society. Thus, we realize in its framework about the environment a clear pattern of capitalism ideological meanings. The anthropocentric discourse is preponderant. The magazine discourse points out that the UN summits about the environment do not have great success or blatant failure; it indicates a caveat for the political field in the realization of agreements and practical actions, which would produce results. This counterpoint comes from the pre-assumption that governments are slower than private initiative, a basic argument of economic liberalism and that becomes an understanding of the general functioning of political relations as well. At the same time as greenhouse effect gas emissions increased between Rio92 and Rio+20, the magazine points out that there has been a “progress” considered excellent, especially by firms, and a bit by governments. However, many of them are indicated as only using the advertising interest of sustainability.
The discursive framework indicates individual actions or initiatives by businessmen and governments that are urged by “conscious consumers”. Using the term “consumer” ratifies its observation place of ecological questions for a “market” attitude, where only the economic aspects stand out. Firms and governments are forced to respect the environment, since the environmental issue is displaced to individual choices. These
Veja is the second information magazine in the world, with a circulation of 871,684 copies, of which 799.623 are subscriptions, with a total of 8.615.000 estimated readers (Grupo Abril, 2016).
choices are considered as a “new chance” to understand the environmental moment. The path, according to Veja, is the pressure of the consumer in relation to companies so that they respect limits, being a “one way street”. Thus, the environmental question is placed and reduced to a mere economic exchange, a consumption relationship. It also brings the empowerment of consumers as social actors, an agent of change within this economic- based vision of society.
This also explains why the term Green Economy stands out both in the Conference and the event coverage. We can think that the meaning of Green Economy, which is briefly described as “how the capitalist world will grow”, aiming at closing the question on the fact that there is no other alternative, unless capitalism, and there is no other path, unless growth. That is, it is about the functioning of the inter-discourse on the use of natural resources with main goal of growing. Green Economy is welcomed as a growth way of the capitalist world, in the middle of the economic crisis, but without “swallowing” natural resources, “to the extent of killing them”. The use of economic language, which is repeated in various moments during the coverage of Rio+20, establishes the idea of a “check” for the future generations. This is in the strict metaphorical or economic sense, since it is already known that the world climate crisis will be a struggle for populations to survive.
Veja’s economic framework is largely anchored in a Instrumentalist Discursive Formation, with the ecotechnocratic inter-discourse (according to the systematization by Caporal & Costabeber, 2000), since meanings are brought to the field of natural resources use at the service of an economic growth, where the market is a great actor in the process, more than rulers themselves, guided by the conscience of every consumer in requiring products from a “clean” origin, within the logic of green economy.
In relation to global warming, the framework brings distrust about the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Veja works on the principle of deconstructing IPCC’s scientific ideas, which provide the basis to the knowledge and promotion of consumption standards affecting the planet (Figure 1). Strong adjectives to displace the idea of global warming related to human actions point out that man “is not the big villain” and put, therefore, the theme in a narrative dimension similar to a war between good and evil. Using the words of the “environmentalist” James Loverlock8, who depicts and places himself as a fool, affirming that both men and trees are responsible for the warming, Veja leads to discredit other scientists, especially IPCC integrants, who indicate human actions as fundamental in the speeding of the current global warming process.
In the deconstruction of the anthropocentric role of the climate issue, there is the use of the characteristics from the source which gives authority, such as being considered “an environment hero”, elected by the Times magazine. Therefore, he is compared to Al Gore (Peace Nobel Prize in 2007), whereas his former opinions are pointed out for being “terrifying forecasts on the future of the planet”.
In light of this uncertainty in relation to economy, the magazine indicates that society has already defined a path, which is contained in the expression “responsible consumption”. However, consumption is still part of the problem, even if called responsible or sustainable. Moreover, the discourse of consumption as a solution for the problem ends up being a simplifying aspect of the climate crisis, because there is a lot more to invest and change in culture, politics, and economy.
The future of the planet is actually a debate on the future of humanity, facing an unprecedented environmental crisis. However, Veja’s discursive framework may be summarized in the following way: priority to human needs, we are using and we can use nature in the most convenient way, with “green” products for everybody’s consumption.
Isto É9 magazine uses a tone of discredit for the framework of Rio+20, because of the lack of politicians from great powers, especially Germany and the US. It labels the actions of the Brazilian government as not ambitious, explicating that they start from the concept of social inclusion combined with preservation, especially for the presentation of Bolsa Verde, a financial help paid to families who live in extractive reservations.
The idea of Sustainable Development is exposed at its maximum in the part “granting that future generations also have a planet to exploit”. What rings a bell in this discursive sequence is also that global economy and the continuous and infallible growth paradigm
Loverlock is considered a renowned source for two main reasons: for the creation of a device that helped detecting the growing hole in the ozone layer, in the 1970s, and that boosted the environmentalis movement, and also for the Gaia Hypothesis, which proposes that planet Earth is a living organism.
9 Editora Três has been publishing Isto É magazine for 35 years. With a circulation of 312.767 copies, of which 93% are subscriptions (Editora Três, 2016).
is put as the only feasible way for society. It is an already-made framework, without considering the questionings about “sustainable development”, or other ways of social organization. The predominant vision is to continuously exploiting nature. It indicated the “sustainable development” as “the only path to avoid a future collapse of the world production”. In this framework, the main concern is about “production” and the success of “capitalism”. In this discourse, there is no notion questioning the capitalist production/ consumption way, engine of the environmental crisis.
The magazine works the meaning of the definition in relation the “future of the planet”, which brings a sense of redemption, a salvationist discourse that indicates a mistake first, since it is the people who are at risk of not having a future; the Earth will outlast us. However, this misunderstanding is the very inter-discourse that comes up, since it refers to already pronounced ideas on the relation of man’s supremacy over the other creatures. Thus, it demonstrates a man-nature relationship according to rationalist paradigms coined by modernity.
The framework is critical in relation to scientific uncertainties of the models indicating global warming. By putting the “climate kicks” note, the distrust in relation to scientists is reinforced. There is a focus shift to actions in a smaller scale, by mayors and company leaders, questioning the validity of national leaders and international governments who simply sign documents that “no-one knows whether they will be kept”. The meaning of leaderships out of the axis of heads of states comes up, especially mayors, businessmen
and civil organizations. Thus, the framework constructs a new performance place in relation to facing the environmental crisis.
By analyzing articles from Isto É, we propose a summarized framework: world leaders are discredited, but hope lies in the social protagonism and in the search for “solutions”. The magazine offers to think about the “future of the planet” and it thus brings a salvationist tone. Ecotechnocratic DF is predominant. By proposing to save the planet, it forgets that it is humans who are in danger. This risk notion towards humanity and not “the planet”, would probably contribute so that the predominant man-nature relationship would be questioned.
Época10 magazine announces that “His future depends on us” (Figure 3) and it associates to the dependence between generations. “The challenge of granting richness and resources to the future generations” reinforces the idea of a commitment of “our” generation with the future. The discourse about the future is directly connected to the use of “resources and wealth”. The meaning mobilizes the idea that we have the key to organize and use natural resources; it associates to the idea that resources are already at our disposal. That is, it is a meaning according to which we are the owners of these resources and we can use them in various ways. Thus, we indicate that the discourse of Época magazine is oriented towards a constant and continuous progress, possible starting from a rational use of the planet resources (Figure 3). It also indicates that there is supremacy of man in relation to nature, since the future “is in our hands”. Ecotechnocratic DF is therefore identified.
Época magazine has a circulation of 398,628 copies, of which 89% are directed to subscribers, with a projection of 4,374,000 readers (ÉPOCA, Midiakit, 2007).
On one hand, if Época’s discourse implies the “property of nature”, on the other hand it institutes a minimum responsibility in relation to future, because it indicates that there is a challenge, the one of leaving a legacy to the next generations, so that they keep on producing wealth in the future. Época thus construct a political way of forwarding solutions for the environmental crisis, in order to think about a way out from the elements that are within our reach (of “our generation”) to create a welcoming future. The political constitution of discourse is given by the mobilization of a sense of possibility, the one oriented to science and technology, but also related to a responsibility ethics.
The need for an action towards the future is directly connected to economic questions. Nature is classified as “planetary resource”. There is also an emphasis on the use of technologies to avoid catastrophe. It is clear that what is at stake in capitalism is to move its own system (so that everything stays the same) and, for that, the main doubt is about this change that appears to be necessary and the debate about financing ways of this “new economy”. The inappropriate brought by the magazine’s framework is exactly the world economic crisis. This crisis affecting the richest countries would bring the lack of political will to perform change.
They point out that the conclusions of scientists “are appalling”. What does that mean? That lacks for the future generation causes terror, they scare for the great world extent and for the depth of the environmental crisis. Scientists are considered legitimate informers of the dark future for populations, as in the part where they predict that the lack of water will affect two thirds of humanity. The attitude of the magazine framing the so-called climate skeptics as “pseudo-scientists” that insist on “spreading rants” is interesting. Global warming is considered certain and with consequences over the food chain, the flooding of cities and the worsening of climate phenomena like droughts and flooding.
The thesis of the global warming is put in IPCC terms. This highlights human activity in the gas emission, especially for deforestation and the use of fossil fuels. The most catastrophic events, however, are minimized, saying that there could be an exaggeration, but the environmental neglect is considered expensive. In the end, the theme of green economy is launched, in order to question the cost of this “turn”. The framework of a “cleaner economy” is the market; this is the reason for the idea of profit both for producers and for nature. The “immediate financial return” of aluminum recycling is an example. The discourse is directed towards how to make the economy’s wheel turn, starting from “green” businesses or from the so-called Green Economy.
Since the framework is about the value moved in financial terms and the jobs created by green economy initiatives, the magazine places an impasse where the solution and the problem are at the same level: economy. Thus, the discursive alignment is give by Ecotechnocratic Discursive Formation, but we realize that there are slight moves to the Eco-social Discursive Formation, emphasizing new ways of environmental conscience, with an emphasis on new generations.
Within this discursive construction, the magazine presents characters, children and young people, who become the core of the article. The discourse aims at pressuring
young people, who need to evaluate everything they consume, what they do, including during entertainment. It shows a behavior change of youngsters and children, but the emphasis is also a knot, because there is no other way out for the generations receiving the environmental crisis at the point where it is. As an example of individual action, the mobilizations guided by young people who stop polluting site are highlighted.
As for climate change, Época ratifies that there is scientific consensus about the influence of human activity on global warming. However, the discourse repeats that Rio+20 had a timid result and little repercussion because of the absence of the president of the US; therefore, the argumentation of the magazine according to which the movement to limit global warming has lost its breath for ideological reason was reinforced.
We summarize Época’s discursive framework in the following way: We have the key to organize and use natural resources. We are owners and dependents. With this, we can state that there is a change of meaning for an ethics with the future (new generations). The magazine indicates the role of young people and the technological and economic solutions to limit the environmental crisis; however, the perspective comes from private initiative, of the market and of the economy. We identify the predominant DF as Ecotechnocratic, with a slight crossing to Eco-social DF.
The discourse of Carta Capital magazine11 about “what to expect” is put in such way that is looks “neutral”, but it is distrustful when put together with some consensus indicating that there are caveats about political problems, hindering the establishment of an agenda which includes all countries for a climate agreement during Rio+20. (Figure 4)
Carta Capital, with a circulation of 26 thousand copies. Published by Confiança editor for 18 years, it started with monthly
issues, then biweekly, and since 2001 it is weekly (Carta Capital, 2016).
The magazine questions if Rio+20 is an important step towards the definition of humanity direction in the environmental question. The framework, despite not being optimistic, is also not completely pessimistic. It says that also in 1992 there were no mandatory documents and, even so, Agenda 21 is considered a landmark in the relationship between cities and the environment. That is, failure cannot be pointed out beforehand. Another novelty implanted by the government in the conference is the calling to the participation of organizations, firms and social movements to discuss proposals on various fronts and complex themes. With this, the event that was directed to heads of states, becomes an issue of greater social participation, ratified by the declaration of the Environment minister.
However, the discourse becomes darker when the topic is economy. Contrasts among opinions are pointed out, also creating the expression “green economy skeptics”, a reference to the so-called “climate skeptics” (who do not consider human activity for the imminent global warming). The expression “who’s going to pay the check” is repeated during various moments of the press coverage, in relation to the proposals of economic changes towards the acclaimed green economy, and is repeated by Carta Capital. Moreover, the richest nations made a commitment of helping the development of the poorest, supporting sustainability; but they did not achieve their goals. With this, the suspect that an agreement is virtually impossible is in the air. However, on the horizon there is also the desire to take a path, even in the face of the global crisis, with medium and long term goals.
The framework of green economy and the discussion about a “new GDP” brings the dimension of how much it is necessary to change the way we think and we act towards the environment, with all the existing cultures in the world. In several of them, happiness is already an index that, not always measured or quantified, is taken into consideration for a community life. The economic debate is put by the magazine as the solution of a paradox between the finitude of some resources of the planet and the use of technology to solution and overcome crises. Both sides may be pondered, according to the source used for the article, as long as the proper technology is used, like for example, to provide the world with clean energy, using solar energy. This framework is directed to the concept of green economy, for which it is necessary to keep on creating development, starting from “clean” technology.
Therefore, it is contained in the predominant ecotechnocratic perspective. However, there is the warning that technological revolutions do not solve already existing unbalance problems in society, for example, in relation to the different needs of rich and poor. The article uses Capra’s proposal, putting the question in a civilizing point of view, not only economic. We realize this slight change in meaning, since the economic and scientific approach is dominant in Carta Capital’s framework.
The framework of green economy is taken as fundamental and is conceptualized within the idea of inclusion and equity, bringing, therefore, a slight change in meaning in relation to what is normally associated to the term “green economy”, generally pressured mainly by the market of clean products and technologies, in order to continue development and economic growth. New values are brought by the magazine, by treating the challenges
of Rio+20; among them, the reduction of inequality and a “less predatory” economy, with an emphasis on the role of Brazil, which has a model of social inclusion, low carbon emissions and advanced governance. Firms investing on innovation are highlighted in this new economic scenario. In this framework, the idea that the State is a motivator stands out, but companies are the avant-garde of investments and research. It defends the use of creativity to face old problems, such as domestic sewage in Brazil, which is considered a resource waste, since it could generate electricity. The framework of using the available technology for the economy is an important version of the green economy line. The vision of technology solving a great part of the environmental problems is reinforced. The role of the private business sector in the more effective management of resources and in the implantation of sustainability projects arises as a counterpoint to public power which often seems motionless towards the crisis.
We found the meaning of lack of time, indicating the “last chance”, therefore activating a pessimist and alarmist memory. The slight change occurs in some critics to the concept of green economy. Moreover, it presents the postulate that it would be necessary to work harder on inequality issues, saying that clean technologies, despite being associated to solutions for the environmental crisis, cannot solve political and social issues. Thus, we identified that Carta Capital is in line with the Ecotechnocratic DF, with strong crossing towards Eco-social DF.
By analyzing the discourses on climate change (and its economic tones), we realize that, ever since the selection of the themes, the used sources, the article approach, there is a specific vision of each publication towards what we analyzed as their “discursive framework”. Thus, with the discourse, magazines construct knowledge and collaborate to the public perception of the topic.
The discursive location of magazines affirms itself in relation to the socially legitimated place for Journalism, considered authorized to talk about public issues. The discursive perspective is one of a qualitative analysis and, in order to achieve our goal, we identified the framework of the magazines. The discursive framework is the way in which situations are presented within an interpretative frame, anchored to Discursive Formations, which forward the effects of meaning. They basically answer to the question about “what is going on here”, directing their readers to determined meanings, ideologically incorporated in the relationship between subjects and the world.
The framework is the result of relationships between Journalism and other fields, which appear in its discourse. The notion of discursive place has a social value of legitimizing Journalism as a place to report facts and, with it, Journalism also establishes with society an imaginary relationship. Finally, the discursive framework is characterized by the relationship between production conditions, discursive formations and inter-discourse, which embrace, in our conception, the decisions of journalists
about recognizing notable facts and their report, starting from the notions of scheduling, newsworthiness and framework.
We present the synthesis of discursive frameworks, as well as the relations between discourse (main meaning) and the found discursive formations.
Veja’s discursive framework: We are the owners of the planet, we have to consume and keep economy moving. Politicians are ineffective, scientists are wrong and economy saves. Meaning: climate change denial. Instrumentalist DF.
Isto É’s discursive framework: World leaders cannot agree, but we need to save the planet to grant the exploitation by future generations. Conscious consumption saves. Some social inclusion is necessary. Meaning: save to exploit. Ecotechnocratic DF.
Época’s discursive framework: Rio+20 is a failure and does not bring world agreements. There are technological innovations, but the economic crisis precludes investments. Global warming is already a reality, and the solution is in the hands of the conscience of the next generation in consuming and changing habits. Meaning: solution by technology and environmental conscience. Ecotechnocratic DF with SLIGHT crossing towards Eco-social DF.
Carta Capital’s discursive framework: Rio+20 did not have global governance. Problems are urgent and solutions pass through the transition to an economy of effective resource use and with more social equality. Meaning: Transition to green economy with social equality. Ecotechnocratic DF with STRONG crossing towards Eco-social DF.
With the outlined frameworks, we searched for a general discourse meaning, and in this movement, we found the transition of environmental issues and problems to a single solution idea: green economy. The question is: what is the meaning of GE? The answer lies in the modern rationality, in the limitless growth, which adds to the term the centrality of the contemporary environmental debate. The ideology of Green Economy is exactly about a world reaction to the climate crisis (to which the consumption standards are more and more unsustainable). However, the focus on economy is immediate, it is the search for a solution of a change without a real transformation. This is why we have the so-called “common resources” or common goods that are being coded and priced, in order to create profit as well. Thus, we identified this generation of new concepts in the magazines’ discourses. The management of climate change is a discourse on economic management, that is, the effectiveness in using resources.
Alsina, M. R. (2009). A construção da notícia, Petrópolis: Vozes.
Beck, Ü. (1997). “A reinvenção da política: rumo a uma teoria da modernização reflexiva”. In: Beck, U; Giddens, A. & Lash, S. (Orgs.). Modernização reflexiva, São Paulo: Ed. da Unesp.
Benetti, M. (2007). “A ironia como estratégia discursiva da revista Veja”. Líbero. Ano
X. Nº 20. São Paulo: Cásper Líbero, 37-46.
Berger, P. L; Luckmann, T. (2008). A construção social da realidade: tratado de sociologia do conhecimento. Petrópolis: Vozes.
Buttel, F. H. (2000). “Sociologia ambiental, qualidade ambiental e qualidade de vida: algumas observações teóricas”. In: Herculano, S. Qualidade de vida e riscos ambientais. Niterói: Ed. UFF, 29-47.
Caporal, F. R.; Costabeber, J. A. (2000). “Agroecologia e desenvolvimento rural sustentável: perspectivas para uma nova extensão rural”. Agroecologia e Desenvolvimento Rural Sustentável, Porto Alegre, v.1, n.1, pp.16-37, jan./mar.
Capra, F. (2006). O ponto de mutação: a ciência, a sociedade e a cultura emergente.
São Paulo: Cultrix..
Carta Capital (2016). Midia Kit 2014: Carta Capital. Retrieve from https://www. editoraconfianca.com.br/formatos_html/assets/editoraconfianca_20_07.pdf In: http://www.cartacapital.com.br/editora/cartacapital
Carvalho, A. (org) (2011). As alterações climáticas, os media e os cidadãos,
Coimbra: Grácio Editor.
Charaudeau, P. (2007). Discurso das mídias, São Paulo: Contexto.
Correia, J. C. (2012). “A construção social da realidade e o jornalismo como profissão especializada”. In: Cunha, I. F.; Cabrera, A.; Sousa, J. P. (Orgs). Pesquisa em Media e Jornalismo: homenagem a Nelson Traquina. Covilhã: Labcom, pp.79- 106.
Editora Três (2016). Mídia Kit Isto É. Retrieve from http://www.editora3.com.br/
downloads/midiakit_istoe.pdf In: http://www.editora3.com.br/istoe.php
Goffman, E. (1986). Frame analysis: an essay on the organization of experience.
Boston: Northeastern University Press.
Giddens, A. (2010). A política da mudança climática, Rio de Janeiro: Zahar.
Grupo Abril (2016). Circulação Veja. Retrieve from http://publiabril.abril.com.br/ marcas/veja/plataformas/revista-impressa
Hannigan, J. A. (1995). A Sociologia ambiental: a formação de uma perspectiva social, Lisboa: Instituto Piaget.
Hansen, A. (1991). “The media and the social construction of the environmental issues”.
InduRisky, F. (1997). A fala dos quartéis e as outras vozes, Campinas: Ed. da Unicamp.
InduRisky, F. (1998). “O sujeito e as feridas narcísicas dos linguistas”. In: Gragoatá,
Niterói, n. 5, pp. 111-120, 2. sem.
Kunczik, M. (2002). Conceitos de Jornalismo: Norte e Sul: manual de Comunicação.
Trad. Rafael Varela Jr. 2. ed. São Paulo: Edusp.
KUNST, M.; WITLOS, N. “Communication and the environment”. Communication Research Trends. N. 13, p.1-31, 1993.
Leff, E. (2001). Saber ambiental: Sustentabilidade, Racionalidade, Complexidade, Poder. Petrópolis: Vozes.
Meditsch, E. (2010). In: Benetti, M.; Fonseca, Virginia Pradelina da Silveira (orgs.). Jornalismo e acontecimento: mapeamentos críticos. Florianópolis: Insular, pp.19-42.
Mol, A. (2000). “A modernização e a mudança dos modelos de controle de poluição industrial: a Teoria da Modernização Ecológica”. In: Herculano, S.; Porto, M.; Freitas,
C. Qualidade de vida e riscos ambientais. Niterói: Ed. UFF, pp. 267-280. Morin, E. (2005). Ciência com consciência. 9. ed. Rio de Janeiro: Bertrand
Brasil, 2005.
Morin, E. (1997). Por um pensamento ecologizado. In: Castro, E & e Pinton, F.
Palmlund, I. (1992). Social drama and risk evaluation. In: Krimsky, S.; Golding, D. (eds).
Vol 26, N°2
Esta revista fue editada en formato digital y publicada en junio de 2017, por el Fondo Editorial Serbiluz, Universidad del Zulia. Maracaibo-Venezuela
www.luz.edu.ve www.serbi.luz.edu.ve produccioncientifica.luz.edu.ve