|کد مقاله||کد نشریه||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||نسخه تمام متن|
|91304||159781||2016||6 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||دانلود رایگان|
• This article deals with two decades of forest media discourses of Bangladesh print media.
• This article discuss about the forest issue discussion with in the Bangladeshi print media.
• This article tries to understand the different political actor's discussion in the media with an intention to influence public opinion.
Forest conservation is a major challenge in Bangladesh. It is believed that mass media is a powerful channel in political communication of different political actors in communicating their perception on certain issues. Forest discourses are not limited to the scientific and political sphere but also a popular topic for mass media in Bangladesh. In this study, media discourses from 1989 to 2009 from the “The Daily Ittefaq” of Bangladesh are analyzed. A quantitative-qualitative content analysis of newspaper articles on forest topics was the chosen methodology. The forest discourses in the Bangladeshi print media from 1989 to 2009 was built around the crisis argumentation i.e. the forest of Bangladesh is in a crisis. Deforestation and wildlife conservation dominated the Bangladesh forest media discourse where genuine events like illegal logging, forest destruction, wildlife poaching and wildlife human conflicts were most prominent issues discussed in the mass media of Bangladesh. Journalists were the prominent speaker in the print media and primarily shaped the discussion around the problems of the Bangladeshi forest sector. This study finds that the presence of center political actors like politicians and administration do not have much media standing in forest discourse. Therefore they have limited influence or interest in the formulation of forest discourse in the Bangladeshi print media. On the contrary the peripheral actors enjoyed dominant standing in the Bangladeshi print media discourse and thus influence the forest discourses in the print media.
Journal: Forest Policy and Economics - Volume 68, July 2016, Pages 16–21