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

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.

Keywords

Hybrid media system; Discursive power; Social media; Framing; Forest dieback

Published in

Forest Policy and Economics
2025, volume: 172, article number: 103447
Publisher: ELSEVIER

SLU Authors

• Wallin, Ida

  • Southern Swedish Forest Research Centre, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
    

UKÄ Subject classification

Forest Science
Environmental Studies in Social Sciences

Publication identifier

• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2025.103447

Permanent link to this page (URI)

https://res.slu.se/id/publ/140944