TY - JOUR
T1 - Publicised scrutiny and mediatised environmental conflict
T2 - The case of Tasmanian salmon aquaculture
AU - Cullen-Knox, C.
AU - Fleming, A.
AU - Lester, L.
AU - Ogier, E.
N1 - Funding Information:
The authors of this paper would like to acknowledge the support of The Centre for Marine Socioecology and the Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship . This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2018
PY - 2019/2
Y1 - 2019/2
N2 - This paper analyses mediatised environmental conflict over the Tasmanian salmon aquaculture industry's performance. It compares the Senate Inquiry into the “Regulation of the fin-fish aquaculture industry in Tasmania”, the influential Four Corners investigative journalism television program ‘Big Fish’ and news media coverage following each of these mediatised public investigations. The concept of “mediatised environmental conflict” is applied to reveal how these different modes of investigation influence public debate. Both the Senate Inquiry and the Four Corners program allowed previously invisible actors and networks to be made visible, while rendering others largely silent, particularly scientists despite strong references to science within the debate. Also, the traditional role of ENGOs in holding industries and Governments to account has shifted in this case to an industry player. Considerable differences in the discourses was observed, raising further questions concerning accountability and transparency in public-policy decision-making in relation to management of marine resources.
AB - This paper analyses mediatised environmental conflict over the Tasmanian salmon aquaculture industry's performance. It compares the Senate Inquiry into the “Regulation of the fin-fish aquaculture industry in Tasmania”, the influential Four Corners investigative journalism television program ‘Big Fish’ and news media coverage following each of these mediatised public investigations. The concept of “mediatised environmental conflict” is applied to reveal how these different modes of investigation influence public debate. Both the Senate Inquiry and the Four Corners program allowed previously invisible actors and networks to be made visible, while rendering others largely silent, particularly scientists despite strong references to science within the debate. Also, the traditional role of ENGOs in holding industries and Governments to account has shifted in this case to an industry player. Considerable differences in the discourses was observed, raising further questions concerning accountability and transparency in public-policy decision-making in relation to management of marine resources.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85058378068&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.marpol.2018.11.040
DO - 10.1016/j.marpol.2018.11.040
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85058378068
SN - 0308-597X
VL - 100
SP - 307
EP - 315
JO - Marine Policy
JF - Marine Policy
ER -