Alliance of antagonism: Counterpublics and polarization in online climate change communication
Abstract
Debates around climate change are a prominent example of polarized online communication. We examine the German climate hyperlink network and evaluate the degree to which it is shaped by mainstream and skeptical views. By combining the theoretical frameworks of the networked public sphere and counterpublics, we describe the relation between publics and counterpublics and discuss the role of hyperlinks in delineating communities. Our analysis of blogrolls and link lists shows the debate’s structures to be polarized along factional lines with political and scientific institutions supporting the mainstream “climate-friendly” position. We find that skeptics form a counterpublic that is only loosely connected to the mainstream as neither skeptics nor the mainstream want to be affiliated with each other. Skeptics, thus, are mostly excluded within the German online climate network. However, skeptics are part of an “alliance of antagonism” with other groups, such as conspiracy theorists, men’s right groups, and right-wing sites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Climate-change-related blogs show strong homophily, including the absence of certain frames.
“Kaiser and Puschmann combined hyperlink network analyses of climate-change-related blogs with analyses of the web pages' content and found strong homophily, including the absence of certain frames”
From When debates break apart: discursive polarization as a multi-dimensional divergence emerging in and through communication (2023) · cites this paper as Kaiser & Puschmann, 2017
Counterpublics have few in-links from the mainstream public sphere and few out-links to the mainstream.
“They label this type of network counterpublics, having "few in-links from the mainstream public sphere, while also showing only few out-links to the mainstream."(Kaiser & Puschmann 2017, p. 373).”
From When debates break apart: discursive polarization as a multi-dimensional divergence emerging in and through communication (2023) · cites this paper as Kaiser & Puschmann 2017
To delimit one's own frame from a discursive climate mainstream frame, users allied with other anti-mainstream sources that did not fit their ideological beliefs, forming an 'alliance of antagonism' with other groups.
“Their work also showed that, to delimit one's own frame from a discursive climate mainstream frame, users allied with other anti-mainstream sources that did not fit their ideological beliefs-except from being against a certain mainstream.”
From When debates break apart: discursive polarization as a multi-dimensional divergence emerging in and through communication (2023) · cites this paper as Kaiser & Puschmann 2017
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 52 · Cited by 75
- Authors
- Kaiser, J., & Puschmann, C.
- Affiliations
- Harvard University (US)
- Hans-Bredow-Institute (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Kaiser, Jonas
- Venue
- Communication and the Public
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2017-09-21
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 371-387
- ISSN
- 2057-0473 (ISSN-L)
- 2057-0481
- OpenAlex
- W2758089441
- Cited by
- 75
- References
- 52
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 5
- FWCI
- 9.10
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Communication and the Public (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Climate Change Communication and Perception
- Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Keywords
- climate change communication, counterpublics, online polarization, climate change skepticism, hyperlink networks, networked public sphere, conspiracy theorists, online communities
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
