10.6092/issn.2038-3460/17334
application/pdf
2038-3460
17334
2
en
Paolo Giardullo
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/
Tecnoscienza – Italian Journal of Science & Technology Studies
Alison G. Anderson, Media, Environment and the Network Society, Palgrave-MacMillan, 2014
Text.Serial.Journal
https://tecnoscienza.unibo.it/
7
Book Reviews
2017-01-24
2023-06-21
2017-01-24
2023-08-21
170-173
TS
Paolo Giardullo
2016
10.6092/issn.2038-3460/17334
170
Università di Padova
2038-3460
2
en
173
Alison G. Anderson, Media, Environment and the Network Society, Palgrave-MacMillan, 2014
https://tecnoscienza.unibo.it/article/download/17334/16184
7
170                                                         Tecnoscienza – 7 (2)

  Alison G. Anderson
Media, Environment and the Network Society, London, Palgrave-
MacMillan, 2014, pp. 203

Paolo Giardullo Università di Padova

    Any published book hopefully has different layers, which may suit dif-
ferent readers. A novel could be considered brilliant for the writing skills
of the author, for the plot, and for the underlying message within the en-
tire book. This is similar to what I felt once I finished Media, Environ-
ment and the Network Society by Alison Anderson from Plymouth Uni-
versity.
    Anderson is a relevant contributor to the broader debate about envi-
ronmental communication at the crossroads with studies of public opin-
ion. Since the early 90s, she worked intensely on media coverage of envi-
ronmental issues (Anderson 1991), focusing on both risk and natural haz-
ard communication (Anderson et al. 2009; Anderson 2000). She often
concentrated on environmental catastrophes, such as the Exxon Valdez
oil spill (Anderson 2002) and the Prestige oil spill (Anderson and Mar-
hadour 2007). Thus, it is not by chance that the cover of “Media, Envi-
ronment and the Network Society” is a picture of the Deep Water Hori-
zon Oil Spill, which occurred in 2010. Some key events in the global envi-
ronmental governance, such as the UNEP Rio World Summit in 1992,
have been relevant case studies during her career (Anderson and Garber
1993).
    In a certain way, Media, Environment and the Network Society is an
overview of Anderson’s research interests and experiences in the field of
environmental communication. The author redefines her early research
questions, becoming conscious of the mutated scenario for communica-
tion. In the Introduction (p. 3), she declares: “Since I wrote Media, Cul-
ture and the Environment (published in 1997), the media landscape has
considerably changed (…)”. Therefore, a key motivation for Anderson
was to update the studies on environmental communication to the most
recent development of media technologies. She went further. Indeed,
within this general purpose she integrated an empirically informed review
of such theoretical approaches as risk society and network society. She
used them to thoroughly survey the entire debate of environmental com-
munication. This is a key point that makes the book worth consideration
by a broad audience.
    After the Introduction, the following chapter presents the theoretical
background that will be recognizable within the entire book. Anderson
examines a “new spectacularization” of environmental issues by describ-
ing the communication strategies of Greenpeace for the campaign “Save
the arctic”. This allows her to introduce the role of celebrities in envi-
ronmental communication and to assess their contribution to the visibility
Book Review                                                               171
of a specific issue (e.g. climate change). The fairly large number of exam-
ples proposed allows the author to introduce two theoretical references
that will motivate the subsequent chapters: risk society by Ulrich Beck
and network society by Manuel Castells. What Anderson proposes is a
critical review of these theoretical contributions. Risk is a key issue in
communication and Anderson signals it as a specific topic for scholars in
that field. Network society is a clear theoretical view that need to be test-
ed through research. Regarding the former, as noted before by others (see
Cottle 1998), Anderson observes that the media context has been often
under-developed despite being a relevant brick of Beck’s theorization
about risk. For the latter, Anderson assumes Castells’ theoretical proposal
in his Communication Power (2009) as a good way to synthesis the media
landscape configuration and its general functioning. Within this context,
the configuration of power changes significantly depending on the level
of access to the means of communication, the ability to define interaction
rules, the opportunity to set-up its contents, and to further define the
general aims. Accordingly, even environmental communication’s peaks
and agenda should convey of these processes. Within this frame, Castells,
as Andersons pointed out, assumes that specific actors (tycoons, celebri-
ties), who endorse environmental issues, are extremely influential in pro-
moting salience and more likely to shift public opinion on said issues.
Similarly, should big companies involved in hot crises, such as the BP
Deepwater Horizon oil spill, decide to set up a specific representation (or
not-representation in a spiral of silence) of a crisis it will overwhelm other
actors leaving them little room. By recalling several researches dedicated
to climate change and oil spill crises, Anderson offers a specific critique
to this mutated “media landscape” and in general to Castells’ assump-
tions, demonstrating how these processes can actually be configured dif-
ferently. Indeed, as Anderson impressively demonstrates, celebrity en-
dorsement of climate change does not necessarily shift public opinion
significantly. On the other hand, actors who own more networked power,
or the capacity to set up the agenda (Castells 2009, 44), are not by defini-
tion untouchable by those who have not. This is brilliantly shown in
Chapter 5. During the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the sky above
Deepwater Horizon oil platform was interdict to flight below a certain
height; basically, the spill extension could not be mapped by other
sources except BP. In response to that, a group of activists in Louisiana
launched a campaign to map the spread of the oil, aiming at sharing it on
the web via real time images. They were successful in bypassing BP cen-
sorship strategies distributing a kit for launching helium inflated balloons
equipped with digital cameras; indeed, they created an alternative infra-
structure for information sharing about the oil spill crisis.
    Before the conclusion, where Anderson sums up the main outcomes
of her work, she includes a chapter about nanotechnology and synthetic
biology as a new field to be investigated for environmental communica-
tion as well as risk representations. This deserved more space but the

                                                                          171
172                                                           Tecnoscienza – 7 (2)

book has been designed to be a dense but easily read one. In fairness, this
chapter reviews previous studies on these emerging technologies (as the
title of the chapter) and it is balanced compared to the others.
     As I declared at the beginning of this review, I found different stimu-
lating layers in this book. They might be all of interest for a variety poten-
tial readers.
     A first layer, and the one that is the easiest to grasp, can be called the
“review layer”. It is for those that are unaware of the debate about envi-
ronmental communication; this book offers a large amount of up-to-date
references on the topic especially for those interested in climate change
media coverage and on environmental “hot crisis” narration.
     A second layer offers some methodological food for thought. Espe-
cially in chapter three there is a critique about robustness and representa-
tiveness of news media researches carried out through newspapers; it is
rare to find criticisms on the choices of analyzing news-stories coverage
through a specific newspaper or a selection of media sources.
     A third layer is theoretical. I have already discussed above the criti-
cism to Castells’ postulations about networked society and the role of
specific gatekeepers for information; however, it is worth noting how the
thesis of Castells have been carefully explored as research hypothesis by
Anderson both in a second level analysis and through original research.
     A final layer I came across is less evident. Possibly, it represents the
most interesting element for STS-oriented readers. It is Anderson’s em-
phasis on the role of media technologies in the infrastructure of circulat-
ing information. Among the many examples she gives, the one of crowd-
data to map 2010 of oil spill is maybe the most significant. Indeed, envi-
ronmental activists aligned heterogeneous elements, such as DIY
knowledge (for the small inflating balloons engineering), digital photog-
raphy (the cameras), and the Internet (crowd-founding and free sharing
of images) in order to gather and share first-hand data. This example, is
not only relevant to critically deepen Castells’ theories, rather, it is some-
thing that goes in the direction wished for by Brunton and Coleman
(2014). That is to say, it goes closer to media infrastructure to understand
media communication itself. Indeed, exploring such kinds of linkages be-
tween information production/sharing in the context of environmental
communication could be an interesting way to expand connections be-
tween STS and media studies as well. This is currently a developing field,
pioneering several contributions for both communities (Gillespie et al.
2014; Parks and Starosielski 2015).
     This last layer may be hidden for Anderson too or, at least, it was un-
likely at the core of her wishes. Perhaps it is something I recognised ex-
actly because I was eager to find it. Anyway, as I hinted before, the rich-
ness of a book lies precisely in the stimuli that it can give to different
readers. In my opinion “Media, Environment and the Network Society”
positively succeeds in that.
Book Review                                                                      173
References
Anderson, A. (1991) Source Strategies and the Communication of Environmental
      Affairs, in “Media, Culture and Society”, 13 (4), pp. 459-476.
Anderson, A., and Gaber, I. (1993) The Yellowing of the Greens, in “British
      Journalism Review”, 4 (2), pp. 49-53.
Anderson, A. (2000) Environmental Pressure Politics and the “Risk Society”, in S.
      Allan, B. Adam, and C. Carter (2000), Environmental Risks and the Me-
      dia, London, Routledge pp. 93-104.
Anderson, A. (2002) The Media Politics of Oil Spills, in “Spill Science and Tech-
      nology Bulletin”, 7 (1), pp. 7-15.
Anderson, A., and Marhadour, A. (2007) Slick PR? The Media Politics of the
      Prestige Oil Spill, in “Science Communication”, 29 (1), pp. 96-115.
Anderson, A., Petersen, A., Wilkinson, C., and Allan, S. (2009) Nanotechnology,
      Risk and Communication, Houndmills, Palgrave Macmillan.
Brunton, F., and Coleman, G. (2014) Closer to the Metal, in T., Gillespie, P. J.,
      Boczkowski and K.A. Foot (eds.), Media Technologies: Essays on Com-
      munication, Materiality, and Society, Cambridge MA and London UK,
      MIT Press.
Castells, M. (2009) Communication Power, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Cottle, S. (1998) Ulrich Beck, “Risk Society” and the Media: A Catastrophic
        View?, in “European Journal of Communication”, 13 (1), pp. 5–32.
Gillespie, T., Boczkowski, P.J., and Foot, K. A. (eds.) (2014) Media Technologies:
        Essays on Communication, Materiality, and Society, Cambridge MA and
        London UK, MIT Press.
Parks, L., and Starosielski, N. (eds.) (2015) Signal Traffic: Critical Studies of Me-
       dia Infrastructures, Champaign, University of Illinois Press.


                                       ***

   Antonio Arellano, Michelle Chauvet, and Ronny Viales
   (eds.)
Redes y estilos de investigación: ciencia, tecnología, innovación y sociedad
en México y Costa Rica [Networks and investigation styles: science,
technology, innovation and society in Mexico and Costa Rica], Ciu-
dad de Mexico, Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México, 2013,
pp. 306

Miquel Domènech Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona



                                                                                173
