African Journalism Studies
ISSN: 2374-3670 (Print) 2374-3689 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/recq21
Mediating the Climate Change Message:
Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices (KAP) of Media
Practitioners in Ghana
Audrey Gadzekpo, Gilbert K.M. Tietaah & Martin Segtub
To cite this article: Audrey Gadzekpo, Gilbert K.M. Tietaah & Martin Segtub (2018) Mediating
the Climate Change Message: Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices (KAP) of Media Practitioners
in Ghana, African Journalism Studies, 39:3, 1-23, DOI: 10.1080/23743670.2018.1467838
To link to this article:  https://doi.org/10.1080/23743670.2018.1467838
Published online: 16 Jul 2018.
Submit your article to this journal 
Article views: 191
View related articles 
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 7 View citing articles 
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=recq21
ARTICLE
Mediating the Climate Change Message: Knowledge, 
Attitudes and Practices (KAP) of Media Practitioners in 
Ghana
Audrey Gadzekpo Gilbert K.M. Tietaah
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7461-2980 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4878-5068
University of Ghana University of Ghana
gkmtietaah@ug.edu.gh
Martin Segtub
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4618-324X
University of Ghana
ABSTRACT
While scientific evidence on the human agency of climate change seems compelling, public 
conviction and capacity to adapt and adopt mitigation measures remain tentative among 
developing countries and poor populations. It throws into question the presumed essentiality 
of the media in Africa in increasing public awareness and informing local policy responses. 
This study pivots on the argument that in order to be effective stewards and purveyors 
of climate change information, media practitioners must themselves be demonstrably 
informed and keenly committed. To determine this the study used the KAP survey model to 
assess the understanding (Knowledge), predisposition (Attitude) and response (Practice) of 
Ghanaian journalists to reporting climate change. The findings showed high awareness, but 
low knowledge, high conviction but low engagement of media practitioners and institutions 
towards addressing the incidence and consequences of climate change. In effect, awareness 
and empathy are prerequisite factors, but they do not inevitably lead to knowledge and 
engagement in competently mediating the climate message. The lack of compelling 
correlations between specific attributes of KAP of climate change also raises doubts about 
the predictive power of individual vis-à-vis institutional loci of control in defining and driving 
specific subjects up the news values chain.
Keywords: Africa; climate change; communication; developing countries; Ghana; journalists; knowl-
edge attitudes practices (KAP); media
African Journalism Studies https://doi.org/10.1080/23743670.2018.1467838
www.tandfonline.com/recq20 ISSN 2374-3689 (Online), ISSN 2374-3670 (Print)
Volume 39 | Number 3 | 2018 | pp. 1-23 © Unisa Press 2018
1
Gadzekpo, Tietaah, and Segtub  Mediating the Climate Change Message
Introduction 
The scientific evidence on climate change as caused by anthropogenic factors 
is increasingly compelling, although public conviction is still equivocal. This is 
attributed, principally, to the challenge of translating tacit awareness into concrete 
action on climate change (Adger, Lorenzoni, and O’Brien 2009; Naustdalslid 2011). In 
developing countries such as Ghana where public understanding of climate change is 
still flimsy, the discourse can take on metaphysical overtones. After 150 people died in a 
flooding disaster in Accra on June 3, 2015, the Ga Traditional Council claimed in a press 
conference that the floods were a manifestation of the wrath of the gods for flagrant 
violations of Ga traditional mores and values (Issah 2015). The traditional council 
exercises customary jurisdiction over Accra, the capital of Ghana. Such contentious 
statements were widely reported in the media, while contrary views linking perennial 
flooding in Accra to climate change, such as that made by Sherry Ayittey, then minister 
for the environment (Abotsi 2015), were underplayed.
The literature suggests that evidence and effects of climate change are particularly 
manifest within developing countries and among poor communities where rising sea 
tides and searing heatwaves most directly impact on lives and livelihoods (IPCC 2007; 
Naustdalslid 2011; World Bank 2014). Developing countries and poor populations 
are however the least aware and least able to adapt or adopt mitigation measures at 
the societal, political and personal levels (Collier, Conway, and Venables 2008; IPCC 
2007). In spite of this dilemma, there persists in Ghana and much of Africa a dearth of 
indigenous research evidence on the agency of media in increasing public awareness 
and informing local policy responses (Baird 2008). So while, for example, the Ghana 
National Climate Change Policy (GNCCP) (GoG 2012) has included information, 
communication and education (ICE) as one of seven systemic pillars of policy action, 
there is no coherent media advocacy strategy to address climate change in the country. 
Yet the media, as drivers of social change, have a big role to play in raising public 
consciousness of the reality and importance of climate change, including its peculiar 
manifestations and particular consequences for different ecological populations 
(Meribe 2017; Moser and Dilling 2007; Weber 2010). Research conducted by the BBC 
World Service Trust to gauge public understanding of climate change in Ghana found 
that together with schools, the media were the main source of information on climate 
change (BBC WST 2010). Public understanding was, however, low because there was 
poor communication on climate change through the media or other means. The report 
concluded that “the intensive media coverage and public awareness campaigns prevalent 
in much of the industrial world have been largely absent in Africa, particularly outside 
the urban centres” (BBC WST 2010, 3).
This paper is based on the argument that in order to be effective stewards and purveyors 
of climate change information, media practitioners must themselves be demonstrably 
well informed and keenly committed. A survey of 1,218 Americans by Bord, O’Connor 
2
Gadzekpo, Tietaah, and Segtub  Mediating the Climate Change Message
and Fisher (2000) showed knowledge of the causes of climate change to be the strongest 
single predictor of stated behavioural intent. As agents of social change, if media 
practitioners are uninformed or disinterested in issues of climate change, it would be 
difficult for the public, who rely on the media, to know about scientific developments that 
point to the need for mitigation and adaptation responses. Much of the information and 
knowledge people could gain on the threats or solutions to climate change would depend 
on the awareness and activism of the interlocutors (journalists, editors, producers) whose 
work it is to process and present such information to the public. The paper, therefore, 
explored the perceptions and practices of media workers in covering climate change as 
an existential concern. It interrogated the central role of the media professional as source 
and resource for climate change information. The objective was to establish empirical 
evidence on influences on the gatekeeping decisions and behaviours of journalists, and 
their knowledge, attitudes and practices on climate change mitigation and adaptation. 
Specifically, the study sought to answer the following research questions:
1. What are the levels of awareness and knowledge of climate change among media 
practitioners in Ghana?
2. What are the attitudes and value orientations of media practitioners in Ghana 
towards climate change as a subject of journalistic interest and attention?
3. To what extent are respondents’ backgrounds and locations related to their treatment 
of climate change news?
Global Perspectives on Media and Climate Change
There is a growing body of scholarly interest in the role of the media in creating public 
interest and informed response to climate change. It includes some notable European and 
North American research addressing factors within the news production-consumption 
circuit (Boykoff 2011; Carvalho 2010; Olausson 2009; Ryghaug and Skjølsvold 2016). 
The literature interrogates also the role of the media in constructing public opinion and 
inspiring behaviour change (Olausson 2011; Weber 2010), and the advocacy potential 
of the media to frame the climate change debate and influence policies (Happer and 
Philo 2013; Nisbet 2010). These studies, conducted mostly in the global North, have 
highlighted the media’s increasing importance in helping to communicate climate 
change messages and creating public awareness and responsiveness to its adverse 
effects (Bacon 2013; Boykoff 2011; Painter 2013; Olausson 2009; 2011). 
The media are one of the key public arenas within which social issues are framed and 
provide the lens through which audiences—including development brokers and policy 
actors—are able to visualise the world outside and form the pictures in their heads 
(Lippmann 1998). They are able, thereby, to set the agenda of public discussion and 
secure the necessary political commitment for policy decision and action, including 
action on the issue of climate change. As Bacon (2013, 4) points out:
3
Gadzekpo, Tietaah, and Segtub  Mediating the Climate Change Message
The role of media in a democracy is to truthfully report contemporary events and issues to the 
public. This includes scientific evidence about the crucial issue of climate change. If people 
are confused or ignorant about potential threats, they cannot be expected to support action to 
confront them.
Bacon (2013) argues that there are few media stories of more obvious public interest 
than that of climate change, which according to scientists threatens the lives, security 
and livelihoods of millions of people and whole species. The coverage and quality of the 
coverage of climate change issues in the media, however, vary widely across the globe. 
In a study interrogating dominant discourses on climate change and commitments 
to environmental sustainability Midttun et al. (2015) identified differences in media 
content among developed, developing and under-developed countries represented, 
respectively, by Norway, China and Ghana. While reportage in the Norway (rich West) 
media highlighted the moral and pragmatic responsibilities of developed countries in 
exporting climate action, coverage in the China (emerging East) media emphasised 
national political and policy responses such as energy efficiency and clean technologies 
deployment. In contrast, an analysis of the content of newspapers in Ghana (developing 
South) revealed that stories were heavily attributed to international sources, and were 
not necessarily reflective of local experiences of the manifestations and consequences of 
climate change. This may well be a reflection of the capacity or constraints of Ghanaian 
journalists, whether as producers of enterprise stories or as source reporters of local 
climate change news. 
Among the factors that are thought to govern the media content production chain, 
structural factors within and outside the media as an institution are often given ontological 
priority over the journalist as an individual. Consequently, most of the studies that relate 
to climate change communication and information flow and which address the role of 
the media, have tended to focus on the institutional level and neglected to document 
the presence and spread of attitudes among media practitioners (Altmeppen 2008). 
From a sociological point of view, however, it is arguable that what is referred to as 
the news production culture is a product of individual attitudes and influences. Media 
practitioners individually play particular and important surveillance roles in keeping an 
eye on the public sphere and alerting the public to issues of public interest or concern. 
They are the metaphorical bridge between policy actors, duty bearers and the public. 
Thus if they recognise their central role in responding to climate change they will more 
eagerly and competently contribute to policy and behaviour change efforts to mitigate 
its incidence and effects. Yet research has not adequately interrogated the attitudes of 
journalists, including what they know or think about climate change as a subject of news 
treatment.
In their well-received text on the sociology of media content, Shoemaker and Reese 
(2014) suggest that while there are “multiple forces that simultaneously impinge on 
media” (2014, 1) the personal idiosyncrasies of the individual journalist are no less 
4
Gadzekpo, Tietaah, and Segtub  Mediating the Climate Change Message
important. This is because not only do their personal biases inevitably affect their 
news accounts but also “journalists of a particular leaning often self-select into 
organizations because of their pre-existing policies, history, and organizational culture” 
(2). They cite and discuss such demographic and psychographic influencers as age and 
work experience, education and social status, personal attitudes, values and beliefs, 
professional roles and ethical convictions. The arguments they make provide a useful 
anchor for conceptualising the factors that influence the journalist as a mediator of 
climate change messaging. 
The Constitution of Ghana (1992) and a number of consequential legislations (National 
Media Commission Act 1993 [NMC Act 449]; National Communications Authority 
Act 1996 [NCA Act 524], 2008 [NCA Act 769]; Electronic Communications Act 2008 
[Act 775]) have been auspicious for media development in the country. The enabling 
environment thus created de-monopolised the regime of state controls and produced a 
plethora of print and broadcast media, together with a burgeoning digital and online 
media sphere. Industry statistics indicate more than 1,010 active print media registered 
with the NMC, including at least 11 regular dailies (GoG 2017). In addition, more than 
400 radio stations and 75 television stations have been authorised by the NCA, the 
body responsible for granting broadcast frequencies (NCA 2017). Added to these are 
technological developments that have led to an increase in access of Ghanaians to Internet 
and social media platforms. It is also noteworthy that the Ghanaian media landscape is 
among the most liberal and vibrant on the continent. According to the 2017 World Press 
Freedom Index, published by the advocacy group Reporters Without Borders (RSF), 
Ghana ranked 26th out of 180 countries in the world—notably ahead of such more 
“mature democracies” as France (39), UK (40) and US (41). All of these factors should 
enable opportunities for the inclusion of a diversity of themes and topics for media 
coverage, including the subject of climate change. A key concern, however, has been a 
political economy of the media in which the drivers of news are not value-neutral. The 
media have been polarised along political lines, resulting in partisan considerations, 
more than individual journalistic norms or institutional cultures, determining what 
makes the news (Tietaah 2015). What this suggests is that beyond the individual level 
factors (such as professional orientation) and institutional level forces (such as the 
marketplace) as adduced by Shoemaker and Reese (2014), there are important macro-
level political imperatives that may mitigate the interest and capacity of the media and 
practitioners in Ghana to contribute to public knowledge and action on climate change. 
The corollary consequence would be to undermine the capacity of the media to 
contribute to national development efforts. Since the UN Stockholm Conference on the 
Human Environment in 1972 and, 20 years later, the Rio Conference on Environment 
and Development in 1992, there has been global consensus on the existential links 
between the environment and development. As an agrarian society, the challenges posed 
by climate change to Ghana’s national development efforts are even more compelling 
(BBC WST 2010; IPCC 2007; World Bank 2014). While this realisation has produced 
5
Gadzekpo, Tietaah, and Segtub  Mediating the Climate Change Message
progressive regulatory and policy responses, such as the Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) Act, 1994 (Act 490) and the Ghana National Climate Change Policy 
(GNCCP) (GoG 2012), a lack of comprehensive media and communication strategy 
to mainstream public awareness and action could lessen the prospects of climate 
compatible development.
Methodological Considerations
The knowledge-attitude-practice (KAP) survey model provided useful constructs around 
which to explore the orientation of Ghanaian journalists in relation to climate change. 
The KAP model offers a framework for determining the awareness and understanding 
(knowledge), feelings or predispositions (attitude) and response or behaviour 
(practice) of people towards an issue or subject matter. As is argued in this paper, 
media practitioners can only be expected to respond to climate change as a subject for 
journalistic treatment if they know the issues and understand their agency in promoting 
mitigation and adaptation recommendations. At the same time, knowledge per se would 
not necessarily inspire journalistic attention and action. Ojomo, Elliott, Amjad and 
Bartram (2015) emphasise this rider when they echo a number of studies (including 
Lorenzoni and Pidgeon 2006; Naustdalslid 2011; Stehr and Grundmann 2012) in noting 
that knowledge is a necessary but insufficient condition of climate action. Attitudes 
must be disposed towards the issue salience and news worthiness of climate change; 
knowledge and attitude are then expressed in practice, specifically, in the incidence and 
nature of climate change coverage by media practitioners.
The KAP survey instrument was adopted for the study because its properties and 
processes enable the researcher to identify the prevailing knowledge levels and 
gaps, preconceptions and experiences, and behavioural intentions and practices of 
respondents. It therefore provided the basis for finding out what media practitioners in 
Ghana knew or thought about climate change as caused by human activity, about their 
role and responsiveness to climate change coverage, and about their own behaviour 
and practices in seeking and sharing information for promoting awareness creation, 
mitigation and adaptation efforts. 
The study focused on media practitioners operating within four clusters of ecological 
regions in Ghana defined to be differently impacted by anthropogenic factors. These 
include the following: Accra, representing the urban region; Sunyani, representing the 
forest belt; Keta, representing the coastal zone; and Tamale, representing the savannah 
region. Mainly because these clusters also represent different ethnographic experiences 
it was expected that the proximity of respondents to, and encounters with, peculiar 
ecological experiences would constitute sufficient grounds for their particular and 
distinct journalistic attention and treatment.
6
Gadzekpo, Tietaah, and Segtub  Mediating the Climate Change Message
Data was collected using a pre-tested, 55-item, self-administered questionnaire. 
The knowledge items contained questions about respondents’ awareness of, and 
understanding about, the causes and manifestations of climate change, and about the 
common concepts, policies and protocols within the climate change literature and 
discourse. The attitude questions pertained to their convictions about climate change 
as caused by human factors, the extent to which it represents a threat to national 
development, and the extent to which they were interested in, and believed that they 
could personally contribute to, its mitigation. The practice questions elicited responses 
about whether, or how often, they treated climate change subjects, as well as the extent 
to which the gatekeeping practices of their institutions supported their production and 
presentation of climate change news and issues. The three variables were quantified 
mostly on a five-point Likert-type scale, requiring respondents to indicate the strength 
of their disposition or conviction on each of the key KAP variables, although there were 
also a few open-ended follow-up items, and yes/no/don’t know options. 
Respondents were deemed to be knowledgeable, or to have positive attitudes or 
engagement on climate change if the majority of their responses indicated “very 
much”/“very major” or “much”/“major” on the respective question, or if their responses 
to the relevant questions produced a mean value equal to or more than four on the 
five-point scale. For purposes of dichotomous comparisons, mean values less than 
four (or the parallel percentage scores attributed to the responses “very little”/“very 
minimal,” “little”/“minor” and “not sure”/“indifferent”) were interpreted as reflecting 
low measures on the relevant KAP variable. To find out the possible association of 
practitioners’ position (as editor, reporter, producer, presenter) with their KAP on 
climate change, a Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient test was conducted.
Questionnaires were distributed to 200 respondents through a cross-sectional, 
nonrandomised, sampling process. The sample distribution was as follows: 40 
respondents each were drawn from Sunyani, Keta, and Tamale. Twice the sample for each 
of these regions was used for Accra (i.e., 80), primarily because of the preponderance 
of media and journalists in the national capital. Within each ecological region, the 
maximum variation technique was then employed to ensure inclusion of the different 
actors (i.e. reporters, editors, producers, presenters, managers) and sectors (i.e. public 
and private press, and public, commercial and community radio and television) of the 
media industry and landscape. A total of 160 usable questionnaires, representing an 80 
per cent response rate, were retrieved and validated. 
Findings
Demographic Profile of Respondents
Up to 57 per cent (91) of the respondents identified themselves as reporters; more 
than one in seven (15.6%, 25) were editors; six per cent (10) identified their primary 
7
Gadzekpo, Tietaah, and Segtub  Mediating the Climate Change Message
responsibility as producers; another eight per cent (13) said they were presenters; one in 
20 (8) identified themselves in other roles designated collectively as media managers. 
Also included in the sample was one student intern who sometimes covered news 
assignments. The remaining 12 respondents did not indicate their designations/positions 
within their media organisations.
Along with the designation or position of the respondent within their institutional 
structures, the age and years of work experience as well as levels of (professional) 
educational attainment are important to an understanding of their journalistic capacity 
and disposition towards issue advocacy generally and climate change reporting 
particularly. The age profile of respondents was presumed to provide insights for 
understanding, broadly, the climate change convictions and information seeking 
practices of respondents across generational lines. Three in five (59.4%) of them were 
between 25 and 34 years old. They gave a high mean rating of 4.22 (SD 1.013) on 
their conviction of climate change as caused by human factors. Those between 35 and 
44 years constituted 18 per cent, with an even higher mean rating of 4.36 (SD 1.036). 
Those between 18 and 24 constituted 13 per cent, and their rating on the conviction of 
climate change as caused by human factors was a more modest 3.69 (SD 1.251). Only 
two respondents fell within the age bracket of 55–64 years, and they gave a rating of 
4.00 (SD 1.4.4) on their conviction of climate change as caused by human factors. It 
would appear, then, that age did not remarkably distinguish respondents in terms of their 
convictions about climate change as caused by human factors. 
In terms of years of journalism practise, two in five (42.2%) had worked as media 
practitioners for less than five years, and the mean score on their conviction about 
anthropogenic causes of climate change was 3.98. A third of them (34%) said they 
had been in media practice for between five and 10 years. These were notably more 
strongly persuaded about the human agency of climate change (mean=4.47 on 5-point 
scale). Three in 20 had been engaged in journalistic work for between 11 and 15 years; 
they gave a mean rating of 4.17 (SD 1.114) on climate change as caused by human 
factors. Six individuals (3.8%) had worked for between 16 and 20 years; they rated 
the contribution of human factors to climate change at 3.75 (SD 1.893). Five of them 
had worked in the capacity for more than 20 years; the strength of their conviction was 
relatively more modest at 3.50 on the 5-point scale (SD 1.915). 
In terms of formal education, close to 92 per cent (N=146) of the respondents had a 
minimum of college education. The remaining 8 per cent had some education up to the 
secondary level. Furthermore, the majority (114, 71.3%) indicated they had received 
professional/formal training from journalism/communication institutions. Specifically, 
close to half of them (49.3%, N=150) held journalism diploma certificates. They gave 
a high mean rating (4.38, SD 0.792) on the human agency of climate change. Twenty-
seven respondents (18%) held journalism graduate degrees. Their mean rating on the 
human causes of climate change was 4.08 (SD 1.248). Only 11 individuals (7.3%) held 
8
Gadzekpo, Tietaah, and Segtub  Mediating the Climate Change Message
postgraduate degrees in journalism; their rating of the human factors of climate change 
was high at 4.36 on the 5-point scale (SD 1.286). Of the remaining 38 who answered 
the question, only one person had no journalism training at all. The rest (24.6%) said 
they had received on-the-job training. They held the least relative conviction (3.85, SD 
1.258) about the human factor in climate change.
Knowledge of Climate Change
All respondents indicated some awareness of climate change particularly over the 
last five years, although one person suggested awareness dating back to 1978. The 
majority of respondents (60%, N=160) identified the media as their foremost source of 
awareness. Schools came a distant second (14%) followed closely by seminars (13%) 
as sources of awareness of climate change for media practitioners. Even fewer were the 
references to non-governmental organisations (7%), meteorological service agencies 
(4%), and personal observation (2%) as sources of awareness on climate change. The 
predominance of references to the media suggests the central role of the media and 
media practitioners in creating awareness and improving knowledge on the reality and 
response to climate change. 
The vast majority (75.7%) of respondents were “very convinced” or “convinced” about 
climate change as caused by human factors. Less than 1 in 10 (7.5%) were “not convinced” 
that climate change was caused by human factors while 13.8 per cent indicated they 
were “not sure.” Awareness and even conviction, however, did not seem to reflect in 
knowledge. Respondents betrayed a general lack of knowledge and understanding of 
the buzzwords and common discourses in the literature as well as on policy processes, 
events and issues about climate change. The means the percentage scores for the “yes,” 
“no,” and “don’t know”/“not sure” responses were 39.9 per cent, 40.6 per cent and 
19.6 per cent respectively. Notably, only about two in five respondents indicated they 
knew the term green agenda. Even fewer (fewer than 2 in 6) knew what green growth 
meant. Among those who professed some understanding of key climate change issues, 
their responses to the follow-up probes were often tenuous or only partially correct. 
For example, in answer to a question on what they knew about Ghana’s climate change 
policy, 66.7 per cent (N=156) admitted that they had no knowledge at all. Those who 
said they knew something about Ghana’s climate change policy mentioned indicative 
but fragmented answers, including the Forestry Commission’s tree planting agenda, the 
ban on the importation of used fridges, the campaign to switch from incandescent light 
bulbs to compact fluorescent light (CFL) or LED bulbs, a reduction of greenhouse gas 
emissions (such as carbon dioxide [CO2] and Hydrofluorocarbons [HFCs]), and the ban 
on the export of (rosewood) timber. The answers proffered did not include any of the five 
policy areas in the National Climate Change Policy (NCCP) document: Agriculture and 
Food Security, Disaster Preparedness and Response, Natural Resource Management, 
Equitable Social Development, and Energy, Industrial and Infrastructural Development.
9
Gadzekpo, Tietaah, and Segtub  Mediating the Climate Change Message
Similarly, 66.3 per cent of the respondents (N=156) indicated a lack of knowledge on 
any international conferences, conventions or protocols on climate change. Those who 
said they knew identified a number of common examples, including the United Nations 
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the International Conference 
on Climate Change (ICCC), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 
the Kyoto Protocol, the Warsaw Climate Change Conference, and the Conference of 
the Parties (COP). A few examples were, however, tentative at best, such as a so-called 
South African protocol, the Rio+20 Conference, Tokyo protocols, and the Manhattan 
declaration.
Table 1: Descriptive statistics on causes of climate change in community
Factors N Response
contributing to 1   f 
climate change (%) 2   f (%) 3   f (%) 4   f (%) 5   f (%) M
Bush burning 158 4.18
Urban 2 (02.9) 4 (05.8) 14 (20.3) 17 (24.6) 32 (46.4) 4.06
Forest 3 (07.5) 1 (02.5) 7 (17.5) 13 (32.5) 16 (40.0) 3.97
Savannah 0 (00.0) 0 (00.0) 2 (06.9) 4 (13.8) 23 (79.3) 4.72
Coastal 1 (05.0) 2 (10.0) 3 (15.0) 5 (25.0) 9 (45.0) 3.95
Logging/
deforestation 157 4.33
Urban 2 (02.9) 1 (01.4) 8 (11.6) 18 (26.1) 40 (58.0) 4.35
Forest 0 (00.0) 1 (02.6) 5 (13.2) 9 (23.7) 23 (60.5) 4.46
Savannah 0 (00.0) 0 (00.0) 2 (06.9) 7 (24.1) 20 (69.0) 4.62
Coastal 1 (04.8) 1 (04.8) 5 (23.8) 4 (19.0) 10 (47.6) 3.89
Polluting water 
bodies 157 3.86
Urban 2 (02.9) 3 (04.3) 19 (27.5) 17 (24.6) 28 (40.6) 3.96
Forest 0 (00.0) 6 (15.8) 5 (13.2) 14 (36.8) 13 (34.2) 3.89
Savannah 0 (00.0) 4 (15.8) 8 (27.6) 10 (34.5) 7 (24.1) 3.69
Coastal 1 (04.8) 4 (13.8) 3 (14.3) 4 (19.0) 9 (42.9) 3.89
Air pollution 155 4.05
Urban 3 (04.3) 1 (01.4) 8 (11.6) 18 (26.1) 39 (56.5) 4.29
Forest 2 (05.4) 1 (02.7) 9 (24.3) 12 (32.4) 13 (35.1) 3.89
Savannah 1 (03.4) 1 (03.4) 4 (13.8) 10 (34.5) 13 (44.8) 4.14
Coastal 1 (05.0) 2 (10.0) 4 (20.0) 4 (20.0) 9 (45.0) 3.89
1=very little;     2=little;     3=not sure; 4=much;     5=very much;     N=valid responses;     
M=means 
Irrespective of the ecological peculiarity of their region of operation, there was consensus 
in the aggregates of sentiments among media practitioners about the factors contributing 
to climate change. As indicated in Table 1, on average, seven in 10 respondents were 
affirmative (mean=4.10 on 5-point scale) in their knowledge that “bush burning,” 
10
Gadzekpo, Tietaah, and Segtub  Mediating the Climate Change Message
“logging/deforestation,” “polluting water bodies” and “air pollution” all contribute 
to climate change. Beyond this general picture there was also an observable tendency 
for respondents within particular ecological communities to be relatively more certain 
about the contribution made to climate change by factors local to their environment. 
Respondents within the forest zone felt more positively about the contribution of 
logging/deforestation to climate change (mean=4.46) than either bush burning (3.97) or 
the pollution of water bodies (3.89) or air pollution (3.89). Likewise, respondents within 
the savannah zone were more aware of bush burning (4.72) than logging/deforestation 
(4.62), air pollution (4.12), and the pollution of water bodies (3.69). Respondents from 
the urban cluster responded positively to the contribution of logging/deforestation 
(4.35), air pollution (4.29) and bush burning (4.06), but were less affirmative about the 
pollution of water bodies (3.96). The notable exception to these inherent distinctions was 
in the case of the coastal zone cluster. They were relatively uniform in their attribution of 
the identified anthropogenic factors: bush burning (mean=3.95), logging/deforestation 
(mean=3.89), the pollution of water bodies (3.89), and air pollution (3.98); and they 
demonstrated the least aggregate awareness (3.91) of the human agency of climate 
change. The proportion of respondents who were “not sure” that any of the identified 
human-induced factors contributed to climate change is also notable considering that as 
media workers, it would be reasonable to expect them to be relatively better informed 
than the average member of the larger Ghanaian population. 
Across the different ecological zones, respondents had a high mean awareness (4.18) 
of the contribution of bush burning to climate change. This is reflected in 75 per 
cent of respondents who considered that bush burning contributed “much” or “very 
much” to climate change. In relative terms, however, perceptions of the level of 
threat posed by bush burning were more restrained among respondents in the urban, 
coastal and forest communities. In each of these communities, less than 50 per cent 
of the respondents thought bush burning was “very much” a threat to climate change. 
Significantly, however, more than 79 per cent of respondents from the savannah zone 
identified bush burning as contributing “very much” to climate change. When the means 
are compared, it is noteworthy that respondents within the savannah zone were more 
definitive (mean=4.72) than respondents within the coastal belt (mean=3.95) about the 
contribution of bush burning to climate change. Also noteworthy is that none of the 
respondents within the savannah regions indicated that bush burning contributed “very 
little” or even “little” to climate change compared to the other regions where some 
respondents chose those options. 
There was a high aggregate degree of conviction among respondents about the 
contribution of logging/deforestation to climate change. More than four in five 
(83.4%) said logging/deforestation contributed “much” or “very much” to climate 
change. This translates to a high aggregate level of knowledge (mean=4.33) about 
logging/deforestation as a factor in climate change. The relative high mean values 
among savannah (4.62) and forest (4.46) respondents on the one hand, and on the other 
11
Gadzekpo, Tietaah, and Segtub  Mediating the Climate Change Message
hand the low awareness among coastal respondents (3.89) suggest some association 
between local ecological experiences and knowledge of logging/deforestation as a 
cause of climate change. 
Relative to the other human-induced factors, respondents were least likely (mean=3.86) 
to identify the pollution of water bodies as a factor in climate change. A total of 65 per 
cent of respondents thought that polluting water bodies contributed “much” or “very 
much” to climate change, with more than a third (35.6%) describing this effect as “very 
much.” The percentage of respondents who indicated that they were “not sure” that 
water pollution contributed to climate change was relatively high (22.3%), compared to 
the percentages who were uncertain about bush burning (16.5%), logging/deforestation 
(12.7%) and air pollution (16%). 
Respondents showed higher aggregate awareness (mean=4.05) of the contribution of air 
pollution to climate change than they did to the pollution of water bodies. In terms of 
relative means, media practitioners from the urban and savannah clusters demonstrated 
more knowledge (mean scores of 4.29 and 4.14, respectively) about the contribution of 
air pollution to climate change compared to those within the forest and coastal clusters, 
each of which groups recorded a mean value of 3.89. More than three in four (76.1%) 
respondents said air pollution contributed “much” or “very much” to climate change, 
with close to half (47.7%) of them saying air pollution contributed “very much” to 
climate change. Another 15 per cent thought air pollution contributed “little” or even 
“very little” to climate change (compared to 5.7% of urban respondents, 8.1% of forest 
respondents, and 6.8% of savannah respondents). As many as one in every five (20%) 
of them were “not sure” that air pollution contributed to climate change, although on 
this response there was a greater sense of doubt among forest region respondents (24%).
Attitudes toward Climate Change
Respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which they considered climate change 
as a threat to their community and national development, and as a global issue worth 
covering by the media. Four in five respondents (79.7%) thought climate change was a 
“major threat” (32%) and even a “very major threat” (47.7%) to community development, 
and therefore needs journalistic attention. They felt even more strongly about climate 
change as a threat to national development: 86.9 per cent of the respondents recognised 
climate change as a “major threat” (32.7%) or “very major threat” (54.2%) to national 
development. Not only did they consider climate change as a threat to local and national 
development, but eight in 10 of them (80.9 %) were also positive about climate change 
as a global issue worth media attention and treatment.
At the other end of the scale, less than one in 10 (8.5%) considered climate change a 
“minimal threat” (6.5%) or even a “very minimal threat” (2.0%) to the development of 
their community. At the national level, even fewer (5.9%) considered climate change a 
12
Gadzekpo, Tietaah, and Segtub  Mediating the Climate Change Message
“minimal” (2.6%) or “very minimal” (3.3%) threat. Similarly, less than one in 10 (7.7%) 
were subdued about climate change as a global issue worth covering. Their responses 
to the open question about the reasons for their answer were indicative of the key 
reasons why they considered climate change newsworthy and may be grouped under 
the following six categories of responses: food production/food security, deforestation, 
flooding, silting of water bodies, pollution of water bodies, and exposure to ultra-violet 
rays. 
Table 2: Descriptive statistics on effects of climate change on life and livelihood
Observable Response
manifestation N M1   f (%) 2   f (%) 3   f (%) 4   f (%) 5   f (%)
Food security 152 20 (13.2) 6 (3.9) 27 (17.8) 36 (23.7) 63 (41.4) 3.63
Flooding  156 7 (4.5) 11 (7.1) 16 (10.3) 38 (24.4) 84 (53.8) 4.24
Extreme weather 156 4 (2.6) 9 (5.8) 13 (8.3) 36 (23.1) 94 (60.3) 4.33
Depletion of natural 
resources 156 3 (1.9) 9 (5.8) 30 (19.2) 35 (22.4) 79 (50.6) 4.09
Resource conflict 152 13 (8.6) 14 (9.2) 28 (18.4) 50 (32.9) 47 (30.9) 3.75
Loss of livelihood 155 7 (4.5) 12 (7.7) 26 (16.8) 39 (25.2) 71 (45.8) 4.05
Human health/
disease 155 6 (3.9) 9 (5.8) 24 (15.5) 42 (27.1) 74 (47.7) 3.63
Endangered wildlife 156 4 (2.6) 7 (4.5) 23 (14.7) 43 (27.6) 79 (50.6) 4.20
1=very little;     2=little;     3=not sure; 4=much;     5=very much; N=valid responses; M=means
Beyond the triggering factors affecting climate change, the study also sought to find 
out the extent of perceived or felt effects and consequences of climate change on 
life and livelihood. Respondents held weak convictions about the impact of climate 
change on food security (mean=3.63), conflict over natural resources (mean=3.75), and 
human health/disease (mean=3.63). Conversely, they held strong convictions about 
the impact of climate change on flooding (mean=4.24), extreme weather (mean=4.33), 
depletion of natural resources (mean=4.09), loss of livelihoods (4.05), and endangered 
wildlife (mean=4.20). More than three in five (65.1%) respondents said climate change 
contributed “much” or “very much” to food security, with more than two in five (41.4%) 
saying climate change contributed “very much” to food security. On the other hand, 
close to one  in six (17.1%) said climate change contributed “little”/“very little” to food 
security. A similar proportion (17.8%) were “not sure” that problems of food security 
were the result of climate change.
Close to four in five (78.2%) respondents said climate change contributed “much” 
or “very much” to flooding, with more than half (53.8%) saying it contributed “very 
much.” More than four in five (83.4%) said climate change contributed “much” or “very 
13
Gadzekpo, Tietaah, and Segtub  Mediating the Climate Change Message
much” to extreme weather, with three in five respondents (60.3%) saying that climate 
change contributed “very much.” More than seven in 10 (73%) indicated climate change 
contributed “much” or “very much” to the depletion of natural resources while less than 
one in 10 (7.7%) said climate change contributed “little” or “very little.” Nearly one in 
five were unsure about the contribution of climate change to the depletion of natural 
resources. Close to four in five (78.2%) thought climate change contributed “much” 
or “very much” to endangering wildlife, with one in two (50.6%) saying that climate 
change contributed “very much” to that outcome. Only about 7.4 per cent indicated that 
climate change played “little” or “very little” role in endangering wildlife. More than 
three in five respondents (63.8%) said climate change contributed “much” or “very 
much” to conflicts over natural resources. Less than one in five (17.8%), however, said 
climate change contributed “little” or “very little,” and slightly more (18.4%) indicated 
they were unsure. More than seven in 10 (71%) respondents said climate change 
contributed “much” or “very much” to loss of livelihoods, with more than two in five 
(45.8%) saying that the contribution to loss of livelihoods was “very much.” More than 
one in 10 (12.2%), however, thought climate change contributed “little” or “very little” 
to loss of livelihoods. Climate change was also identified as having serious effects on 
human health by more than seven in 10 (74.8%) respondents. As many as 15.5 per cent 
indicated they were “not sure” about the link between climate change and disease/ill 
health.
Respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which they thought the government, 
the media and NGOs could respectively contribute to address climate change issues. 
A majority of respondents was positive (mean=4.00) about the role of the government 
in addressing climate change. Three in four (74%) had great faith in the ability of the 
government to contribute to addressing climate change issues, of which nearly two in 
five (58, 37.4 %) indicated that the government could contribute “very much,” and a 
similar number (57, 36.8%) indicated that the government could contribute “much” 
to addressing climate change. About one in 10 respondents (10.4%) had little faith in 
the responsibility of the government to contribute to addressing climate change issues. 
Another 15.5 per cent were unsure of the government’s responsibility or ability to 
address climate change. In answer to the follow-up question on how the government 
could contribute to addressing climate change issues, respondents identified five main 
categories of possible intervention:
1. designing legal frameworks and policies on climate change; 
2. providing resources; 
3. providing leadership by educating the general public; 
4. mainstreaming climate change issues in the national agenda; and 
5. providing research opportunities to investigate further into climate change issues 
in the country. 
14
Gadzekpo, Tietaah, and Segtub  Mediating the Climate Change Message
Relative to the two other agencies (government and media) respondents were least 
assured (mean=3.56) about NGOs’ responsibility for addressing the issues of climate 
change. More than a third (34.8%) of them indicated they were “not sure” of the 
responsibility and ability of NGOs to contribute to addressing climate change issues. In 
addition, close to one in 10 (9.7%) thought NGOs could contribute only “little” or “very 
little” to mitigating the incidences or consequences of climate change. A little over a 
third (35.5%) thought NGOs could contribute “much” and one in five (20%) indicated 
that they could contribute “very much” to addressing climate change. Respondents 
identified three main ways by which NGOs could contribute to addressing climate 
change issues: influencing public policy, providing public education to communities 
and groups on climate change through workshops and seminars, and helping to build the 
capacity of journalists to educate the public.
Finally, respondents were more positive about the responsibility and contribution of 
media institutions towards addressing climate change than both the government and 
NGOs. Far more of them thought the media could contribute “very much” to addressing 
climate change (46.5%) compared to the government (37.4%) and NGOs (20%). 
Furthermore, they were less unsure about the role of the media (18.5%) than they were 
about the role of NGOs (34.8%), although they were also less sure about the media than 
they were about the government (15.5%). Less than one in 10 said they believed that the 
media could contribute “little” or “very little” to addressing the challenges of climate 
change. They were almost unanimous in their judgement on the power of the media to 
create awareness on climate change principally through their gatekeeping and agenda-
setting activities. An overwhelming majority (93.8%) said the media could influence 
attitudes towards climate change and only four (2.5%) respondents said the media could 
not influence such attitudes, while another two (1.3%) were not sure. They explained 
that the media were effective in disseminating information on climate change because 
of public trust in scientific facts conveyed by the media. Nearly two in three (65.7%) 
respondents said their stories aimed at changing behaviour. And while more than three 
in four (75.1%) of the respondents said the media could create awareness, they were less 
sure about the media’s ability to influence policy; less than half of them (45%) said the 
media could influence policy.
Respondents were positive (answering “very much” and “much”) about the potential 
of radio, television and the Internet for addressing climate change. They were negative 
(answering “very little” and “little” or “not sure”) about newspapers and interpersonal 
channels for promoting mitigation and adaptation messages. Respondents thought highly 
of radio (83.6%, N=153) and even more so of television (84.3%, N=153) as means of 
addressing climate change. A more modest majority (52.2%) thought the Internet could 
be used to address climate change. On the other hand, they thought less of newspapers 
(61.9%, N=155) and even interpersonal or non-mass media methods (61.7%, N=149) as 
channels for promoting mitigation and adaptation strategies.
15
Gadzekpo, Tietaah, and Segtub  Mediating the Climate Change Message
Practices on Climate Change Coverage
While respondents affirmed the potential of the media to address climate change, 
there was considerable doubt about their current contribution as change agents. An 
overwhelming majority (77.5%) felt the media were not doing enough to influence 
attitudes on climate change. The main reason respondents gave for this observation is 
that the media are more interested in political stories and events. Other reasons include 
the lack of information by the media to be able to make the desired contribution to 
discussions on climate change. 
Beyond the institutional agency of their media organisations, respondents were asked 
about their personal interest in seeking information on, and contributing to public 
understanding of, climate change. The majority of them indicated they could personally 
contribute “very much” (31.8%) or “much” (30.5%) to public education on climate 
change. Surprisingly, 29.2 per cent (N=154) were ambivalent, declaring themselves 
“not sure,” while 5.8 per cent thought they could personally contribute “little” and fewer 
still (2.6%) said they could contribute “very little.” Furthermore, close to half (47%) of 
the respondents were “very interested” in seeking information on climate change. About 
another quarter (22.5%) were “interested” in seeking such information. This adds up to 
nearly seven in 10 who would be desirous of information on climate change. Only one 
in 20 (5%) and less than one in 10 (8%) were, respectively, “not interested” or “little 
interested” in seeking such information. The remaining 15.6 per cent were indifferent. 
They suggested that they could be more effective in addressing climate change if they 
attended workshops and seminars and engaged experts on the subject.
Respondents were asked to indicate whether their media positively encouraged or 
provided institutional support for coverage of climate change issues. Most respondents 
(84.1%; N=145) said their news organisations encouraged stories on climate change. 
Only 6.2 per cent indicated their organisations did not directly encourage such coverage. 
The remaining 9.7 per cent were uncertain or thought their media were ambivalent 
about the public interest or the expectation from them to promote positively public 
awareness on climate change.
Furthermore, while nearly 77.9 per cent (N=149) of respondents said their news 
organisations had done stories on climate change, 8.7 per cent said their news 
organisations had not done stories on climate change before, and the remaining 13.4 
per cent were unsure if their media had done such stories. Those whose media had 
done climate change stories mentioned examples relating to bush fires, logging, illegal 
saw-chain operations, sand mining, sea erosion of coastal lands and even gold mining. 
Specific stories they could recall included stories on women and the climate, the 
launching of a climate change book for Africa, and the launching of a guidebook on 
reporting climate change for journalists. 
At the individual or personal level, 56.6 per cent (N=145) of respondents had done 
stories on climate change; the remaining 43.4 per cent had either not done any stories 
16
Gadzekpo, Tietaah, and Segtub  Mediating the Climate Change Message
or could not immediately recall if they had. Those respondents who had done stories 
before explained that they had done between one and 30 event-driven stories on climate 
change. Fewer had done enterprise-driven stories on climate change. Importantly, 
among those who had done stories on climate change, only 5.2 per cent said their stories 
had ever been unpublished/rejected by their organisations. Rather, as many as 84.3 per 
cent said that their stories had never been rejected, suggesting that there was probably 
no editorial gatekeeping aversion to doing climate change stories. Just about 1 in 10 
(10.4%) were not sure/could not remember if their stories had been rejected. 
Analyses and Implications of Findings
In general, these findings show high awareness, but low knowledge on climate change 
issues by Ghanaian media practitioners. They also indicate high conviction, but low 
engagement of media practitioners and their institutions towards addressing the incidence 
and consequences of climate change. This observation echoes what Naustdalslid (2011) 
has referred to as “a knowledge-action paradox” (248). In the developing country 
context, the deferred human-induced manifestations of climate change may well be 
the opportunity cost of meeting basic survival needs. This is not to suggest that climate 
change action is not a concern among journalists. Rather, the presumed relation of 
climate conviction to effective stewardship is borne out by the observed tendency for 
media practitioners to express greater empathy with and identification of specific human-
induced causal factors within the ecological zone in which they operated than with 
factors relatively removed from their direct acquaintance. This suggests that particular 
personal encounters or experiences with peculiar manifestations of climate change were 
instrumental in media practitioners’ convictions about anthropogenic causes of climate 
change. It resonates with the finding by Ojomo et al. (2015) that respondents in the 
Southern Nigerian states of Akwa Ibom and Lagos tended to know more about climate 
change effects that were particular to their locales and lived experiences than effects 
relatively further removed from their direct, personal acquaintance.
The findings demonstrate also that while awareness, conviction and empathy are 
prerequisites, these factors do not inevitably lead to knowledge and engagement in 
competently mediating the climate change message. Again, this is consistent with 
literature (Naustdalslid 2011; Ojomo et al. 2015; Stehr and Grundmann 2012)
As noted earlier, some respondents failed to express clearly an understanding of the 
most common climate change issues, concepts and buzzwords. This evident lack of 
familiarity with the common climate change terms, policies and conferences among 
media practitioners is remarkable. It suggests a need for the scientific community and 
climate change advocacy agencies in Ghana to review how they engage with and support 
media practitioners in spreading the right climate messages.
17
Gadzekpo, Tietaah, and Segtub  Mediating the Climate Change Message
Journalists and other media practitioners are themselves already conscious of their 
shortcomings. When asked about their capacity-building training needs they generally 
admitted to a lack of basic knowledge of climate change as a subject matter, including 
international conventions and protocols and Ghana’s policies on climate change. They 
also indicated that they lacked the technical skills, and their organisations lacked the 
logistical capacity, to enable the full use of ICTs and Internet resources to improve their 
work in promoting climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts. More than three-
quarters said they had not attended any capacity-building event on climate change, and 
only 24 per cent had ever attended a climate change workshop, seminar or conference. 
A particular objective of the study was to find out if/how the climate change engagement 
(practices) of media practitioners was related to their background (position), 
understanding (knowledge) or conviction (attitude) about the anthropogenic causes 
of climate change. Accordingly, four specific statistical tests were run to find out the 
capacity and motivation of media practitioners to mediate (practice) the climate change 
message. 
First, to determine the relationship between respondents’ newsroom position/designation 
and knowledge on climate change, a Pearson correlation test was run. Weak, negative 
correlations of no statistical significance were found in four knowledge areas: their 
understanding of the term “Green Agenda” (r = -.102, n = 141, p = .227), whether there 
is a difference between climate change and global warming (r = -.068, n = 140, p = 
.424), if they had ever heard of the IPCC (r = -.082, n = 116, p = .383), and what climate 
change conventions/protocols they knew about (r = -.182, n = 82, p = .101). Two weak, 
positive correlations of no statistical significance were found in two other knowledge 
areas: their understanding of the term “green growth” (r= .107, n= 139, p= .210) and 
what they already know about Ghana’s climate change policy (r= .106, n= 84, p= .337). 
Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2 tailed) or 0.01 level (2 tailed). The total 
effect of this is that there was no significant correlation between a person’s position and 
their knowledge on climate change. The correlations observed, therefore, may just have 
happened due to chance.
Second, to determine the relationship between respondents’ knowledge of and attitude 
toward climate change, a Pearson correlation test was run. Weak, negative correlations of 
no statistical significance were found in one attitude area: whether NGOs can contribute 
to addressing climate change issues (r= -.159, n= 145, p= .055). Three weak, positive 
correlations of no statistical significance were also found in three attitude areas: whether 
government could contribute to address climate change issues (r= .094, n= 145, p= 
.260), whether the media could contribute to address climate change issues (r= .094, n= 
147, p= .257), and climate change as a threat to national development (r= .079, n= 148, 
p= .340). Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2 tailed). This indicates that there 
was no significant correlation between a person’s position and their attitude towards 
climate change. The correlations observed may just have happened by chance.
18
Gadzekpo, Tietaah, and Segtub  Mediating the Climate Change Message
Third, a Pearson correlation test was run to find out the relation between practitioners’ 
knowledge and their practice on climate change. Weak, negative correlations of no 
statistical significance were found in three practice areas: whether they had personally 
ever done any stories on climate change (r= -.113, n= 136, p= .190), particular skills/
strengths needed in doing climate change stories (r= -.061, n= 10, p= .867), and whether 
any of their stories on climate change had been rejected by their news organisation 
(r= -.014, n= 126, p= .876). Three weak, positive correlations of no statistical significance 
were found in three practice areas: whether they had recently attended any climate 
change workshop, seminar, conference or other capacity-building meeting (r= .017, 
n= 147, p= .841), particular skills/strengths they had in doing climate change stories 
(r= .084, n= 73, p= .477), and particular skills/strengths they lacked/needed in doing 
climate change stories (r= .014, n= 81, p= .900). Correlation is significant at the 0.05 
level (2 tailed) or 0.01 level (2 tailed). In effect, cumulatively, there was no significant 
correlation between a person’s position and their practices on climate change, therefore, 
the correlations observed just happened by chance.
Finally, to determine the relationship between respondents’ attitudes and practices on 
climate change, a Pearson product-moment correlation was tested. Weak, negative 
correlations of no statistical significance were found in five practice areas: whether 
their news organisation ever did any stories on climate change (r= -.175, n= 146, 
p= .034), if their news organisation encouraged stories on climate change (r= -.146, 
n= 143, p= .081), if they had personally ever done any stories on climate change (r= -.138, 
n= 144, p= .098), what particular skills/strengths they lacked/needed in doing climate 
change stories (r= -.134, n= 88, p= .219), and what strengths (technical, logistic) their 
organisation had in doing climate change stories (r= -.111, n= 66, p= .377). Besides, a 
weak, positive correlation of no statistical significance was found between their attitude 
and one practice question, namely, whether any stories by them on climate change had 
been rejected by their news organisation (r= .002, n= 133, p= .982).
The demonstrated lack of compelling correlations between specific attributes of KAP of 
climate change among media practitioners is revealing. They provoke epistemological 
and heuristic questions about the presumed predictive power of individual vis-à-vis 
institutional loci of control, in defining and driving specific subjects up the news values 
chain. According to the KAP model, it is possible to perceive and predict behavioural 
intent by examining an individual’s cognitive and attitudinal cues. In other words, high 
knowledge and positive disposition towards climate change are correlated, and are, in 
turn, predicted to determine the likelihood that an individual will engage in climate 
change news and information production and distribution. It would seem with respect 
to media practice, however, that the pertinence of personal judgements and convictions 
about what to include or prioritise and what to exclude or downplay among the competing 
currents of news events and issues are not ultimately determinant. Rather, the findings 
support the idea that news decisions are a product of multiple institutional drivers of 
media agenda, such as the prevailing political economy of climate change reporting 
19
Gadzekpo, Tietaah, and Segtub  Mediating the Climate Change Message
(Meribe 2017), that tend to trump the individual locus of control on what makes the 
news (Shoemaker and Reese 2014). Related to this dynamic is the idea that the KAP 
model is probably more suited to subjects that promise or entail individual behaviour 
change benefits. A presumably non-excludable subject like climate change mitigation/
adaptation would require broader policy incentives to inspire individual/institutional 
activism. This is what inspired the policy recommendation at the Rio Summit in 1992 
for a cross-, inter-, and trans-disciplinary mainstreaming of climate change (UNCED 
1992). While the merits of this call are granted, a corps of dedicated beat or enterprise 
climate change practitioners and media, trained and supported to advocate the cause, 
will seem more promising than relying on normative news routines. These propositions 
are not whimsical. They resonate with the nested factors of news decision-making that 
Shoemaker and Reese (2014) canvas in their sociology of media production. 
Policymakers, scientists and NGOs interested in discovering more effective ways of 
partnering with the media in improving the flow of information and communication on 
climate change in local communities as well as increasing their education, advocacy 
and communication campaigns may find these findings useful. Training and capacity-
building efforts must also be variable, to respond to the peculiar information needs 
and climate change effects that media practitioners experience and report across their 
respective ecological zones of experience and operation. 
This study was inspired by the observation that not as much research attention has 
been paid to factors that influence the actions of journalists as individuals (such as 
their awareness and attitudes), as has been given to the institutional-level drivers of 
media production and presentation (such as the regulations, sources, technologies 
and financing). While the findings of this study have sought to fill this research gap, 
a number of questions are still outstanding. What role, if any, do such factors as news 
routines and beats, gatekeeping and deadlines, gender and society, play in informing 
and forming the knowledge and engagement of journalists on climate change issues? Is 
there a difference in the influences on individual journalistic perceptions and practices 
based on differences in media ownership types and content distribution platforms? 
In what ways do extra-media factors within the news and information value chain 
(political and policy actors, public relations and advertising agents) affect the interests 
of the individual journalist in climate change reporting? These questions expose the 
limitations of this study. Further research is required to address these questions.
REFERENCES
Abotsi, P. K. 2015. “Ghana: Climate Change Responsible for Flooding in Ghana—Sherry Ayittey.” 
Accessed May 14, 2018. http://allafrica.com/stories/201506261232.html.
Adger, W. N., I. Lorenzoni, and K. L. O’Brien. 2009. Adapting to Climate Change: Thresholds, Values and 
Governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511596667.
20
Gadzekpo, Tietaah, and Segtub  Mediating the Climate Change Message
Altmeppen, K.-D. 2008. “The Structure of News Production: The Organizational Approach to Journalism 
Research.” In Global Journalism Research: Theories, Methods, Findings, Future, edited by M. 
Löffelholz and D. Weaver, 52–64. New York: Blackwell.
Bacon, W. 2013. Skeptical Climate Part 2: Climate Science in Australian Newspapers. Australian Centre 
for Independent Journalism.” Accessed May 11, 2018. https://www.uts.edu.au/sites/default/files/
Sceptical-Climate-Part-2-Climate-Science-in-Australian-Newspapers.pdf.
 
Baird, R. 2008. “The Impact of Climate Change on Minorities and Indigenous Peoples.” Briefing Paper, 
Minority Rights Group International, London. Accessed May 11, 2018. http://gsdrc.org/document-
library/the-impact-of-climate-change-on-minorities-and-indigenous-peoples/.
BBC WST (British Broadcasting Corporation World Service Trust). 2010. “Ghana Talks Climate: The 
Public Understanding of Climate Change.” Research Report Ghana. BBC World Service Trust: 
London. Accessed May 11, 2018. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/57a08b09e5274a27
b20008fd/04-Ghana-talks-Climate.pdf.
Bord, R. J., R. E. O’Connor, and A. Fisher 2000. “In What Sense Does the Public Need to Understand Global 
Climate Change?” Public Understanding of Science 9 (3): 205–218. https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-
6625/9/3/301.
Boykoff, M. T. 2011. Who Speaks for the Climate? Making Sense of Media Reporting on Climate Change. 
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511978586.
Carvalho, A. 2010. “Media(ted) Discourses and Climate Change: A Focus on Political Subjectivity and 
(Dis)Engagement.” WIREs Climate Change 1 (2): 172–79. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.13.
Collier, P., G. Conway, and T. Venables. 2008. “Climate Change and Africa.” Oxford Review of Economic 
Policy 24 (2): 337–53. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grn019.
GoG (Governement of Ghana). 2012. Ghana National Climate Change Policy. Accra: Ministry of 
Environment, Science and Technology. 
GoG (Government of Ghana). 2017. NMC Medium-Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) for 2017–2019. 
Accra: Ministry of Finance.
Issah, Z. 2015. “#AccraFloods: Ga Chiefs Puts Blame on Flouting Ban on Noise Making.” Graphic Online, 
July 19. Accessed May 14, 2018. https://www.graphic.com.gh/news/general-news/respect-our-
traditions-ga-traditional-council-tells-residents.html.
Happer, C., and G. Philo. 2013. “The Role of the Media in the Construction of Public Belief and Social 
Change.” Journal of Social and Political Psychology 1 (1): 321–36. https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.
v1i1.96.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. 
Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental 
Panel on Climate Change. Edited by the Core Writing Team, R. K. Pachauri and A. Reisinger. IPCC: 
Geneva. Accessed May 11, 2018 https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_full_
report.pdf.
21
Gadzekpo, Tietaah, and Segtub  Mediating the Climate Change Message
Lippmann, W. 1998. Public Opinion. London: Transaction Publishers.
Lorenzoni, I., and N. F. Pidgeon. 2006. “Public Views on Climate Change: European and USA Perspectives.” 
Climatic Change 77 (10–2): 73–95.
Meribe, E. C. 2017. “The Political Economy of Climate Change Reporting in Nigeria.” African Journalism 
Studies 38 (1): 40–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/23743670.2016.1263227.
Midttun, A., P. Coulter, A. Gadzekpo, and J. Wang. 2015. “Comparing Media Framings of Climate Change 
in Developed, Rapid Growth and Developing Countries: Findings from Norway, China and Ghana.” 
Energy and Environment 26 (8): 1271–292. https://doi.org/10.1260/0958-305X.26.8.1271.
Moser, S. C., and L. Dilling, eds. 2007. Creating a Climate for Change: Communicating Climate Change 
and Facilitating Social Change. New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/
CBO9780511535871.
Naustdalslid, J. 2011. “Climate Change—The Challenge of Translating Scientific Knowledge into Action.” 
International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 18 (3): 243–52. https://doi.org
/10.1080/13504509.2011.572303.
NCA (National Communications Authority). 2017. “Licenses and Authorizations.” Accessed May 14, 
2018. https://nca.org.gh/industry-data-2/licenses-and-authorisations/.
Nisbet, M. C. 2010. “Knowledge into Action: Framing the Debates over Climate Change and Poverty.” In 
Doing News Framing Analysis: Empirical and Theoretical Perspectives, edited by P. D’Angelo and J. 
A. Kuypers, 43–83, New York: Routledge.
Ojomo, E., M. Elliott, U. Amjad, and J. Bartram. 2015. “Climate Change Preparedness: A Knowledge 
and Attitudes Study in Southern Nigeria.” Environments 2 (4): 435–48. https://doi.org/10.3390/
environments2040435.
Olausson, U. 2009. “Global Warming—Global Responsibility? Media Frames of Collective 
Action and Scientific Certainty.” Public Understanding of Science 18 (4): 421–36. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0963662507081242.
Olausson, U. 2011. “‘We’re the Ones to Blame’: Citizens’ Representations of Climate Change and the Role 
of the Media.” Environmental Communication 5 (3): 281–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.201
1.585026.
Painter, J. 2013. Climate Change in the Media: Reporting Risk and Uncertainty. Oxford: I.B. Taurus. 
RSF (Reporters Without Borders). 2017. “2017 World Press Freedom Index—Tipping Point.” Accessed 
May 11, 2018. https://rsf.org/en/2017-world-press-freedom-index-tipping-point.
Ryghaug, M., and T. M. Skjølsvold. 2016. “Climate Change Communication in Norway.” Oxford Research 
Encyclopedia of Climate Science. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.453.
Shoemaker, P. J., and S. D. Reese. 2014. Mediating the Message in the 21st Century: A Media Sociology 
Perspective. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge.
22
Gadzekpo, Tietaah, and Segtub  Mediating the Climate Change Message
Stehr, N., and R. Grundmann. 2012. “How Does Knowledge Relate to Political Action?” Innovation: The 
European Journal of  Social Science Research 25 (1): 29–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.201
2.655572.
Tietaah, G. 2015. “Abusive Language, Media Malaise and Political Efficacy in Ghana.” In A Critical 
Appraisal of Communication Theory and Practice in Ghana, edited by K. Ansu-Kyeremeh, A. 
Gadzekpo, and M. Amoakohene, 155–67. University of Ghana Reader Series. Accra: Digibooks.
UNCED (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development). 1992. Agenda 21. Rio de Janerio, 
June 3–14. Accessed May 11, 2018. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/
Agenda21.pdf.
Weber, E. U. 2010. “What Shapes Perceptions of Climate Change?” WIREs: Climate Change 1 (3): 332–
342. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.41.
World Bank Group. 2014. 2014. Building Competitive Green Industries: The Climate and Clean Technology 
Opportunity for Developing Countries. Washington, DC: World Bank. Accessed May 11, 2018. http://
documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/837201468165876160/Building-competitive-green-industries-
the-climate-and-clean-technology-opportunity-for-developing-countries.
23