Heating or eating? The framing of food and fuel poverty in UK news media

Résumé fourni par la source

Amidst the cost-of-living crisis the UK news has been increasingly reporting of individuals "choosing between heating and eating," suggesting overlapping food and fuel poverty (FFP). The media plays a powerful role in establishing narratives, shaping political debates, and even influencing what societies regard as an "issue" or a "public health issue." Relying on framing theory, this media analysis seeks to better understand how FFP have been constructed relationally in the UK news and how surrounding public health messaging has been employed. Using the NexisLexis database, we searched for UK news articles about intersecting FFP published between January 2010 and April 2022. After double screening, relevant data were extracted from 185 articles and data fragments were coded and analysed. FFP-focused news largely gained momentum in late 2021 into 2022. Two frame categories - descriptive and prescriptive - of FFP were identified. Descriptive frames explained the experience of FFP as a: trade-off between goods (71% of articles), mutual cutback of goods (28%), or just poverty (income/monetary poverty) (1%). Prescriptive frames assigned blame or responsibility to: government (59% of articles), food/fuel industry (13%), community or charity organisations (12%), or individuals (3%). Relatively few (29%) articles linked FFP with health consequences, and none framed it as a health issue. The prominence of the trade-off frame in the UK news suggests that FFP is a crucial topic for the UK public that requires joint attention. Despite the prominence of the government responsibility framing, the frame lacks accompanying prescriptions of consistent, specific, targeted solutions. A public health frame in the UK news may address this gap by outlining potential evidence-based solutions and increasing capacity by appointing responsible actors to help prevent and address this issue.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.