Analysing social actors & action on media texts on COP 29

We’re preparing to record an episode on COP 29, which was held in Azerbaijan last year, and analysing some media reports about it.

I’m interested in looking at the way media reports represent recent COPs having been held in ‘petrostates’ and the issue of COP ‘credibility.’

Which texts do we analyse and how? Previously, I posted about a list of ‘most important global media outlets’ and we’ll take reports about COP29 from the top three in that list - specifically where these outlets discuss the issue of COP and ‘petrostates’.

On HOW to analyse these media reports, I found a report of research by Hayley Walker, who argues that it is not the nationality of the host that counts, but how they behave as chair of COP:

Unlike the Azerbaijani Presidency of COP29, the Emirati Presidency was able to deliver an historic outcome, with the decision to transition away from fossil fuels.

“Although it sounds obvious to us, this was the first explicit mention to fossil fuels in a COP decision! They were able to achieve this despite being a petro-state Presidency, and maybe even because they were a petro-state Presidency. This is something I plan to investigate further in my research,” she adds.

The expert concludes, therefore, that for now it’s not the Presidency’s national interest that’s important, but whether they are able to put it aside and manage the negotiations in a fair and balanced manner.

https://insights.ieseg.fr/en/resource-center/cop-negotiations-presidency/

For me, this speaks to the inclusion and representation of social actors (the host) and the representation of their social actions (how they behave) - both of which are important analytical foci for CDA.

So, from the academic expert on COP, let’s take those terms for now:

Social actors: the Emirati Presidency and its identification as ‘being a petro-state’

Social action: ‘deliver an historic outcome’ (this is an action of the Emirati Presidency)

Social action: ‘decision to transition away from fossil fuels’ (this is the action of the COP - whose status as a social actor is de-emphasised here)

Walker offers two interpretations of this situation: first, that the identity of the Emirati Presidency as a ‘petrostate presidency’ can be understood as having been an obstacle to success which they overcame. Or, second, their identity as a petrostate may even be a factor in the apparent success of COP28.

A second explanation is given for the situation that Emirati Presidency did this as a Petro-state when the Azerbaijani Presidency did not:

Because of their considerable resources, the Emirati Presidency of COP28 was able to invest heavily and recruit a lot of experienced people to join their team to help them do just that. They consulted widely and didn’t favour one position over another.”

https://insights.ieseg.fr/en/resource-center/cop-negotiations-presidency/

Social action: able to invest heavily in (Emirati Presidency)

Social action: recruit a lot of experienced people (Emirati Presidency)

Social action: help [experienced people] them

Social action: do (Emirati Presidency) just that [listen to everybody, be transparent, and have the right knowledge and expertise]

This gives what looks to me like an interesting question: how does this public-facing representation from an academic expert on COP28 compare with public-facing media texts on COP29?