Abstract
A content analysis of opinion articles in the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times was conducted to examine partisan bias in elite commentary on renewable energy technologies and policy. It was predicted that partisan alignment in New York Times and Wall Street Journal opinion articles would be observed through the presence of ideologically divergent frames and partisan identity cues. The study further examined changes in the use of frames, presence of partisan identity cues, and attitudes toward renewable energy across three periods—2007 to 2009, 2015 to 2017, and 2019 to 2021—to examine the degree to which elite opinion writing reflected growing political polarization or opportunities for bipartisanship. The study found that while New York Times writers more frequently used environmental impacts frames than Wall Street Journal writers and Wall Street Journal writers more frequently employed economic consequences frames than New York Times writers, no other significant differences in frame use were present. The study also found evidence of increasingly partisan attitudes toward renewable energy in Wall Street Journal opinion articles, resulting in growing divergence in elite attitudes represented in the Wall Street Journal and New York Times during the sampled periods. Contrary to expectations, there was no significant increase in environmental framing; however, there was a significant increase in the degree to which renewables were discussed in the context of climate change. The study concludes that despite evidence that renewable energy technologies currently hold a degree of bipartisan support in the public, elite discourse remains highly polarized. Renewable energy advocates should seek to challenge this partisan discourse by relying less on environmental frames and more on frames that appeal to values across the political spectrum, and by increasingly highlighting bipartisan or Republican successes in expanding renewable energy.