Expertise under fire: framing, misinformation, and the delegitimization of climate science in right-wing media — a textual analysis of The Epoch Times

Abstract

When engaging with news online, individuals often rely on sources they perceive as trustworthy, which can reinforce preexisting beliefs, even when the information presented is partially or wholly incorrect (Ecker et al., 2022; Kunda, 1990). Framing plays a critical role in shaping how audiences interpret complex issues, such as climate change, by providing contextual lenses that influence understanding and perception. This study examines how a right-wing media outlet, The Epoch Times, employs framing strategies to construct narratives around climate change and scientific consensus. Using thematic textual analysis of The Epoch Times' online climate coverage, this research identifies recurring patterns in the portrayal of climate experts and scientific authority within misinformation-laden stories. The findings reveal that The Epoch Times systematically delegitimizes climate scientists by framing them as ideologically driven actors embedded in broader narratives of elitism, political control, and cultural conflict. The publication amplifies pseudo-experts while selectively presenting climate data to manufacture scientific controversy and uncertainty, effectively eroding public trust in legitimate science. Moreover, climate change itself is framed not as a settled scientific issue but as a politically charged and contested topic, reinforcing ideological polarization and skepticism. This study highlights how framing tactics, such as exploiting scientific uncertainty, promoting false equivalence between expert and non-expert voices, and linking climate science to globalist or elitist agendas, contribute to the legitimization of misinformation within right-wing media ecosystems. These insights deepen our understanding of the complex mechanisms through which misinformation is disseminated and accepted, emphasizing that combating climate misinformation requires more than factual corrections. Effective science communication must address the cultural and ideological contexts shaping audience perceptions and work to rebuild epistemic trust in scientific expertise.