The UK has witnessed a surge in climate activism in recent years, with groups like Extinction Rebellion (XR), Just Stop Oil, and Animal Rising employing various tactics, ranging from disruptive public protests to more targeted actions. While sharing the common goal of urging climate action, these groups diverge in their approaches. XR's January 2023 "We Quit" statement marked a shift away from disruptive public actions, focusing instead on targeting specific power structures. Other groups, however, continued disruptive tactics, believing they were crucial for media attention. This study investigates the relationship between different protest tactics and the resulting media coverage, recognizing the media's significant role in shaping public perception of climate activism and influencing the perceived appropriateness of various responses to the climate crisis. The research is timely given the increasing prominence of direct action and the urgent need to address climate change. It aims to determine the "return on effort" for climate activists and potentially influence the pace of decarbonization in Britain.

Existing research extensively covers climate activism, but there's a gap in understanding the relationship between protest tactics and media coverage. While media influence on public and climate change opinion is established, the debate centers on the effectiveness of various protest tactics and their impact on the volume and favorability of resulting media coverage. Some studies suggest that confrontational tactics, while attracting more attention, may negatively affect public perception of the movement, creating an "activist's dilemma." Other research emphasizes the importance of elite attention rather than public support as a key driver of political outcomes. XR's strategic evolution, exemplified by their "We Quit" statement and the subsequent "Big One" protest, provides a valuable case study for analyzing the media's response to shifts in tactical approach. The literature also explores the concept of the "radical flank effect," where the actions of more radical groups can influence perceptions of more moderate ones. This study contributes by examining the media coverage of XR and related groups before and after XR’s strategic shift.

This study analyzed a unique dataset of 412 articles from November 1, 2022, to May 4, 2023, encompassing coverage of XR, Just Stop Oil, and Animal Rising. Data sources included the BBC and 15 of the most popular UK newspapers. Articles mentioning "Extinction Rebellion," "XR," or similar terms were collected. The analysis focused on two pre-registered hypotheses: (1) Liberal newspapers will report more positively on actions than conservative newspapers; and (2) Illegal actions will receive more press coverage, but this coverage will be more negative. Variables collected included newspaper partisanship, article word count, length of XR coverage, shares, comments, sentiment, legality of action, target of action, scale of action, and accuracy of reporting. OLS linear regressions were used to assess the association between media coverage (sentiment and volume, measured as an interaction term of word count and percentage of article devoted to XR) and various predictors. Robustness checks involved controlling for month and day of publication. Sub-analyses were conducted on subsets of the data (articles focused solely on XR and articles excluding "The Big One"). Exploratory analyses examined the accuracy of coverage by political affiliation and sentiment change after XR’s "We Quit" statement. A case study compared three major April 2023 actions: XR's "Big One," Just Stop Oil's snooker disruption, and Animal Rising's Grand National disruption.

The study found significant evidence supporting Hypothesis 1: conservative newspapers reported more negatively on climate activism than neutral or liberal sources. Regarding Hypothesis 2: legal actions attracted more coverage than illegal actions, contradicting the second part of the hypothesis; however, legal actions also received more positive coverage. Actions targeting industry garnered the most coverage, while those targeting the public received more favorable coverage. London-based actions attracted greater coverage. Conservative newspapers were found to be significantly less accurate in their reporting. Exploratory analysis showed no significant positive shift in sentiment toward XR following the "We Quit" statement. The case study of three April 2023 actions demonstrated that more disruptive actions attracted comparable or greater coverage but with significantly more negative sentiment. The Big One, while less disruptive, still garnered considerable, though less negative, coverage.

The findings challenge the "activist's dilemma" by showing that legal actions can attract both more coverage and more positive coverage. This suggests that legal actions might be a more effective strategy for achieving positive media outcomes. The dominance of negative sentiment from conservative news sources highlights the challenges activists face in shaping public perception. The London-centric media bias identified emphasizes the importance of considering geographic reach when planning actions. The study's robustness was assessed through sub-analyses excluding The Big One, which revealed the disproportionate positive coverage generated by that particular event. The case study showed that disruptive protests attract more media attention but potentially at the cost of negative sentiment. This suggests that there's a trade-off between attracting media attention and shaping the narrative.

This study provides valuable insights into the relationship between climate activism tactics and media coverage, offering guidance for activists aiming to maximize either the volume or favorability of media attention. Future research should analyze social media coverage of protests and conduct cross-country comparisons to understand how contextual factors might influence media representations of climate activism.

The study's reliance on legacy media might limit its scope, as a significant portion of the population now relies on social media for news. The lack of an objective measure of protest "disruptiveness" prevented its inclusion as a predictor variable. The focus on UK media limits the generalizability of findings to other contexts.