MEDIA COVERAGE, CONTENT FRAMING AND AUDIENCE PERCEPTION OF WILDLIFE CONSERVATION DISCOURSE IN KENYA

Abstract

Audience perception of wildlife conservation discourse in Kenya has been negative as evidenced in the results of conservation efforts. The general objective of the study was: to investigate the influence of media coverage, content framing and audience perception of wildlife conservation discourse in Kenya. The specific objectives were to: examine the influence of the choice of media channel on audience perception; evaluate the timing of media messages on audience perception; investigate the effects of frequency of media messages on audience perception; assess the combined influence of choice of media channel, timing of media messages, and frequency of media messages on perception; and to investigate the moderating influence of content framing on the relationship between media coverage and audience perception of wildlife conservation discourse in Kenya. The study was anchored on framing and semantic meaning theories using a pragmatism philosophical paradigm. It employed a convergent parallel mixed methods design, combining quantitative and qualitative data for a comprehensive analysis. The target population consisted of 297 individuals, with a sample size of 133. Purposive sampling techniques were used to select 6 environmental journalists, a census identified 12 park managers, and through simple random sampling, 115 human-wildlife conflict resolution committee members joined the sample. Data collection tools comprised of interview guide for media practitioners and park managers, Focus Group Discussions guide targeting human-wildlife conflict resolution committee officials and a questionnaire administered to the other committee members. Qualitative data was thematically analyzed and presented in narrative form, while quantitative data underwent descriptive and inferential statistical analysis, with findings presented through linear texts and graphics. The study findings showed that there was lack of effective communication channels for wildlife conservation initiatives, which led to community resistance and jeopardize conservation efforts. The relationship between media channel choice and audience perception showed an R-squared value of 0.656, indicating that media channels explain 65.6% of the variation in perception. Timing of media messages had an R-squared value of 0.779, explaining 77.9% of perception variation. Frequency of messages had an R-squared value of 0.856, explaining 85.6% of variation. In each case, the calculated F-values were significantly greater than the critical F-values. Content framing was found to moderate the relationship between media coverage and perception, with a significant ANOVA result (F = 240.355; p-Value<0.05). This emphasizes the need for strategic communication approaches in wildlife conservation. The study concluded that when framing wildlife conservation messages, the target audiences were not satisfied with the manner in which these messages were communicated. The study findings will assist media practitioners in formulating guidelines for media coverage and content framing of wildlife conservation discourse. The study therefore recommended that practitioners should use correct media channels and effective content framing strategies in order to change audience perception of wildlife conservation.