Climate protests have repeatedly sparked broad public debates in recent years. At times, activists have even been compared to terrorist organizations—and public discourse has drifted away from the central question of how effective climate action can be achieved. Drawing on two studies, we ask: does it have to be this way?
Research shows that both the form of protest and the quality of media coverage are key factors in the shaping of public opinion about a given movement. These findings are relevant not only for activists, but also for journalists. At the same time, many people involved in climate communication encounter critical reactions to protest actions. As such, this review article is also aimed at anyone who wants to speak about protest—and its varying degrees of radicalism—in a more informed way.
A German version of this article can be found at our partner website klimafakten.de.
What questions do the studies address?
Two recent studies examine how the media portray protest movements—and how this, in turn, can shape public attitudes and behavior across society.
Firstly, Hendrik Meyer and his co-authors (2025) at the University of Hamburg (the team behind this blog) analyze how German news media report on protests by Fridays for Future and the Last Generation, which perspectives different outlets offer, and to what extent emotional language is used in this coverage.
Second, Chamberlain and Madsen (2025) provide a systematic overview of research on the so-called “radical flank effect.” They examine how, within a broad protest movement, more radical groups influence public support for more moderate activists.
Which methods were used, and why are they robust?
Meyer et al. (2025) use a mixed-methods approach. Automated procedures identify “frames” (different ways of presenting an issue or event) and emotions in large volumes of text, which are then examined and refined through qualitative analysis. The methods employed are transparent, well established, and in principle highly replicable.
Chamberlain and Madsen (2025) conduct a systematic literature search and analyze the resulting studies using both qualitative and quantitative approaches. This procedure ensures that virtually all relevant research is taken into account and that future analyses can follow the same methodology.
Both studies underwent scientific peer review, which assesses methodological rigor, substantive completeness, and the logical coherence of the arguments presented.
What are the key findings, and why are they relevant for climate communication?
Meyer et al. (2025) reveal clear differences in how German media report on Fridays for Future (FFF) and the Last Generation (LG). While FFF is usually portrayed in connection with its demands and political goals, the study’s authors show, by contrast, that “coverage of the Last Generation across all media focuses primarily on the frames of ‘extremism’ and ‘criminality’”. This shifts attention away from LG protesters’ concerns toward the question of whether their actions are legitimate—and are often presented as illegitimate.
The study also highlights how strongly coverage varies across different media outlets. Politically right-leaning, populist, and tabloid media, in particular, more often depict protests as criminal and extremist. Furthermore, the analysis also shows that conservative and right-leaning outlets such as FAZ, Bild, Junge Freiheit, and Tichys Einblick draw most heavily on anger as an emotion, even on the level of language used—and even when reporting on Fridays for Future.
In coverage of FFF, quality media at least addressed the protesters’ goals through a “climate justice frame,” while right-wing populist outlets tend to criminalize climate protests across the board.
A similar pattern emerges in another study by Hendrik Meyer et al. which examined discourse around the LG and FFF movements on social media (2025b). Here, forms of protest that deliberately disrupt everyday life—such as the glue-on actions of the Last Generation—are shown to trigger much stronger reactions and lead to more pronounced polarization on the platform X. Furthermore, this polarization is shown to be asymmetric: it is primarily right-wing online users who circulate derogatory frames and toxic language.
For climate communication, this has a clear implication: media “framing” shapes what the public ends up talking about. When the form of protest becomes the main focus, the substance of the protest demands fades into the background.
Radical protests: not always bad for the cause
According to the review by Chamberlain and Madsen (2025) on the so-called radical flank effect, the presence of radical groups can either strengthen or weaken more moderate activists—indeed, “staying the same” is the exception here, rather than the rule.
Many studies find positive effects: moderate demands appear more reasonable, realistic, and broadly acceptable when more radical voices are present at the same time. However, the flank effect depends strongly on the tactics used by the radical group. In particular, when violence is involved, “a negative radical flank effect seems more likely” (Chamberlain & Madsen 2025, p. 16). The resulting backlash often affects not only the radical group itself but also spills over to moderate actors.
What matters most is how the form of protest is perceived in society. Radical groups do not have to be liked or supported to have a positive effect on the standing of more moderate factions. It is enough that their concerns are seen as understandable and that their actions are not perceived as crossing moral boundaries—for example, through violence against people.
The study’s lead author, Hendrik Meyer, puts it this way in an interview: “In Germany, the actions of the Last Generation appear to have produced rather negative outcomes. It is possible that road blockades targeting the ‘sacred cow’ of the car represent a similar moral transgression here as violence does elsewhere. In addition, many media outlets, especially on the right of the political spectrum, have used negative frames and polarizing language in their coverage of the protests. I consider it very likely that this directly shaped how the movements were perceived.”
How different groups are reported on and discussed therefore plays a central role: legitimacy is negotiated in public discourse—and news media are a key actor in that process.
What can be derived from the study for practical application?
For the climate movement
Protesters should not focus solely on maximizing attention, but also consider how their actions are evaluated in public discourse. A form of protest that is perceived as legitimate increases the likelihood that substance, rather than conflict, will take center stage.
It can also be useful to regularly assess whether a tactic still enjoys public support or is beginning to trigger negative reactions. A deliberate change in strategy—such as the Last Generation’s rebranding as the “New Generation”—can help break established narratives and refocus attention on the underlying issues.
Across different groups, it may be beneficial to emphasize shared messages. When radical and moderate groups highlight similar grievances, everyone can benefit: radical actors generate attention, while more moderate ones can more easily translate that attention into constructive dialogue.
For journalism
Journalists should enable the public to critically discuss the legitimacy of different forms of protest. However, making this question the main focus of coverage can also lead to highly polarized debates that have little to do with climate change itself.
Language choices matter as well. Consciously reducing emotionalized or escalating wording can help curb polarization. Stronger substantive context is also helpful: what are the groups’ goals, and how do they justify their actions? By returning to the level of issues and arguments, the media can prevent emotions from dominating coverage and public debate.
“Journalists should be aware of the terms and interpretive frames they use in their reporting,” says Professor Michael Brüggemann from the Chair of Climate Communication at the University of Hamburg. “Those who exercise their democratic rights and campaign for climate protection are neither criminals nor should they be defamed as ‘climate gluers.’ At the same time, protesters do need to think carefully about the means they choose: how can we persuade people without primarily provoking backlash?”
For society
People who communicate about or discuss climate issues can help make public debate more constructive by shifting attention back to the issues rather than the tactics. Often, a simple question is enough: “What were the protesters actually trying to achieve?”
It can also be useful to point to more moderate groups or local climate initiatives. Actions such as a car-free day in a community make it easier for people to take a first step toward engagement. Many respond more openly when they see such low-threshold options—without having to identify with activists whose tactics they may reject.
References
Chamberlain, M. C. R., & Madsen, O. J. (2025). Rebels With a Cause: Public Attitudes on Radical Protest Actions A Review of Empirical Evidence of Radical Flank Effects. Human Arenas. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42087-025-00485-y
Meyer, H., Farjam, M., Rauxloh, H., & Brüggemann, M. (2025). From disruptive protests to disrupted news frames: Comparing German news on climate protests. Journalism, 14648849251372805. https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849251372805
Meyer, H., Pröschel, L., & Brüggemann, M. (2025b). From Disruptive Protests to Disrupted Networks? Analyzing Levels of Polarization in the German Twitter/X Debates on “Fridays for Future” and “Letzte Generation”. Social Media + Society, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051251337400