Content deleted Content added
reformatted refs and prep for citation bot cleanup |
fix refs |
||
| (13 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
Line 4:
[[Climate communication|Climate change communication]] research shows that coverage has grown and become more accurate.<ref name="Climate Change 2022" />{{Rp|page=11}}
Some researchers and journalists believe that media coverage of [[politics of climate change]] is adequate and fair, while a few feel that it is biased.<ref name="NewmanEtAl2018">{{cite journal |last1=Newman |first1=Todd P. |last2=Nisbet |first2=Erik C. |last3=Nisbet |first3=Matthew C. |title=Climate change, cultural cognition, and media effects: Worldviews drive news selectivity, biased processing, and polarized attitudes |journal=Public Understanding of Science |date=November 2018 |volume=27 |issue=8 |pages=985–1002 |doi=10.1177/0963662518801170 |pmid=30253695 }}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Lichter |first1=S. R. |last2=Rothman |first2=S. |chapter=The media and national defense |pages=265–282 |editor1-first=Robert L. |editor1-last=Pfaltzgraff |editor2-first=Uri |editor2-last=Ra'anan |title=National Security Policy: The Decision-making Process |date=1984 |publisher=Archon Books |isbn=978-0-208-02003-1 }}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Bozell |first1=L. Brent |last2=Baker |first2=Brent H. |title=And That's the Way it Is(n't): A Reference Guide to Media Bias |date=1990 |publisher=Media Research Center |isbn=978-0-9627348-0-9 |oclc=551474402 }}{{pn|date=June 2025}}</ref><ref name="Nissani-1999">{{cite journal |last1=Nissani |first1=Moti |title=Media coverage of the greenhouse effect |journal=Population and Environment |date=September 1999 |volume=21 |issue=1 |pages=27–43 |doi=10.1007/BF02436119 }}</ref>
== History ==
Line 19 ⟶ 17:
In 2007, the [[BBC]] announced the cancellation of a planned television special ''[[Planet Relief]]'', which would have highlighted the global warming issue and included a mass electrical switch-off.<ref>{{cite news |last=Black |first=Richard |date=5 September 2007 |title=BBC switches off climate special |work=BBC |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6979596.stm |access-date=15 December 2011}}</ref> The editor of BBC's [[Newsnight]] current affairs show said: "It is absolutely not the BBC's job to save the planet. I think there are a lot of people who think that, but it must be stopped."<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/media/2007/sep/05/bbc.television2 BBC drops climate change special]. ''[[The Guardian]]''. 5 September 2007. Retrieved 15 December 2011.</ref> Author [[Mark Lynas]] said "The only reason why this became an issue is that there is a small but vociferous group of extreme right-wing climate 'sceptics' lobbying against taking action, so the BBC is behaving like a coward and refusing to take a more consistent stance."<ref>McCarthy, Michael, [http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2934318.ece Global Warming: Too Hot to Handle for the BBC] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070915053005/http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2934318.ece|date=15 September 2007}}, ''The Independent'', 6 September 2007</ref>
A peak in media coverage occurred in early 2007, driven by the [[IPCC Fourth Assessment Report]] and [[Al Gore]]'s documentary ''[[An Inconvenient Truth]]''.<ref name=Boykoff2010India/> A subsequent peak in late 2009, which was 50% higher,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/media_coverage/ |title=2004–2010 World Newspaper Coverage of Climate Change or Global Warming |work=Center for Science and Technology Policy Research |publisher=[[University of Colorado at Boulder]] |access-date=2010-08-15 |archive-date=2019-08-31 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190831031804/https://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/media_coverage/ |url-status=live }}</ref> may have been driven by a combination of the November 2009 [[Climatic Research Unit email controversy]] and December [[2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference]].<ref name=Boykoff2010India>{{cite journal |last1=Boykoff |first1=Max |title=Indian media representations of climate change in a threatened journalistic ecosystem |journal=Climatic Change |date=March 2010 |volume=99 |issue=
The Media and Climate Change Observatory team at the University of Colorado Boulder found that 2017 "saw media attention to climate change and global warming ebb and flow" with June seeing the maximum global media coverage on both subjects. This rise is "largely attributed to news surrounding United States (US) President Donald J. Trump's withdrawal from the 2015 United Nations (UN) [[Paris agreement|Paris Climate Agreement]], with continuing media attention paid to the emergent US isolation following through the [[43rd G7 summit|G7 summit]] a few weeks later."<ref name="sciencepolicy.colorado.edu">{{cite web|last1=Boykoff|first1=M.|last2=Andrews|first2=K.|last3=Daly|first3=M.|last4=Katzung|first4=J.|last5=Luedecke|first5=G.|last6=Maldonado|first6=C.|last7=Nacu-Schmidt|first7=A.|title=A Review of Media Coverage of Climate Change and Global Warming in 2017|url=http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/icecaps/research/media_coverage/summaries/special_issue_2017.html|publisher=Media and Climate Change Observatory, Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado|access-date=2018-03-02|archive-date=2019-08-06|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190806225441/https://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/icecaps/research/media_coverage/summaries/special_issue_2017.html|url-status=live}}</ref>
Media coverage of climate change during the Trump Administration remained prominent as most news outlets placed heavy emphasis on Trump-related stories rather than climate-related events.<ref name="sciencepolicy.colorado.edu"
In a 2020 article, Mark Kaufman of [[Mashable]] noted that the [[English Wikipedia]]'s article on climate change has "hundreds of credible citations" which "counters the stereotype that publicly-policed, collaboratively-edited Wikipedia pages are inherently unreliable".<ref>{{Cite web|last=Kaufman|first=Mark|date=2020|title=The guardians of Wikipedia's climate change page|url=https://mashable.com/feature/climate-change-wikipedia/|url-status=live|access-date=2021-04-22|website=[[Mashable]]|language=en|archive-date=2021-04-18|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210418190338/https://mashable.com/feature/climate-change-wikipedia/}}</ref>
Line 29 ⟶ 27:
== Common distortions ==
=== Factual ===
Scientists and media scholars who express frustrations with inadequate science reporting argue that it can lead to at least three basic distortions. First, journalists distort reality by making scientific errors. Second, they distort by concentrating on human-interest stories rather than scientific content. And third, journalists distort by rigid adherence to the construct of balanced coverage.<ref name="Boykoff2004">{{cite journal|last=Boykoff|first=M.T.|author2-link=Jules Boykoff|author2=Boykoff, J.M.|title=Balance as bias: Global warming and the US prestige press|journal=[[Global Environmental Change]]|year=2004|volume=14|issue=2|pages=125–136|doi=10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2003.10.001|bibcode=2004GEC....14..125B }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Moore |first1=Barbara |last2=Singletary |first2=Michael |title=Scientific Sources' Perceptions of Network News Accuracy |journal=Journalism Quarterly |date=December 1985 |volume=62 |issue=4 |pages=816–823 |doi=10.1177/107769908506200415 }}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Nelkin |first1=Dorothy |title=Selling Science: How the Press Covers Science and Technology |date=1995 |publisher=W.H. Freeman |isbn=978-0-7167-2595-4 }}{{pn|date=June 2025}}</ref><ref name="Schneider">{{cite web|last=Schneider|first=S|title=Mediarology: The role of citizens, journalists, and scientists in debunking climate change myths|url=http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Mediarology/Mediarology.html|access-date=2011-04-03|archive-date=2019-10-01|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191001074720/http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Mediarology/Mediarology.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Singer |first1=Eleanor |last2=Endreny |first2=Phyllis |title=Reporting on Risk: How the Mass Media Portray Accidents, Diseases, Disasters and Other Hazards |journal=RISK |date=June 1994 |volume=5 |issue=3 |url=https://scholars.unh.edu/risk/vol5/iss3/11/ }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Tankard |first1=James W. |last2=Ryan |first2=Michael |title=News Source Perceptions of Accuracy of Science Coverage |journal=Journalism Quarterly |date=June 1974 |volume=51 |issue=2 |pages=219–225 |doi=10.1177/107769907405100204 }}</ref>{{Excessive citations inline|date=August 2021}} Bord, O'Connor, & Fisher (1998) argue that responsible citizenry necessitates a concrete knowledge of causes and that until, for example, the public understands what causes climate change it cannot be expected to take voluntary action to mitigate its effects.<ref name="Bord1998">{{cite journal|last=Bord|first=R.J.|author2=O'Connor |author3=Fisher|title=Public perceptions of global warming: United States and international perspectives|journal=Climate Research|year=1998|volume=11|issue=1|pages=75–84|doi=10.3354/cr011075|bibcode=1998ClRes..11...75B|doi-access=free}}</ref>
In 2022 the [[IPCC Sixth Assessment Report#WG3report|IPCC reported]] that "Accurate transference of the climate science has been undermined significantly by climate change countermovements, in both legacy and new/social media environments through [[misinformation]]."<ref name="Climate Change 2022">{{Cite web |title=Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change: Technical Summary |url=https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6wg3/pdf/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_FinalDraft_TechnicalSummary.pdf |access-date=2022-04-10 |archive-date=2022-04-04 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220404150706/https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6wg3/pdf/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_FinalDraft_TechnicalSummary.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref>{{Rp|page=11}}
A study published in [[PLOS|''PLOS One'']] in 2024 found that even a single repetition of a claim was sufficient to increase the ''perceived'' truth of both climate science-aligned claims and climate change skeptic/denial claims—"highlighting the insidious effect of repetition".<ref name=Jiang_PLOSONE_20240807/> This effect was found even among climate science endorsers.<ref name=Jiang_PLOSONE_20240807>{{cite journal |last1=Jiang |first1=Yangxueqing |last2=Schwarz |first2=Norbert |last3=Reynolds |first3=Katherine J. |last4=Newman |first4=Eryn J. |title=Repetition increases belief in climate-skeptical claims, even for climate science endorsers |journal=PLOS ONE |date=7 August 2024 |volume=19 |issue=8 |pages=e0307294 |doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0307294 |doi-access=free |pmid=39110668 |pmc=11305575 |bibcode=2024PLoSO..1907294J }}</ref>
=== Narrative ===
According to Shoemaker and Reese, controversy is one of the main variables affecting story choice among news editors, along with human interest, prominence, timeliness, celebrity, and proximity. Coverage of climate change has been accused of falling victim to the journalistic norm of "personalization".<ref>{{cite book |last1=Shoemaker |first1=Pamela J. |last2=Reese |first2=Stephen D. |title=Mediating the Message: Theories of Influences on Mass Media Content |date=1996 |publisher=Longman |isbn=978-0-8013-1251-9 |page=261 }}</ref> W.L Bennet defines this trait as: "the tendency to downplay the big social, economic, or political picture in favor of human trials, tragedies and triumphs".<ref>{{cite book |last1=Bennett |first1=W. Lance |title=News: The Politics of Illusion |date=2003 |publisher=Longman |isbn=978-0-321-08878-9 |page=45 }}</ref> The culture of [[political journalism]] has long used the notion of balanced coverage in covering the controversy. In this construct, it is permissible to air a highly [[Partisan (political)|partisan]] opinion, provided this view is accompanied by a competing opinion. But recently scientists and scholars have challenged the legitimacy of this journalistic core value with regard to matters of great importance on which the overwhelming majority of the scientific community has reached a well-substantiated consensus view.{{fact|date=June 2025}}
In a survey of 636 articles from four top United States newspapers between 1988 and 2002, two scholars found that most articles gave as much time to the small group of [[climate change denier|climate change deniers]] as to the scientific consensus view.<ref name="Boykoff2004" /> Given real consensus among climatologists over [[global warming]], many scientists find the media's desire to portray the topic as a scientific controversy to be a gross distortion. As [[Stephen Schneider (scientist)|Stephen Schneider]] put it:<ref name="Schneider"/>{{Blockquote| "a mainstream, well-established consensus may be 'balanced' against the opposing views of a few extremists, and to the uninformed, each position seems equally credible."}}
Line 46 ⟶ 44:
A 2020 study in ''PNAS'' found that newspapers tended to give greater coverage of press releases that opposed action on climate change than those that supported action. The study attributes it to [[false balance]].<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Wetts|first=Rachel|date=2020-07-23|title=In climate news, statements from large businesses and opponents of climate action receive heightened visibility|journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences|volume=117|issue=32|pages=19054–19060 |doi=10.1073/pnas.1921526117 |pmid=32719122|pmc=7431090|bibcode=2020PNAS..11719054W |doi-access=free }}</ref>
Research that was done by Todd Newman, Erik Nisbet, and Matthew Nisbet shows that people's partisan preference is an indicator as to which media outlet they will most likely consume. Most media outlets often align with a particular partisan ideology. This causes people to resort to selective exposure which influences views on world issues such as climate change beliefs.<ref
Since 1990 climate scientists have communicated urgent warnings while simultaneously experiencing the media converting their statements into sensational entertainment.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Richardson |first1=John H. |date=20 July 2018 |title=When the End of Human Civilization Is Your Day Job |url=https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a36228/ballad-of-the-sad-climatologists-0815/ |website=Esquire}}</ref>
Line 54 ⟶ 52:
==== To achieve climate action ====
{{See also|Climate apocalypse}}
[[Alarmism]] is using inflated language, including an urgent tone and imagery of doom.{{Citation needed|date=August 2021}} In a report produced for the [[Institute for Public Policy Research]] Gill Ereaut and Nat Segnit suggested that alarmist language is frequently used in relation to environmental matters by newspapers, popular magazines and in campaign literature put out by the government and environment groups.<ref name="Ereaut20062">{{
It has been argued that using sensational and alarming techniques, often evoke "denial, paralysis, or apathy" rather than motivating individuals to action and do not motivate people to become engaged with the issue of climate change.<ref name="Dilling & Moser">{{
==== To challenge the science related to global warming ====
The term ''alarmist'' has been used as a [[pejorative]] by critics of mainstream climate science to describe those that endorse the scientific consensus without necessarily being unreasonable.<ref>{{
Some media reports have used alarmist tactics to challenge the science related to global warming by comparing it with a purported episode of [[global cooling]]. In the 1970s, global cooling, a claim with limited scientific support (even during the height of a media frenzy over [[global cooling]], "the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated the peer-reviewed literature") was widely reported in the press.<ref name="The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus">{{cite journal |last1=Peterson |first1=Thomas C. |last2=Connolley |first2=William M. |last3=Fleck |first3=John |title=THE MYTH OF THE 1970s GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS |journal=Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society |date=September 2008 |volume=89 |issue=9 |pages=1325–1338 |doi=10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1 |bibcode=2008BAMS...89.1325P }}</ref>
Several media pieces have claimed that since the even-at-the-time-poorly-supported theory of [[global cooling]] was shown to be false, that the well-supported theory of global warming can also be dismissed. For example, an article in ''[[The Hindu]]'' by Kapista and Bashkirtsev wrote: "Who remembers today, they query, that in the 1970s, when global temperatures began to dip, many warned that we faced a new ice age? An editorial in The Time magazine on June 24, 1974, quoted concerned scientists as voicing alarm over the atmosphere 'growing gradually cooler for the past three decades', 'the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland,' and other harbingers of an ice age that could prove 'catastrophic.' Man was blamed for global cooling as he is blamed today for global warming",<ref name="Kapitsa, Andrei 2008">Kapitsa, Andrei, and Vladimir Bashkirtsev, "Challenging the basis of Kyoto Protocol", ''[[The Hindu]]'', 10 July 2008,{{vs|date=June 2025}}</ref> and the ''[[Irish Independent]]'' published an article claiming that "The widespread alarm over global warming is only the latest scare about the environment to come our way since the 1960s. Let's go through some of them. Almost exactly 30 years ago the world was in another panic about climate change. However, it wasn't the thought of global warming that concerned us. It was the fear of its opposite, global cooling. The doom-sayers were wrong in the past and it's entirely possible they're wrong this time as well."<ref name="Don 2007, p. 1">''[[Irish Independent]]'', "Don't believe doomsayers that insist the world's end is nigh", 16 March 2007, p. 1.</ref> Numerous other examples exist.<ref name="Schmidt, David 2002">Schmidt, David, "It's curtains for global warming", ''[[Jerusalem Post]]'', 28 June 2002, p. 16B. "If there is one thing more remarkable than the level of alarm inspired by global warming, it is the thin empirical foundations upon which the forecast rests. Throughout the 1970s, the scientific consensus held that the world was entering a period of global cooling, with results equally catastrophic to those now predicted for global warming."</ref><ref name="Francis Wilson 2009, p. 32">[[Francis Wilson (meteorologist)|Wilson, Francis]], "The rise of the extreme killers", ''[[Sunday Times]]'', 19 April 2009, p. 32. "Throughout history, there have been false alarms: "shadow of the bomb", "nuclear winter", "ice age cometh" and so on. So it's no surprise that today many people are skeptical about climate change. The difference is that we have hard evidence that increasing temperatures will lead to a significant risk of dangerous repercussions."</ref><ref name="The 2000">''[[National Post]]'', "The sky was supposed to fall: The '70s saw the rise of environmental Chicken Littles of every shape as a technique for motivating public action", 5 April 2000, p. B1. "One of the strange tendencies of modern life, however, has been the institutionalization of scaremongering, the willingness of the mass media and government to lend plausibility to wild surmises about the future. The crucial decade for this odd development was the 1970s. Schneider's book excited a frenzy of glacier hysteria. The most-quoted ice-age alarmist of the 1970s became, in a neat public-relations pivot, one of the most quoted global-warming alarmists of the 1990s."</ref>
==Media, politics, and public discourse==
As McCombs et al.'s 1972 study of the political function of mass media showed, media coverage of an issue can "play an important part in shaping political reality".<ref>{{cite journal|last=McCombs|first=M|author2=Shaw, D.|title=The Agenda Setting Function of Mass Media|journal=Public Opinion Quarterly|year=1972|volume=36|issue=2|pages=176–187|doi=10.1086/267990
=== Media-policy interface ===
The relationship between media and politics is [[Reflexivity (social theory)|reflexive]]. As Feindt & Oels state, "[media] discourse has material and power effects as well as being the effect of material practices and power relations".<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Feindt |first1=Peter H. |last2=Oels |first2=Angela |title=Does discourse matter? Discourse analysis in environmental policy making |journal=Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning |date=September 2005 |volume=7 |issue=3 |pages=161–173 |doi=10.1080/15239080500339638 |bibcode=2005JEPP....7..161F |url=https://opus.bibliothek.uni-augsburg.de/opus4/frontdoor/index/index/docId/94625 }}</ref> Public support of climate change research ultimately decides whether or not funding for the research is made available to scientists and institutions.
Media coverage in the United States during the Bush Administration often emphasized and exaggerated scientific uncertainty over climate change, reflecting the interests of the political elite.<ref name="Boykoff-Flogging" /> Hall et al. suggest that government and corporate officials enjoy privileged access to the media, allowing their line to become the 'primary definer' of an issue.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Hall |first1=Stuart |last2=Critcher |first2=Chas |last3=Jefferson |first3=Tony |last4=Clarke |first4=John |last5=Roberts |first5=Brian |title=Policing the Crisis: Mugging, the State and Law and Order |date=2017 |publisher=Bloomsbury Publishing |isbn=978-1-137-00721-6 |page=438 }}</ref> Media sources and their institutions very often have political leanings which determine their reporting on climate change, mirroring the views of a particular party.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Carvalho |first1=Anabela |last2=Burgess |first2=Jacquelin |title=Cultural Circuits of Climate Change in U.K. Broadsheet Newspapers, 1985–2003 |journal=Risk Analysis |date=December 2005 |volume=25 |issue=6 |pages=1457–1469 |doi=10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00692.x |pmid=16506975 |bibcode=2005RiskA..25.1457C |hdl=1822/41721 }}</ref> However, media also has the capacity to challenge political norms and expose corrupt behaviour,<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Anderson |first1=Alison |title=Media, Politics and Climate Change: Towards a New Research Agenda |journal=Sociology Compass |date=March 2009 |volume=3 |issue=2 |pages=166–182 |doi=10.1111/j.1751-9020.2008.00188.x }}</ref> as demonstrated in 2007 when ''[[The Guardian]]'' revealed that [[American Enterprise Institute]] received $10,000 from petrochemical giant [[ExxonMobil]] to publish articles undermining the [[IPCC]]'s 4th assessment report.
Ever-strengthening scientific consensus on climate change means that skepticism is becoming less prevalent in the media (although the email scandal in the build up to Copenhagen reinvigorated climate skepticism in the media<ref>{{cite news|last=Monibot|first=George|title=The media laps up fake controversy over climate change|url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/apr/29/george-monbiot-climate-change-scepticism|newspaper=The Guardian|access-date=2011-11-05|___location=London|date=29 April 2009}}</ref>).{{failed verification|date=August 2021|reason=Article is about denialists including an industry of it, but it does not support this paragraph directly.}}
Line 77 ⟶ 75:
=== Discourses of action ===
[[File:Polarbearonice.jpg|thumb|The polar bear has become a symbol for those attempting to generate support for addressing climate change.]]Commentators have argued that the climate change discourses constructed in the media have not been conducive to generating the political will for swift action. The polar bear has become a powerful discursive symbol in the fight against climate change. However, such images may create a perception of climate change impacts as geographically distant,<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Lorenzoni |first1=Irene |last2=Pidgeon |first2=Nick F. |title=Public Views on Climate Change: European and USA Perspectives |journal=Climatic Change |date=21 August 2006 |volume=77 |issue=
Furthermore, media coverage of climate change (particularly in tabloid journalism but also more generally), is concentrated around extreme weather events and projections of catastrophe, creating "a language of imminent terror"<ref>{{cite book|last=Hulme|first=M|title=Why We Disagree About Climate Change|year=2009|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-0-521-72732-7|page=432}}</ref> which some commentators argue has instilled policy-paralysis and inhibited response. Moser et al. suggest using solution-orientated frames will help inspire action to solve climate change.<ref name="Moser & Dilling 2007">{{cite book|title=Creating a Climate for Change|last=Moser & Dilling|first=M., and L.|publisher=Cambridge University Press|year=2007|isbn=978-0-521-86923-2}}</ref> The predominance of catastrophe frames over solution frames<ref name="Boykoff2007">{{cite journal|last=Boykoff|first=M|author2=Boykoff, J|title=Climate Change and Journalistic Norms: A case study of US mass-media coverage|journal=[[Geoforum]]|date=November 2007|volume=38|issue=6|pages=1190–1204|doi=10.1016/j.geoforum.2007.01.008
Breaking the prevailing notions in society requires discourse that is traditionally appropriate and approachable to common people. For example, Bill McKibben, an environmental activist, provides one approach to inspiring action: a war-like mobilization, where climate change is the enemy. This approach could resonate with working Americans who normally find themselves occupied with other news headlines.<ref>{{cite magazine|last1=McKibben|first1=Bill|title=We Need to Literally Declare War on Climate Change|url=https://newrepublic.com/article/135684/declare-war-climate-change-mobilize-wwii|magazine=The New Republic|publisher=The New Republic|access-date=1 March 2018|archive-date=10 June 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210610094752/https://newrepublic.com/article/135684/declare-war-climate-change-mobilize-wwii|url-status=live}}</ref> Kester & Sovacool found that the usage of military termes in climate policy is dangerous and can lead to unintended consequences.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Kester |first1=Johannes |last2=Sovacool |first2=Benjamin K. |title=Torn between war and peace: Critiquing the use of war to mobilize peaceful climate action |journal=Energy Policy |date=May 2017 |volume=104 |pages=50–55 |doi=10.1016/j.enpol.2017.01.026 |bibcode=2017EnPol.104...50K |url=https://figshare.com/articles/journal_contribution/23440664 }}</ref> Block, Li, Gärtner & Lenzen found thar real wars hamper climate change mitigation by several ways, and one of them is reducing the time media devotes to climate.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Block |first1=Katharina |last2=Li |first2=Mengyu |last3=Gärtner |first3=Jan |last4=Lenzen |first4=Manfred |title=Geopolitical conflict impedes climate change mitigation |journal=npj Climate Action |date=29 March 2025 |volume=4 |issue=1 |page=33 |doi=10.1038/s44168-025-00224-7 |bibcode=2025npjCA...4...33B }}</ref>
Compared to what experts know about traditional media's and tabloid journalism's impacts on the formation of public perceptions of climate change and willingness to act, there is comparatively little knowledge of the impacts of social media, including message platforms like Twitter, on public attitudes toward climate change.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Auer |first1=Matthew R. |last2=Zhang |first2=Yuman |last3=Lee |first3=Priscilla |title=The potential of microblogs for the study of public perceptions of climate change |journal=WIREs Climate Change |date=May 2014 |volume=5 |issue=3 |pages=291–296 |doi=10.1002/wcc.273 |bibcode=2014WIRCC...5..291A }}</ref>
In recent years, there has been an increase in the influence and role that [[social media]] plays in conveying opinions and knowledge through information sharing. There are several emerging studies that explore the connection between social media and the public's awareness of climate change. Anderson found that there is evidence that [[social media]] can raise awareness of climate change issues, but warns that it can also lead to opinion-dominated ideologies and reinforcement.<ref name="Anderson-2017">{{cite
=== Youth awareness and activism ===
Line 97 ⟶ 95:
===Australia===
{{See also|Climate change in Australia}}[[Australian media|Australian news outlets]] have been reported to present misleading claims and information.<ref>{{
Australia has recently experienced some of the most intense [[Bushfires in Australia|bushfire seasons]] in its immediate history. This phenomenon has sparked extensive media coverage both nationally and internationally. Much of the media coverage of the [[2019–20 Australian bushfire season|2019 and 2020 Australian bushfire seasons]] discussed the different factors that lead to and increase the chances of extreme fire seasons.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2020-01-07 |title=Media reaction: Australia's bushfires and climate change |url=https://www.carbonbrief.org/media-reaction-australias-bushfires-and-climate-change |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200929204905/https://www.carbonbrief.org/media-reaction-australias-bushfires-and-climate-change |archive-date=2020-09-29 |access-date=2021-04-22 |website=Carbon Brief |language=en}}</ref> A climate scientist, [[Nerilie Abram]], at [[Australian National University]] explained in an article for ''[[Scientific American]]'', that the four major conditions need to exist for wildfire and those include "available fuel, dryness of that fuel, weather conditions that aid the rapid spread of fire and an ignition.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Abram |first=Nerilie |title=Australia's Angry Summer: This Is What Climate Change Looks Like |url=https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/australias-angry-summer-this-is-what-climate-change-looks-like/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210505014148/https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/australias-angry-summer-this-is-what-climate-change-looks-like/ |archive-date=2021-05-05 |access-date=2021-04-22 |website=Scientific American Blog Network |language=en}}</ref>
Line 105 ⟶ 103:
{{further|Environmental policy of the Harper government#Media coverage of climate change}}
During the Harper government (2006-2015), Canadian media, mostly notably the [[CBC News|CBC]], made little effort to balance the claims of global warming deniers with voices from science.<ref name="Stoddart Haluza-DeLay Tindall Canadian News">{{cite journal |last1=Stoddart |first1=Mark C. J. |last2=Haluza-DeLay |first2=Randolph |last3=Tindall |first3=David B. |title=Canadian News Media Coverage of Climate Change: Historical Trajectories, Dominant Frames, and International Comparisons |journal=Society & Natural Resources |date=February 2016 |volume=29 |issue=2 |pages=218–232 |doi=10.1080/08941920.2015.1054569 |bibcode=2016SNatR..29..218S }}</ref> The Canadian coverage appeared to be driven more by national and international political events rather than the changes to carbon emissions or various other ecological factors.<ref name="Stoddart Haluza-DeLay Tindall Canadian News"/> The discourse was dominated by matters of government responsibility, policy-making, policy measures for mitigation, and ways to mitigate climate change; with the issue coverage by mass media outlets continuing to act as an important means of communicating environmental concerns to the general public, rather than introducing new ideas about the topic itself.<ref name="Stoddart Haluza-DeLay Tindall Canadian News"/>
Within various provincial and language media outlets, there are varying levels of articulation regarding scientific consensus and the focus on ecological dimensions of climate change.<ref name="Stoddart Haluza-DeLay Tindall Canadian News"/> Within Quebec, specifically, these outlets are more likely to position climate change as an international issue, and to link climate change to social justice concerns in order to depict Quebec as a pro-environmental society.<ref name="Stoddart Haluza-DeLay Tindall Canadian News"/>
Line 123 ⟶ 121:
===India===
{{See also|Climate change in India}}
A 2010 study of four major, national circulation English-language newspapers in India examined "the frames through which climate change is represented in India", and found that "The results strongly contrast with previous studies from developed countries; by framing climate change along a 'risk-responsibility divide', the Indian national press set up a strongly nationalistic position on climate change that divides the issue along both developmental and [[postcolonialism|postcolonial]] lines."<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Billett |first1=Simon |title=Dividing climate change: global warming in the Indian mass media |journal=Climatic Change |date=March 2010 |volume=99 |issue=
On the other hand, a qualitative analysis of some mainstream Indian newspapers (particularly opinion and editorial pieces) during the release of the IPCC 4th Assessment Report and during the Nobel Peace Prize win by Al Gore and the IPCC found that Indian media strongly pursue scientific certainty in their coverage of climate change. This is in contrast to the skepticism displayed by American newspapers at the time. Indian media highlights energy challenges, social progress, public accountability and looming disaster.<ref>{{cite journal |author=Mittal, Radhika |title=Climate Change Coverage in Indian Print Media: A Discourse Analysis |journal=The International Journal of Climate Change: Impacts and Responses |volume=3 |issue=2 |pages=219–230 |year=2012 |hdl=1959.14/181298 |doi=10.18848/1835-7156/CGP/v03i02/37105 }}</ref>
Line 164 ⟶ 162:
In 1988 in United States, NASA scientist [[James Hansen]] stated that climate change was anthropogenic, that is, man-made. This had a similar result to Thatcher's speeches, drawing public attention to the climate crisis and spurring increased media coverage of the issue. The US and UK are comparable in their coverage of climate change for this reason.<ref name="Gavin-2011">{{cite journal |last1=Gavin |first1=Neil T. |last2=Leonard-Milsom |first2=Liam |last3=Montgomery |first3=Jessica |title=Climate change, flooding and the media in Britain |journal=Public Understanding of Science |date=May 2011 |volume=20 |issue=3 |pages=422–438 |doi=10.1177/0963662509353377 |pmid=21796885 }}</ref> Despite evidence for anthropogenic climate change arising as early as the late 19th century, both countries lacked significant media coverage on climate change prior to 1988. However, the trajectory of media coverage in these countries varies significantly after this 1988 increase.
For a short period in 1988, the United States had slightly more coverage, but the two countries were quite similar. However, in the following years, the UK consistently produced more articles, and in 2003, it spiked, producing a significantly larger amount of articles. The year 2003 saw the UK and much of Europe experience the hottest summer to date.<ref>{{Cite web |title=The heatwave of 2003 |url=https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/learn-about/weather/case-studies/heatwave |access-date=2023-12-07 |website=Met Office |language=en}}</ref> Temperatures reached up to 38.5 °C, which is 101.3 °F, resulting in 2,000 deaths in the UK, and more across Europe. This significant event drew the attention of newspapers, therefore increasing the amount of articles produced. For example, in the year following the heatwave, ''[[The Guardian]]'' released an article in March, 2004, warning about even more severe summers that would come. This article included a quote from Dr. Luterbacher, who stated, "We don't know if it will get warmer every year, but the trend is certainly in that direction." The article also claimed that this extreme event was not due to natural causes, suggesting that human activity was responsible.<ref>{{
In 2001, the National Survey of Public Attitudes to Quality of Life survey found that the public ranked global warming 8th on their list of current concerns. The Office for National Statistics then constructed an additional poll asking the same question but asked about expectations for 20 years ahead. A majority reported that in 20 years time, congestion fumes and noises from traffic would be more concerning than the significant impacts of climate change.<ref name="Hulme-2004" />
Line 174 ⟶ 172:
Media companies in the United Kingdom produce a diverse range of types of articles regarding climate change, evident when looking at ''[[The Guardian]], [[The Observer|The]]'' [[The Observer|''Observer'']], ''[[Daily Mail|The Daily Mail]], [[The Mail on Sunday|Mail on Sunday]],'' ''[[The Sunday Telegraph|Sunday Telegraph]]'', ''[[The Times]]'' and ''[[The Sunday Times|Sunday Times]]''. One scholarly article categorized newspapers from presenting anthropogenic global warming is the only cause of climate change to anthropogenic global warming negligently contributes to climate change. In this study, it is clear that on average, these news sources have increased in scientific credibility.<ref name="McAllister-2021">{{Cite journal |last1=McAllister |first1=Lucy |last2=Daly |first2=Meaghan |last3=Chandler |first3=Patrick |last4=McNatt |first4=Marisa |last5=Benham |first5=Andrew |last6=Boykoff |first6=Maxwell |date=August 2021 |title=Balance as bias, resolute on the retreat? Updates & analyses of newspaper coverage in the United States, United Kingdom, New Zealand, Australia and Canada over the past 15 years |journal=Environmental Research Letters |volume=16 |issue=9 |pages=094008 |doi=10.1088/1748-9326/ac14eb |bibcode=2021ERL....16i4008M |doi-access=free }}</ref>
In 2006 Futerra published research to determine if feedback from the UK community on the topic of global warming was either positive or negative. The results were that only 25 percent of the climate change newspapers were positive. A huge media company that participated in the positive feedback was the [[Financial Times]], which contained the most coverage relating climate change, including a focus on climate change and business opportunities.{{fact|date=June 2025}}
The commuters of London, reaching to the amount of a million participants, on the date of October 25, 2007, t provided a free metro newspaper which contained an important article with the headline "We're in the biggest race of our lives." which encompassed the details of the fourth report of the United Nations Environmental Programme's Global Environment Outlook (GEO). The contents of the GEO noted that the actions to address climate change were critically insufficient. A majority of UK citizens were not ready for a change in light of present facts of scientific uncertainty.<ref name="Shanahan-2007" />
''The Sunday Telegraph'' specifically has a history of producing anti-climate change articles and news. The media publication did a major publication of [[Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley|Christopher Monckton]], who is well known for his denial of climate change. This stance is reflected in one of their articles:<ref name="McAllister-2021" /><ref name="Bird-2009">{{Cite journal |last1=Bird |first1=Helen |last2=Boykoff |first2=Max |last3=Goodman |first3=Mike |last4=Monbiot |first4=George |last5=Littler |first5=Jo |date=2009-12-01 |title=The media and climate change
"When this global warming madness passes, future generations will remove this derelict solar and wind infrastructure and return to the only reliable and economical electricity options—coal, gas, hydro and nuclear." (The Sunday Telegraph, London, 2010, 'Officials & climate').<ref name="McAllister-2021" />
Line 184 ⟶ 182:
[[George Monbiot]], a weekly column writer for ''The Guardian'', says specifically in Britain that there is a prevalent discourse of unity and collaboration when it comes to environmental concerns in media outlets such as The Guardian, The Times, the Sun and the Independent. He also claims to have read "utter nonsense" in The Daily Mail or The Sunday Telegraph.<ref name="Bird-2009" />
A specific case of the community's reaction to climate change can be seen in the YouthStrike4Climate movement, specifically [[UK Youth Climate Coalition]] (UKYCC) and the UK Student Climate Network (UKSCN). According to Bart Cammaerts, there has been an overall positive media representation of the climate movement from United Kingdom media outlets. It is significant that 60% of the ''Daily Mail'''s articles written about the climate movement were in a negative tone, while the ''BBC'' had over 70% written in a positive tone. There are a range of media outlets covering climate change, and they all have different opinions on this movement.<ref name="Cammaerts-2023">{{cite journal |last1=Cammaerts |first1=Bart |title=The mediated circulation of the United
While there are diverse perspectives represented in print media, right-wing newspapers reach far more readers. For example, the right-leaning ''[[Daily Mail]]'' and ''[[The Sun (United Kingdom)|The Sun]]'' each circulated more than 1 million copies in 2019, while the left-wing equivalents, [[Daily Mirror]] and [[The Guardian]] only circulated 600,000 copies.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Mayhew |first=Freddy |date=2019-02-14 |title=National newspaper ABCs: Mail titles see slower year-on-year circulation decline as bulk sales distortion ends |url=https://pressgazette.co.uk/media-audience-and-business-data/media_metrics/national-newspaper-abcs-mail-titles-see-year-on-year-circulation-lift-as-bulk-sales-distortion-ends/ |access-date=2023-12-07 |website=Press Gazette |language=en-US}}</ref> Over time, these right-wing newspapers have published fewer editorials opposing climate action. In 2011, the proportion of these editorials was 5:1 against climate change. In 2021, this ratio had dropped to 1:9. Additionally, articles critical of climate action have shifted away from outright denial of climate change. Instead, these editorials highlight the costs associated with climate action, as well as blame other countries for climate change.<ref>{{
In the United Kingdom, the youth activism movement played a key role in the increased production of media coverage of climate change.global activist celebrity and media outlets began covering her more and more. From September 17, 2019, to October 3, 2019, 21% of all media coverage on specific people was about Greta Thunberg. This young climate activist's prevalence in the media continued to increase and thus so did the amount of media on the subject.<ref name="Cammaerts-2023" /> With more attention to Greta Thunberg and other young women, there has arguably been increased misogyny regarding [[women in climate change]]. According to Bart Cammaerts, "These disparaging discourses of belittlement also serve to deny children the right to have a voice on environmentalism and politics."<ref name="Cammaerts-2023" />
Line 207 ⟶ 205:
Gallup's annual update on Americans' attitudes toward the environment shows a public that over the last two years (2008-2010) has become less worried about the threat of [[global warming]], less convinced that its effects are already happening, and more likely to believe that scientist themselves are uncertain about its occurrence. In response to one key question, 48% of Americans now believe that the seriousness of global warming is generally exaggerated, up from 41% in 2009 and 31% in 1997, when Gallup first asked the question.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Newport |first1=Frank |title=Americans' Global Warming Concerns Continue to Drop |url=https://news.gallup.com/poll/126560/americans-global-warming-concerns-continue-drop.aspx |work=Gallup |date=11 March 2010 }}</ref>
Data from the Media Matters for America organization has shown that, despite 2015 being "a year marked by more landmark actions to address climate change than ever before", the combined climate coverage on the top broadcast networks was down by 5% from 2014.<ref>{{cite web|title=How Broadcast Networks Covered Climate Change in 2015|url=https://www.scribd.com/doc/302896750/Media-Matters-Climate-Broadcast-Study|website=Scribd|publisher=Media Matters for America|access-date=2018-03-01|archive-date=2021-11-19|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211119205858/https://www.scribd.com/doc/302896750/Media-Matters-Climate-Broadcast-Study|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="MediaMatters">{{Cite news|url=http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/03/07/study-how-broadcast-networks-covered-climate-ch/208881|title=Study: How Broadcast Networks Covered Climate Change In 2015|date=2016-02-29|newspaper=Media Matters for America|access-date=2016-12-03|archive-date=2019-06-13|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190613094946/https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2016/03/07/study-how-broadcast-networks-covered-climate-ch/208881|url-status=live}}</ref>
President [[Donald Trump]] denies the threat of global warming publicly. As a result of the Trump Presidency, media coverage on climate change was expected to decline during his term as president.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Park |first1=David J |title=United States news media and climate change in the era of US President Trump |journal=Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management |date=November 2017 |volume=14 |issue=2 |pages=202–204 |doi=10.1002/ieam.2011 |pmid=29193745 |bibcode=2018IEAM...14..202P }}</ref>{{update inline|date=December 2020}}
Line 213 ⟶ 211:
Globally, media coverage of global warming and climate change decreased in 2020.<ref name="Nacu-Schmidt"/> In the United States, however, newspaper coverage of climate change increased 29% between March 2020 and April 2020, these numbers are still 22% down from coverage in January 2020.<ref name="Nacu-Schmidt" /> This spike in April 2020 can be attributed to the increased coverage of the "[[Covering Climate Now|Covering Climate Now']]' campaign and the US holiday of "[[Earth Day]]". The overall decline in climate change coverage in the year 2020 is related to the increased coverage and interconnectedness of [[COVID-19 pandemic|COVID-19]] and President Trump, without mention of climate change, that began in January 2020.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2020-09-23|title=Climate change news coverage has declined. The audience has not.|url=https://digitalcontentnext.org/blog/2020/09/23/climate-change-news-coverage-has-declined-the-audience-for-it-has-not/|access-date=2021-04-21|website=Digital Content Next|language=en-US|archive-date=2021-04-21|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210421030752/https://digitalcontentnext.org/blog/2020/09/23/climate-change-news-coverage-has-declined-the-audience-for-it-has-not/|url-status=live}}</ref>
The U.S. experienced its highest level of climate change media coverage to date in September and October 2021. This increase can be attributed to coverage of the United Nations Conference of Parties meeting which aimed to outline policies to address climate change.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2021 |title=2021 Year End Retrospective, Special Issue 2021, A Review of Media Coverage of Climate Change and Global Warming in 2021 |url=https://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/icecaps/research/media_coverage/summaries/special_issue_2021.html |access-date=2023-11-22 |website=sciencepolicy.colorado.edu |publisher=MeCCO Monthly Summaries :: Media and Climate Change Observatory}}</ref> According to the analisys of [[Media Matters for America]], in 2024 the corporate broadcast networks in the USA dedicated to climate change 12 hours and 51 minutes, which is considered as highly insufficient. Climate coverage declined in the years 2022-2024.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Cooper |first1=Evlondo |title=How broadcast TV networks covered climate change in 2024 |url=https://www.mediamatters.org/broadcast-networks/how-broadcast-tv-networks-covered-climate-change-2024 |website=Media Matters for America |date=6 March 2025 |access-date=6 April 2025}}</ref>
Media coverage of the [[January 2025 Southern California wildfires]] has been criticized for not addressing the impact of climate change on the fires, with some coverage ignoring the climate crisis altogether.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Hertsgaard |first=Mark |date=2025-01-16 |title=The media needs to show how the climate crisis is fueling the LA wildfires |url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jan/16/climate-crisis-la-california-wildfires |access-date= |work=[[The Guardian]] |language=en-GB }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Goldsmith |first=Eloise |date=Jan 16, 2025 |title=Critics Warn Media Outlets Failing to Explain Climate Cause Behind Los Angeles Fires {{!}} Common Dreams |url=https://www.commondreams.org/news/media-critics-los-angeles-fire-climate |access-date= |website=[[Common Dreams]] |language=en}}</ref>
Line 237 ⟶ 235:
== Further reading ==
* {{cite book |last=Pooley |first=Eric |date=June 8, 2010 |title=The Climate War: True Believers, Power Brokers, and the Fight to Save the Earth |url=https://archive.org/details/isbn_9781401323264 |publisher=Hachette Books |isbn=978-1-4013-2326-4 }}
*
* {{cite book |
* {{cite book |
* {{cite book |doi=10.3726/b14826 |title=Climate Change and the Media |date=2018 |isbn=978-1-4331-5437-9 |url=https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/2134/37995 |editor-last1=Brevini |editor-last2=Lewis |editor-first1=Benedetta |editor-first2=Justin }}
* {{cite journal |doi=10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.03.001 |vauthors=Uusi-Rauva C, Tienari J |title=On the relative nature of adequate measures: Media representations of the EU energy and climate package |journal=Global Environmental Change |volume=20 |issue=3 |pages=492–501 |year=2010 |bibcode=2010GEC....20..492U }}
* {{cite journal |author=Anderson, Alison |title=Media, Politics and Climate Change: Towards a New Research Agenda |journal=Sociology Compass |volume=3 |issue=2 |pages=166–182 |date=March 2009 |doi=10.1111/j.1751-9020.2008.00188.x}}
*
{{Global warming|state=collapsed}}
| |||