Content deleted Content added
→Factual: "keying" sounds odd here |
Citation bot (talk | contribs) Altered pages. Add: volume, bibcode, authors 1-1. Removed parameters. Some additions/deletions were parameter name changes. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | Suggested by Superegz | Category:Climate change mass media | #UCB_Category 19/24 |
||
Line 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|last=Moore|first=B|author2=Singletary, M.|title=Scientific sources' perceptions of network news accuracy|journal=Journalism Quarterly|year=1985|volume=62|issue=4|pages=816–823|doi=10.1177/107769908506200415|s2cid=144093163}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last=Nelkin|first=D|title=Selling science: How the press covers science and technology|journal=New York: W.H. Freeman|year=1995}}</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 book|vauthors=Singer E, Endreny PM |title=Reporting on risk: How the mass media portray accidents, diseases, disasters and other hazards.|year=1993|publisher=Russell Sage|___location=New York|url=http://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1199&context=risk|access-date=2018-02-05|archive-date=2020-04-14|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200414170608/https://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1199&context=risk|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last=Tankard|first=J. W.|author2=Ryan, M.|title=News source perceptions of accuracy in science coverage|journal=Journalism Quarterly|year=1974|volume=51|issue=2|pages=219–225|doi=10.1177/107769907405100204|s2cid=145113868}}</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}}
Line 81:
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|last=Auer M.|title=The Potential of Microblogs for the Study of Public Perceptions of Climate Change|journal=WIREs Climate Change|date=2014| doi=10.1002/wcc.273|display-authors=etal|volume=5|issue=3|pages=291–296|bibcode=2014WIRCC...5..291A |s2cid=129809371 }}</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 web|last=Anderson|first=Ashley A.|date=2017-03-29|title=Effects of Social Media Use on Climate Change Opinion, Knowledge, and Behavior|url=https://oxfordre.com/climatescience/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228620-e-369|access-date=2021-04-21|website=Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science|language=en|doi=10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.369|isbn=978-0-19-022862-0|archive-date=2021-04-21|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210421025803/https://oxfordre.com/climatescience/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228620-e-369|url-status=live}}</ref> Another study examined datasets from [[Twitter]] to assess the ideas and attitudes that users of the application held toward climate change.<ref name="Williams-2015">{{Cite journal|date=2015-05-01|title=Network analysis reveals open forums and echo chambers in social media discussions of climate change|journal=Global Environmental Change|language=en|volume=32|pages=126–138|doi=10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.03.006|issn=0959-3780|doi-access=free|last1=Williams|first1=Hywel T.P.|last2=McMurray|first2=James R.|last3=Kurz|first3=Tim|last4=Hugo Lambert|first4=F.|bibcode=2015GEC....32..126W |hdl=10871/17565|hdl-access=free}}</ref> Williams et al. found that users tend to be active in groups that share the same opinions, often at the extremes of the spectrum, resulting in less polarized opinions between the groups.<ref name="Williams-2015" /> These studies show that [[social media]] can have both a negative and positive impact on the information sharing of issues related to climate change.<ref name="Anderson-2017" /><ref name="Williams-2015" />
=== Youth awareness and activism ===
Line 87:
=== Threats against climate journalism ===
The Covering the Planet report, a global survey of more than 740 climate journalists from 102 countries by [[Internews]]’ [[Earth Journalism Network]] (EJN) and [[Deakin University]], reported that 39% of surveyed journalists were "sometimes or frequently threatened" by their government or from companies or individuals involved in illegal operations that included logging and mining, while the same percentage had to self-censor the content they reported out of fear of repercussions. The report stated that 30% of journalists faced threats of legal action due to their reporting. 62% included statements from sources skeptical of anthropogenic climate change in order to "balance" their reports, some doing so to lower potential scrutiny.<ref>{{Cite news |
==Coverage by country==
Line 115:
===Japan===
{{See also|Climate change in Japan}}
In Japan, a study of newspaper coverage of climate change from January 1998 to July 2007 found coverage increased dramatically from January 2007.<ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.10.005 |vauthors=Sampei Y, Aoyagi-Usui M |title=Mass-media coverage, its influence on public awareness of climate-change issues, and implications for Japan's national campaign to reduce greenhouse gas emissions |journal=Global Environmental Change |volume=19 |issue=2 |pages=203–212 |year=2009 |bibcode=2009GEC....19..203S }}</ref>
===India===
Line 180:
[[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 |last=Cammaerts |first=Bart |date=2023-05-09 |title=The mediated circulation of the United Kingdom's YouthStrike4Climate movement's discourses and actions |journal=European Journal of Cultural Studies |volume=27 |language=en |pages=
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>{{Cite web |last=Prater |first=Josh Gabbatiss, Sylvia Hayes, Joe Goodman and Tom |title=Analysis: How UK newspapers changed their minds about climate change |url=https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/how-uk-newspapers-changed-minds-climate-change/url |access-date=2023-12-07 |website=interactive.carbonbrief.org |language=en}}</ref>
Line 188:
===United States===
{{See also|Climate change in the United States|Propaganda model#Applications}}
The way the media report on climate change in [[English-speaking world|English-speaking]] countries, especially in the United States, has been widely studied, while studies of reporting in other countries have been less expansive.<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Lyytimäki J, Tapio P |year=2009 |title=Climate change as reported in the press of Finland: From screaming headlines to penetrating background noise |journal=[[International Journal of Environmental Studies]] |volume=66 |issue=6 |pages=723–735 |doi=10.1080/00207230903448490 |bibcode=2009IJEnS..66..723L |s2cid=93991183}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Schmidt |first1=Andreas |last2=Ivanova |first2=Ana |last3=Schäfer |first3=Mike S. |year=2013 |title=Media attention for climate change around the world: A comparative analysis of newspaper coverage in 27 countries |journal=Global Environmental Change |volume=23 |issue=5 |pages=1233–1248 |doi=10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.020|bibcode=2013GEC....23.1233S }}</ref> A number of studies have shown that particularly in the United States and in the UK [[Tabloid journalism#Red tops|tabloid press]], the media significantly understated the strength of [[scientific consensus on climate change]] established in [[IPCC]] Assessment Reports [[IPCC Second Assessment Report|in 1995]] and [[IPCC Third Assessment Report|in 2001]].
One of the first critical studies of media coverage of climate change in the United States appeared in 1999. The author summarized her research:<ref name="Nissani-1999" /><blockquote>Following a review of the decisive role of the media in American politics and of a few earlier studies of media bias, this paper examines media coverage of the greenhouse effect. It does so by comparing two pictures. The first picture emerges from reading all 100 greenhouse-related articles published over a five-month period (May–September 1997) in ''[[The Christian Science Monitor]], [[The New York Times|New York Times]], [[San Francisco Chronicle|The San Francisco Chronicle]],'' and ''[[The Washington Post]]''. The second picture emerges from the mainstream scientific literature. This comparison shows that media coverage of environmental issues suffers from both shallowness and pro-corporate bias.</blockquote>According to Peter J. Jacques et al., the mainstream news media of the United States is an example of the effectiveness of [[environmental skepticism]] as a tactic.<ref>Environmental skepticism is "a tactic of an elite-driven counter-movement designed to combat environmentalism, and ... the successful use of this tactic has contributed to the weakening of US commitment to environmental protection." — {{cite journal |last=Jacques |first=P.J. |author2=Dunlap, R.E.|author3=Freeman, M. |date=June 2008 |title=The organization of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental skepticism |journal=Environmental Politics |volume=17 |issue=3 |pages=349–385 |doi=10.1080/09644010802055576|bibcode=2008EnvPo..17..349J |s2cid=144975102 }}</ref> A 2005 study reviewed and analyzed the US [[mass-media]] coverage of the environmental issue of [[climate change]] from 1988 to 2004. The authors confirm that within the journalism industry there is great emphasis on eliminating the presence of [[media bias]]. In their study they found that — due to this practice of journalistic [[objectivity (journalism)|objectivity]] — "Over a 15-year period, a majority (52.7%) of prestige-press articles featured balanced accounts that gave 'roughly equal attention' to the views that humans were contributing to global warming and that exclusively natural fluctuations could explain the earth's temperature increase [...] US mass-media have misrepresented the top climate scientific perspective regarding anthropogenic climate change." As a result, they observed that it is unsurprising for the public to believe that the issue of global warming and the accompanying [[scientific evidence]] is still hotly debated.<ref name="Boykoff2007" />
Line 194:
A study of US newspapers and television news from 1995 to 2006 examined "how and why US media have represented conflict and contentions, despite an emergent consensus view regarding anthropogenic climate science." The [[Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change|IPCC]] Assessment Reports [[IPCC Second Assessment Report|in 1995]] and [[IPCC Third Assessment Report|in 2001]] established an increasingly strong scientific consensus, yet the media continued to present the science as contentious. The study noted the influence of [[Michael Crichton]]'s 2004 novel ''[[State of Fear]]'', which "empowered movements across scale, from individual perceptions to the perspectives of US federal powerbrokers regarding human contribution to climate change."<ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.1111/j.1475-5661.2007.00270.x |author=Boykoff, M.T. |title=From convergence to contention: United States mass media representations of anthropogenic climate change science |journal=Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers |volume=32 |issue=4 |pages=477–489 |year=2007 |bibcode=2007TrIBG..32..477B |citeseerx = 10.1.1.132.9906 }}</ref>
A 2010 study concluded that "Mass media in the U.S. continue to suggest that scientific consensus estimates of global climate disruption, such as those from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), are 'exaggerated' and overly pessimistic. By contrast, work on the Asymmetry of Scientific Challenge (ASC) suggests that such consensus assessments are likely to understate climate disruptions [...] new scientific findings were more than twenty times as likely to support the ASC perspective than the usual framing of the issue in the U.S. mass media. The findings indicate that supposed challenges to the scientific consensus on global warming need to be subjected to greater scrutiny, as well as showing that, if reporters wish to discuss "both sides" of the climate issue, the scientifically legitimate 'other side' is that, if anything, global climate disruption may prove to be significantly worse than has been suggested in scientific consensus estimates to date."<ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.04.003 |vauthors=Freudenburg WR, Muselli V |title=Global warming estimates, media expectations, and the asymmetry of scientific challenge |journal=Global Environmental Change |volume=20 |issue=3 |pages=483–491 |year=2010 |bibcode=2010GEC....20..483F }}</ref>
[[File:False balance in climate science.png|thumb|upright=1.3|Scientific consensus on climate change (left) versus attitudes of Fox News guests in 2013 (right)<ref>{{cite news |title=Fox News defends global warming false balance by denying the 97% consensus |author=Dana Nuccitelli |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/oct/23/climate-change-climate-change-scepticism |access-date=12 September 2022 |newspaper=The Guardian |date=23 October 2013 |language=en}}</ref>]]
Line 234:
* {{cite book |author=Mike Hulme|author-link=Mike Hulme |title=Why we disagree about climate change: understanding controversy, inaction and opportunity |publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]] |___location=Cambridge, UK |year=2009 |isbn=978-0-521-72732-7 |title-link=Why We Disagree About Climate Change }}
* {{cite book |editor1=Tammy Boyce |editor2=Lewis, Justin |title=Climate Change and the Media (Global Crises and the Media) |publisher=[[Peter Lang (publishing company)|Peter Lang Publishing]] |year=2009 |isbn=978-1-4331-0460-2 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=9_A2KwRLHUwC}}
* {{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}}
* ''Who Speaks for the Climate?: Making Sense of Media Reporting on Climate Change'' by Maxwell T. Boykoff, [[Cambridge University Press]]; 1 edition (September 30, 2011) {{ISBN|978-0-521-13305-0}}
| |||