Media coverage of climate change: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 13:29, 19 June 2025

Revision as of 13:49, 19 June 2025

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>{{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>

In 2024, ''[[Verified for Climate]]'', a [[United Nations]] initiative for combating [[misinformation]] about [[climate change]] on [[social media]] was launched. It gathered a team of "Verified Champions" ([[scientist]]s who are also [[Social media influencer|content creator]]s on social media) to collaborate on combating fake information published on social media.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.elmundo.es/ciencia-y-salud/medio-ambiente/2024/04/23/66279cb9fc6c83c8058b45a9.html|title=La ONU impulsa una campaña para contrarrestar la desinformación climática|date=April 23, 2024|website=El Mundo}} (in Spanish)</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://jakartaglobe.id/lifestyle/indonesian-content-creators-use-music-and-culture-to-raise-climate-awareness|title=Indonesian Content Creators Use Music and Culture to Raise Climate Awareness|work=Jakarta Globe }}</ref><ref name="auto">{{Cite web|url=https://www.un.org/zh/node/219082|title=wikiHow teams up with Verified to empower people with climate information &#124; 联合国|first=United|last=Nations|website=United Nations}}</ref><ref name="auto"/><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://oeco.org.br/colunas/em-um-mundo-em-emergencia-climatica-a-desinformacao-se-tornou-um-dos-principais-riscos-globais/|title=Em um mundo em emergência climática, a desinformação se tornou um dos principais riscos globais|first=Mikaelle|last=Farias|date=March 15, 2024|website=((o))eco}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://mashable.com/article/youtube-climate-change-misinformation-what-to-know|title=New climate deniers are making millions on YouTube. But they're lying.|first=Chase|last=DiBenedetto|date=February 3, 2024|website=Mashable}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.tempo.co/gaya-hidup/tingkatkan-pemahaman-krisis-iklim-dengan-musik-dan-cerita-1604745|title=Tingkatkan Pemahaman Krisis Iklim dengan Musik dan Cerita|date=June 1, 2025|website=Tempo}}</ref> The initiative has the support of [[TikTok]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://shareverified.com/verified-champions/|title=Verified &#124; #VerifiedChampions|website=Verified}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://campaignme.com/tiktok-tackling-miscommunication-around-climate-change-by-pledging-billions/|title=TikTok tackling miscommunication around climate change with "verified champions"|first=Justin|last=Harper|date=May 2, 2024}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://arab.news/cnqjn|title=TikTok launches $1M campaign to tackle climate misinformation at COP28|date=December 7, 2023|website=Arab News}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.zawya.com/en/press-release/events-and-conferences/tiktok-announces-its-commitment-to-sustainability-and-climate-literacy-at-cop28-nr8vty8m|title=TikTok announces its commitment to sustainability and climate literacy at COP28|first=Press|last=Release|website=www.zawya.com}}</ref>

Line 29:

== 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}}

Line 36:

=== 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 63:

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==

Line 174:

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" />