Content deleted Content added
Ira Leviton (talk | contribs) m Fixed pmc and date parametes in citations. Please see Category:CS1 maint: PMC format and Category:CS1 errors: dates. |
Citation bot (talk | contribs) Alter: template type, journal, title. Add: s2cid, pmid, jstor, doi, date, bibcode, authors 1-1. Removed proxy/dead URL that duplicated identifier. Removed parameters. Some additions/deletions were parameter name changes. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | Suggested by Whoop whoop pull up | #UCB_webform 7/858 |
||
Line 62:
==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|url=http://revistas.ucm.es/index.php/ESMP/article/view/62207|access-date=2019-02-20|archive-date=2019-08-07|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190807044718/https://revistas.ucm.es/index.php/ESMP/article/view/62207|url-status=live}}</ref> Research into media coverage of climate change has demonstrated the significant role of the media in determining [[Politics of climate change|climate policy]] formation.<ref name="Boykoff-Flogging">{{cite journal|last=Boykoff|first=M|title=Flogging a Dead Norm? Newspaper Coverage of Anthropogenic Climate Change in the United States and United Kingdom from 2003-2006|journal=[[Area (journal)|Area]]|year=2007|volume=39|issue=2|pages=000–000, 200|doi=10.1111/j.1475-4762.2007.00769.x|bibcode=2007Area...39..470B}}</ref> The media has considerable bearing on public opinion, and the way in which issues are reported, or framed, establishes a particular [[discourse]].<ref>{{cite journal|last=Hajer|first=M|author2=Versteeg, W|title=A Decade of Discourse Analysis of Environmental Politics: Achievements, Challenges, Perspectives|journal=Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning|year=2005|volume=7|issue=3|pages=175–184|doi=10.1080/15239080500339646|bibcode=2005JEPP....7..175H|s2cid=145317648}}</ref>
=== 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|last=Feindt|first=P|author2=Oels, A|title=Does Discourse Matter? Discourse Analysis in Environmental Policy Making|journal=Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning|year=2005|volume=7|issue=3|pages=161–173|doi=10.1080/15239080500339638|bibcode=2005JEPP....7..161F|s2cid=143314592|url=https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:bvb:384-opus4-946257}}</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|last=Hall|first=S|title=Policing the Crisis - Mugging, the State, and Law and Order|year=1978|publisher=Holmes and Meier|___location=New York|page=438|display-authors=etal}}</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|last=Carvalho|first=A|author2=Burgess, J|title=Cultural Circuits of Climate Change in UK Broadsheet Newspapers|journal=Risk Analysis|date=December 2005|volume=25|issue=6|pages=1457–1469|doi=10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00692.x|pmid=16506975|citeseerx=10.1.1.171.178|s2cid=2079283}}</ref> However, media also has the capacity to challenge political norms and expose corrupt behaviour,<ref>{{cite journal|last=Anderson|first=A|title=Media, Politics and Climate Change: Towards a New Research Agenda|journal=Sociology Compass{{Clarify|date=January 2012}}|year=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 [[Exxon Mobil]] to publish articles undermining the [[IPCC]]'s 4th assessment report.
Line 79:
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>
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=":2">{{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=":3">{{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.}}</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=":3" /> 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=":2" /><ref name=":3" />
Line 90:
===Australia===
{{See also|Climate change in Australia}}[[Australian media|Australian news outlets]] have been reported to present misleading claims and information.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2020-01-14|title=The Australian says it accepts climate science, so why does it give a platform to 'outright falsehoods'?|url=http://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jan/15/the-australian-says-it-accepts-climate-science-so-why-does-it-give-a-platform-to-outright-falsehoods|access-date=2021-04-22|website=The Guardian|language=en|archive-date=2021-03-06|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210306231013/https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jan/15/the-australian-says-it-accepts-climate-science-so-why-does-it-give-a-platform-to-outright-falsehoods|url-status=live}}</ref> One article from ''[[The Australian]]'' in 2009 claimed that climate change and global warming were fraudulent claims pushed by so-called "warmaholics".<ref>{{Cite web|date=2009-01-16|title=The warmaholics' fantasy |newspaper=The Australian|url=http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24876451-7583,00.html|access-date=2021-04-22|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090116082215/http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24876451-7583,00.html|archive-date=2009-01-16}}</ref>{{Non-primary source needed|date=March 2023}} Many other examples of claims that dismiss climate change have been posted by media outlets in Australia throughout the years following as well.<ref>{{Cite
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 name=":6">{{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 151:
''[[The Guardian]]'' newspaper is internationally respected for its coverage of [[climate change]].<ref name="auto">{{Cite journal |date=January 2019 |title=Contemporary Turkey: an ecological account |url=https://www.hyd.org.tr/attachments/article/511/saha2en.pdf |url-status=live |journal=Citizens' Assembly-Turkey |issue=2 |issn=2149-7885 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211119205910/https://hyd.org.tr/attachments/article/511/saha2en.pdf |archive-date=2021-11-19 |access-date=2019-12-09}}</ref>
In the UK, statements by government officials have been influential in the public perception on climate change. In 1988, Prime Minister [[Margaret Thatcher]] gave one of the first speeches to draw public attention to climate change. This speech highlighted the assumption that industrialization had no impact on the global climate and contrasted it with the stark reality of an increasingly volatile climate. In another speech, Margaret Thatcher expressed that “we have unwittingly begun a massive experiment with the system of the planet itself”<ref>{{Cite journal |
In the early 2000s, [[David King (chemist)|David King]], Chief Scientific Advisor to the UK, stated that the most difficult issue we are facing today is climate change and that its effects are worse than terrorism. David King established that reducing carbon emissions wouldn't just benefit the environment but also the collective wellbeing of UK citizens. King's personal focus was precisely on climate change and he produced innovative thinking tactics and negotiations for the eyes of the media<ref name=":8">{{Cite report |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep01410 |title=Talking about a revolution: climate change and the media |last=Shanahan |first=Mike |date=2007 |publisher=International Institute for Environment and Development}}</ref>.
In 1988 in United States, NASA scientist [[James Hansen]] stated that climate change was anthropogenic. 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=":9">{{Cite journal |
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. 2003 was a year where the UK and much of Europe experienced 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℃, which is 101.3℉, 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>{{Cite news |
An examination into the community of the UK and their perspectives of the climate change movement is important for the progression of change. In 2001, the National Survey of Public Attitudes to Quality of Life, created a poll to create an understanding of what the public viewed as the most important concerns, in the moment, relating to the local to global environment. The outcome was that the public listed global warming as their 8th on their list of current concerns. The office for National Statistics then constructed an additional poll asking the same question but reflecting 20 years ahead. In which the community stated that in 20 years time, the concern of the congestion fumes and noises relating from traffic was more concerning than the significant impacts of climate change<ref name=":7" />.
Line 163:
Along with heatwaves, other problems that arise from climate change tend to generate more media coverage. Specifically, the issue of flooding as a result from the changing climate draws attention, and therefore, causes media to report on the issue. In a six year span, between 2001 and 2007, the UK had over a hundred articles per newspaper covering the topic of flooding, showing a clear concern with extreme weather events<ref name=":9" />. However, although the UK tends to frame climate change as being the fault of humans more than the US, the newspapers often ignore the role that climate change plays in these extreme events. In the hundreds of articles about flooding in the UK between 2001 and 2007, climate change was only mentioned 55 times in any of them. The ''Guardian'' had the most mentions of climate change and drawing connections between climate change and issues such as flooding. However, the ''Guardian'' still only mentioned climate change 17 times out of 197 stories about climate change<ref name=":9" />. Therefore, extreme events and tangible effects can be observed such as floods or heatwaves do cause more attention on the issue with an increased amount of media, however, the media does not always draw the connections between the issues and climate change.
There is a diverse range of types of articles the media companies in the United Kingdom are presenting to the public. Specifically 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]]''. In one article, newspapers are categorized into running from anthropogenic global warming only contributes to 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=":10">{{Cite journal |
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]] in which it contained the most coverage relating to the truth of climate change, even mentioning that it opens up business opportunities. That specific comment from the Financial Times created a movement that made businesses act faster than the government in brainstorming solutions for the related problems. The commuters of London, reaching to the amount of a million participants, on the date of October 25, 2007, they were 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 presented how the actions placed on climate change were critically insufficient. A surplus of UK citizens were not ready for a change with the present facts of scientific uncertainty<ref name=":8" />.
''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. They wrote this in one of their articles:<ref name=":10" /><ref name=":11">{{Cite journal |
“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=":10" />.
Line 173:
[[George Monbiot]], a weekly column writer for ''The Guardian'', says specifically in Birtian he sees, 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=":11" />.
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 the movement<ref name=":12">{{Cite journal |last=Cammaerts |first=Bart |date=2023-05-09 |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 less 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 183:
===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}}</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=":0" /><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" />
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 }}</ref>
Line 200:
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>{{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|last=Park|first=David J.|date=March 2018|title=United States news media and climate change in the era of US President Trump|journal=Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management|volume=14|issue=2|pages=202–204|doi=10.1002/ieam.2011|issn=1551-3793|pmid=29193745|bibcode=2018IEAM...14..202P |s2cid=3779585 }}</ref>{{needs update|date=December 2020}}
Globally, media coverage of global warming and climate change decreased in 2020.<ref name=":4"/> 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=":4" /> 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>
| |||