Content deleted Content added
Line 11:
| image4= 19120814 Coal Consumption Affecting Climate - Rodney and Otamatea Times.jpg | caption4 = This 1912 article succinctly describes the greenhouse effect, focusing on how burning coal creates carbon dioxide that causes climate change.<ref name="Otamatea Times">{{cite news|date=14 August 1912|title=Coal Consumption Affecting Climate|page=7|work=Rodney and Otamatea Times, Waitemata and Kaipara Gazette|___location=Warkworth, New Zealand|url=https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ROTWKG19120814.2.56.5|access-date=8 September 2021|archive-date=8 September 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210908222538/https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ROTWKG19120814.2.56.5|url-status=live}} Text was earlier [[:File:191203 Furnaces of the world - Popular Mechanics - Global warming.jpg|published in ''Popular Mechanics'']], March 1912, p. 341.</ref>}}
The theory that increases in [[
The British press also changed its coverage at the end of 1988, following a speech by [[Margaret Thatcher]] to the [[Royal Society]] advocating action against [[human-induced climate change]].<ref>{{Cite web |title=Speech to the Royal Society {{!}} Margaret Thatcher Foundation |url=https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/107346 |access-date=2022-09-20 |website=www.margaretthatcher.org}}</ref> According to Anabela Carvalho, an academic analyst, Thatcher's "appropriation" of the risks of climate change to promote [[nuclear power]], in the context of the dismantling of the coal industry following the [[UK miners' strike (1984–1985)|1984–1985 miners' strike]] was one reason for the change in public discourse. At the same time environmental organizations and the political opposition were demanding "solutions that contrasted with the government's".<ref name="Carvalho2007">{{cite journal |author=Carvalho, Anabela |year=2007 |title=Ideological cultures and media discourses on scientific knowledge |url=https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00571102/file/PEER_stage2_10.1177%252F0963662506066775.pdf |journal=Public Understanding of Science |volume=16 |issue=2 |pages=223–43 |doi=10.1177/0963662506066775 |s2cid=220837080 |hdl=1822/41838}}</ref>
Line 34:
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|vauthors=Shoemaker PJ, Reese SD |title=Mediating the message: Theories of influence on mass media content|year=1996|publisher=Longman.|___location=New York |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>W.L Bennet, "News: The Politics of Illusion" 5th edition, (2002). Longman, New York. p.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.
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 doubters]] 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"/>{{
Science journalism concerns itself with gathering and evaluating various types of relevant evidence and rigorously checking sources and facts. Boyce Rensberger, the director of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Knight Center for Science Journalism, said, "balanced coverage of science does not mean giving equal weight to both sides of an argument. It means apportioning weight according to the balance of evidence."<ref>{{cite journal|last=Rensberger|first=B|title=Reporting Science Means Looking for Cautionary Signals|journal=Nieman Reports|year=2002|pages=12–14|url=http://niemanreports.org/articles/reporting-science-means-looking-for-cautionary-signals-2/|access-date=2018-02-05|archive-date=2019-08-06|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190806225452/https://niemanreports.org/articles/reporting-science-means-looking-for-cautionary-signals-2/|url-status=live}}</ref>
Line 50:
==== 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">{{Cite web |last1=Ereaut|first1=Gill|last2=Segrit|first2=Nat|year=2006|title=Warm Words: How are we Telling the Climate Story and can we Tell it Better?|url=https://www.ippr.org/files/images/media/files/publication/2011/05/warm_words_1529.pdf |website=Institute for Public Policy Research |access-date=2021-08-10|archive-date=2021-08-05|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210805080101/https://www.ippr.org/files/images/media/files/publication/2011/05/warm_words_1529.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> It is claimed that when applied to climate change, alarmist language can create a greater sense of urgency.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jul/09/there-are-genuine-climate-alarmists-but-theyre-not-in-the-same-league-as-deniers|title=There are genuine climate alarmists, but they're not in the same league as deniers|last=Nuccitelli|first=Dana|date=July 9, 2018|newspaper=The Guardian|access-date=May 15, 2021|archive-date=April 28, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210428145142/https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jul/09/there-are-genuine-climate-alarmists-but-theyre-not-in-the-same-league-as-deniers|url-status=live}}</ref>
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">{{Cite book|last1=Lisa Dilling|author-link1=Lisa Dilling|last2=Susanne C. Moser|title=Creating a climate for change: communicating climate change and facilitating social change|year=2007|publisher=Cambridge University Press|___location=Cambridge, UK|isbn=978-0-521-86923-2|pages=1–27|chapter=Introduction}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal | doi = 10.1177/1075547008329201 | title = "Fear Won't Do It": Promoting Positive Engagement with Climate Change Through Visual and Iconic Representations | year = 2009 | last1 = O'Neill | first1 = S. | last2 = Nicholson-Cole | first2 = S. | journal = Science Communication | volume = 30 | issue = 3 | pages = 355–379| s2cid = 220752087 }}</ref> In the context of [[climate refugee]]s—the potential for climate change to [[displaced person|displace people]]—it has been reported that "alarmist hyperbole" is frequently employed by [[private military contractor]]s and [[think tank]]s.<ref name="Hartmann2010">{{Cite journal|last=Hartmann |first=Betsy |year=2010 |title=Rethinking climate refugees and climate conflict: Rhetoric, reality and the politics of policy discourse |journal=Journal of International Development |volume=22 |issue=2 |pages=233–246 |issn=0954-1748 |doi=10.1002/jid.1676}}</ref>
Line 57:
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>{{Cite web |date=2020-07-11 |title=How climate change alarmists are actually damaging the planet |url=https://nypost.com/2020/07/11/how-climate-change-alarmists-are-actually-damaging-the-planet/ |access-date=2023-01-23 |language=en-US}}</ref> [[MIT]] [[meteorologist]] [[Kerry Emanuel]] wrote that labeling someone as an "alarmist" is "a particularly infantile smear considering what is at stake". He continued that using this "inflammatory terminology has a distinctly [[Orwellian]] flavor."<ref name="Emanuel">{{cite web |last=Emanuel |first=Kerry |date=July 19, 2010 |title="Climategate": A Different Perspective |url=https://www.nas.org/blogs/article/climategate_a_different_perspective |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210810122527/https://www.nas.org/blogs/article/climategate_a_different_perspective |archive-date=August 10, 2021 |access-date=August 10, 2021 |website=[[National Association of Scholars]]}}</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 | title=The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus | author1=Peterson, Thomas | author2=Connolley, William | author3=Fleck, John | name-list-style=amp | url=http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/Myth-1970-Global-Cooling-BAMS-2008.pdf | date=September 2008 | doi=10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1 | journal=[[Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society]] | volume=89 | issue=9 | pages=1325–1337 | bibcode=2008BAMS...89.1325P | s2cid=123635044 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120114082810/http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/Myth-1970-Global-Cooling-BAMS-2008.pdf | archive-date=2012-01-14 }}</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,</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>
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>{{
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 161:
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" />
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="Gavin-2011" />
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 more consistently drew 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="Gavin-2011" /> Therefore, while extreme events and tangible effects such as floods or heatwaves do cause more media attention, the media does not always draw connections between these issues and climate change.
Line 167:
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 |language=en |volume=16 |issue=9 |pages=094008 |doi=10.1088/1748-9326/ac14eb |bibcode=2021ERL....16i4008M |s2cid=237158159 |issn=1748-9326|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.
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" />
Line 181:
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>
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
===United States===
Line 202:
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>{{
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>
==See also==
| |||