Global warming a tough issue for the media
Fri, 12/15/2006 - 05:58
I've only recently come across interview with New York Times reporter Brooke Gladstone about the media and global warming.
Interesting reading - includes fact that it's a big issue, with long time scale, barely suited to frontpage headlines: can get frontpage news, but may be wrong if saying Hurricane Katrina, say, is definite result of warming.
Also, get tendency for media to aim for "balance" - showing there's debate, when really, the scientific consensus is that global warming is very real. (Occurs to me that it's a bit like debating the pros and cons of bestiality or something; just because a few people may be in favour doesn't mean there's a real debate about morals of it.)
Quotes from Gladstone include:
Quote:
when you look at the near term, there's been a lot of melting, a lot of strange things going on with the sea ice that they can't ascribe this particular year to our influence on the climate system. They know it's contributing to change but there's enough variability in the Arctic that you can't make a slam dunk case. So that's a nightmare for the media. You know, my editors -- the one thing that makes them glaze over immediately is the word "incremental". That's like, at The Times, and I'm sure any other newsroom, that's a death sentence for a story. And global warming is kind of like the Social Security and national debt of the environment. It's there, we all recognize it's some kind of big bad thing, but it's always kind of a "someday, somewhere story."
Dangerous Extremes
Post edited by: Martin, at: 2006/12/14 14:42
- 1040 reads
Thu, 08/02/2007 - 12:05
#2
US media muted and poor on science re global warming
Seems the US media - rather like dear old George "Warmer" Bush - is having a tough time getting to grips with global warming, and the magnitude and immediacy of the issue.
Media analysis by Fairness and aAccuracy in Reporting includes:
Quote:
The first IPCC report, issued on February 2, focused on the now-overwhelming evidence that the dramatic rise in global temperatures over the last century (about 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit total), and especially the last decade, is due to human emissions of greenhouse gases. "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal," concluded the IPCC, noting that 11 of the 12 warmest years on record have occurred since 1995, while the polar ice caps are melting and sea levels rising at increasing rates. The panel concluded that there is greater than 95 percent certainty that human activity is to blame.The next day (2/3/07), alarmed headlines greeted newspaper readers: "Official: Global Warming Is All Our Fault." "World's Scientists Convinced That Humans Cause Global Warming." "Worse Than We Thought: Report Warns of 4 C Rise by 2100: Floods and Food and Water Shortages Likely."
None of those, though, were seen by readers of U.S. newspapers--they appeared in, respectively, Britain's Daily Telegraph, Financial Times and Guardian. The same day's U.S. headlines were mostly far more demure: "U.N. Study Spurs Call to Fight Warming" (Boston Globe); "From Global Warming Report, U.S. Feels Heat" (Chicago Tribune). The New York Times titled its front-page story "Science Panel Calls Global Warm-ing 'Unequivocal'"--ducking the more significant finding that not only is climate change underway, but that human-created greenhouse gases are the culprit.
Doubt Global Warming? Read Different News
Major U.S. Papers Less Likely Than International Counterparts To Confront Threat
- short intro, then includes the analysis.
Tue, 09/25/2007 - 10:46
#3
National Geographic cites Ballocks in badly balanced piece
After seeing news item on National Geographic, sent this to them; maybe self-explanatory:
Quote:
In article re climate change inaction and costs, I believe you have tumbled into the trap re journalism supposedly requiring balance.In quoting Timothy Ball, did you check re him and NSRC:
See DeSmogBlog profile of Ball, say:
http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1272
What kind of "expert" has published only 4 papers that can be found; and no original research in last 11 years, even though prolific in producing "popular" articles, and is in groups that reveal to disclose funding and/or have strong ties to oil industry monies?Maybe in news, can also have "balanced" items re evolution, plate tectonics.
Except with these, far less of import is at stake.And as for journalism, "balance" - of rather bogus nature - does not always happen. Do we get balance re, say paedophilia [where I believe are a very few arguing it's ok]?
The Nat Geo news item is at:
Global Warming Inaction More Costly Than Solutions?
Fri, 10/05/2007 - 12:54
#4
Creeping climatic catastrophe yet media reporting lame
From the Guardian:
Quote:
"The flooding in Africa just now is the worst anyone can remember," Sir John [Holmes, a British diplomat who is also known as the UN's under-secretary-general for humanitarian affairs] said, expressing frustration at how little media attention in the west was being devoted to what he terms creeping climatic catastrophe.
Fri, 12/07/2007 - 08:11
#5
Are words worthless in climate fight asks NY Times writer
New York Times environment reporter Andrew Revkin has blog post asking if words can lead to action needed to combat climate change
Cites email from Tom Lowe, a research associate at the Center for Risk and Community Safety in Melbourne, Australia, inc:
Quote:
In the absence of physical evidence that something bad is going to happen, people tend to ‘wait and see.’
...
A common reaction to this stand-off is for risk communicators to shout louder, to try and shake some sense into people. This is what I see happening with the climate change message. The public are on the receiving end of an increasingly distraught alarm call. The methods used to grab attention are so striking that people are reaching a state of denial.
also says:
Quote:
Another troublesome trait is the tendency to normalize a bad situation.
Various responses; I posted:
Quote:
Words are vital in the climate fight.Vital partly to counter righties such as Inhofe, and their obfuscation. I today had short email correspondence w someone who wrote to me that he wasn’t sure carbon is leading to warming - figures it could be sun cycle. This, I reckon, stems from info from sceptics brigade, but not scientists.
I shall ever remember someone (editor at major magazine - which can help shape opinion, but has even run piece saying why warming will be good for us [!]) telling me, “I don’t believe in global warming; I’m a conservative.” [or something much like this]
To me, mind boggling.Yet such views important, and - frustrating though it is given the science - it’s crucial to keep on with counter arguments.
Images important too, of course: a starving, skeletal polar bear on small ice floe among saddest I’ve yet seen.
Yet must also show that warming is not just out there, someplace - which has been big factor in US I think. It’s where you are; it’s effects are gonna get larger, and will be everywhere; no one will be unaffected.“gonna” I’ve written here; not a normal word for me, a Brit.
But words for the fight must be chosen, used with care, strategically. Here, I’m writing for blog in US - albeit highly erudite readership/contributors, some of whom may never say “gonna”.We need words to take this complex issue, and show key points. Greg Craven, in How It All Ends, has made a big contribution here - gone viral.
Otherwise, can be well meaning, but too dull; and maybe lapse into jargon (AGW, ghg … - tho yes, this blog is for those who know).Indeed need this major issue to get coverage it deserves.
Reading comments here, also need to cover as a global issue; here, I’m seeing US-centric views.
As for me, I’ve blog/forum re warming (climate change, climate collapse…); ideas for documentary or two on the issue - we can all do what we can to get those words out.
Mon, 02/16/2009 - 10:10
#6
Mass media screwing up re science inc global warming
I agree w comments here - including, importantly, scientists should look for metaphors that convey much: soundbites. Might look to the Exxon-Mobil etc crowd for how to do soundbites and so forth - albeit have to be honest, which tougher given how dirty the denialist camp can fight (not letting facts get in the way of a good story or two).
Quote:
Stanford scientist and climate-specialist Stephen Schneider has called out media organizations for the quality of reporting on climate change and other scientific issues."Business managers of media organizations,” he said, “you are screwing up your responsibility by firing science and environment reporters who are frankly the only ones competent to do this."
Schneider points to CNN, which in December fired all of its science and technology reporters. "Why didn't they fire their economics team or their sports team?" asks Schneider. "Why don't they send their general assignment reporters out to cover the Superbowl?"
...
Schneider’s frustration doesn’t stop at the media. He believes scientists are not living up to their responsibility to actively participate in scientific discussions with the mainstream media."I have arguments with some of my scientific colleagues, who think it is irresponsible to go out and talk when you can only get 5 seconds on the evening news, a couple of quotes in the New York Times, or five minutes in front of Congress," Schneider said. "Well, you know what guys, that's just how it is. And if you think that you have a higher calling and you're not going to play the game because they don't give you the time to tell the whole story, then all it means is that you've passed the buck to others who know the topic less well."
With years of media appearances and interviews to back him up, Schneider advices "that scientists find metaphors that convey both urgency and uncertainty, so that you can get people's attention while at the same time not overstating the case. Then you have websites and backup articles and books where you can give the full story, but you have to have your sound bite and your op-ed piece."
Renowned climatologist says mass media ‘screwing up’ global warming reporting
Mon, 01/04/2010 - 16:55
#7
Global warming hiding in plain sight
Interesting blog post by Andrew Revkin, till recently of New York Times, now at Pace University, quoting Robert Brulle, a sociologist at Drexel University who has long studied human responses to environmental issues. includes:
Quote:
Here are Dr. Brulle’s thoughts about the media, the human mind and looming issues, like global warming, that hide in plain sight (I added the links for context and background):
The complete lack of any significant coverage in the U.S. media of environmental issues in general, and global warming in particular, is not surprising.
...
Global warming impacts are extremely slow and gradual compared to ongoing daily news.
...
many of the most meaningful impacts of global climate change, such as ocean acidification, incremental sea level change and ice mass loss in Greenland and Antarctica, can be understood only via abstract scientific presentations, which do not convey a vivid visual image of environmental change.
...
if global warming proceeds slowly enough, then the potential exists that we will just progressively become more used to unusual weather – the unusual (by today’s standards) becomes usual, and we will cease being alarmed about what is now the usual course of events. Global warming no longer becomes news, but rather just part of the way the world is. This can lead to a lack of political concern over this issue, and thus a lack of political action until the possibility of human control over the process of climate change becomes impossible.
The Greatest Story Rarely Told
Fri, 02/19/2010 - 11:27
#8
Media weakening re science including global warming
Worldwatch Institute has good, lengthy - and disheartening - article re media and climate change coverage.
Includes:
Quote:
The financial decline of traditional journalism organizations has stifled investigative and foreign news. While online news and social media are spreading more information more widely and rapidly, the growing lack of explanatory journalism may nonetheless result in a less informed public. The trend should be a concern for anyone dedicated to environmental sustainability. Journalism's economic adversity not only diminishes the ability of newsrooms to generate insightful, balanced reports on science-related topics such as climate change, it also limits our understanding of how governments and industry are responding to our global environmental crisis.
...Such poor scientific awareness, common throughout newsrooms, is not likely to improve anytime soon. Economically faltering news organizations across the industrialized world have downsized staff, shrunk content, and reduced coverage. PriceWaterhouseCoopers expects the global newspaper market to undergo a 2-percent annual decline through 2013 as advertisers spend their money elsewhere and readers turn to free online content. Although media markets are prospering in some places, such as India and Latin America, most European and U.S. print, broadcast, and radio newsrooms are grappling with smaller budgets.
Recent layoff trends in the media market suggest that science and environment reporters are often the first to lose their jobs. CNN, for instance, laid off its entire science and technology staff in 2008. In the United States, two decades ago nearly 150 newspapers included a science section; today fewer than 20 do. The remaining reporters are expected to cover stories such as climate change along with their regular reporting duties.
...Worldwide, however, climate change coverage is on the rise. A 50-newspaper survey across 20 countries by University of Colorado and Oxford University researchers found "climate change" or "global warming" mentioned in about 400 stories in January 2004, mostly in the European, North American, Australian, and New Zealand press. Following the 2006 releases of Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth and British economist Nicholas Stern's report on the cost of climate change inaction, coverage increased considerably. The survey found some 2,000 stories, on average, each January from 2007 through 2009, with an increase in reports from Asia and the Middle East.
Despite the increase in science and environment stories, in-depth coverage of scientific developments, technology solutions, and political responses is decreasing by the day.
...
Unless climate change reporting improves through more in-depth, international coverage, the necessary shift to low-carbon, resilient economies will not likely occur until the worst damages become as apparent as flood water rising to our windows. By then, it may be too late.
DocMartin Photos
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You may also enjoy:
- I have seen the warming! - Murdoch, Oz, US voters
- Comical Ali recruited by climate change deniers
- Global weirding not warming
- Sceptics on global warming a baby-boomer, yuppie thing etc
- Bunk from Christopher Booker
- Global warming confusing for idiots
- Find out why global warming is real
- US in a sense climate illiterate
User login
Thoughtful commentary on this issue from Dick Meyer of CBSNews.com, includes:
Global Warming: It's All In Your Head
It's Not A Question Of Facts, But Perceptions, Says CBSNews.com's Dick Meyer
- recalls, to me, the reported behaviour of frogs w hot water: toss them into hot water, they jump out; heat it gradually, they stay till boil to death.