CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE MEDIA

Climate Change and the Media Conner L. Varnell Linfield College

CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE MEDIA

Introduction Climate change has seemingly been an endless debate since I came into existence in 1992. There is a constant argument going on regarding whether climate change, also known as global warming, is actually happening. Furthermore, there are groups that agree that it is happening, but disagree as to what reason. Some people believe that the Earth is warming because of its natural process as it is removing itself from an ice age. Yet others believe that this change in climate is a result of the carbon footprint of human beings. And again, others believe that global warming is simply a hoax of sorts. The dangerous implications of climate change are overwhelming. Scientists claim that increases in global temperatures will result in higher sea levels, the possibility of more natural disasters, negative impacts on ecosystems and a decrease in crop output for the food production meant to feed humans. Hence, it is also a topic of serious debate regarding how to properly react to climate change if it be true. Recently, the United Nations gathered with climate scientists and created a consensus on climate change. The results were staggering: 97 percent of climate scientists believe that there is an accelerated global warming due to human activity (Planet Save, 2013). There has long been scientific evidence proving the existence of climate change resulting from human activity. Seeming that experts in the climate science field almost all agree that climate change is a real happening, it would seem as though the media would support and reflect these claims. Yet this is not the case, as many media sources have neglected exposing such information and viewpoints in line with the scientists. Hence, the public that intakes information from these news sources is given falsified information regarding climate change. People are disagreeing on whether climate

CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE MEDIA change is real or not when experts on the topic overwhelmingly state its existence. Media and scholarly sources alike agree that when critiquing the lack of truthfulness in the reporting of

climate change, the personal norms of reporters, such as maintaining personal ideologies, lacking reliable knowledge on the subject and striving to write excitable news stories, enables the public to misunderstand the happenings of climate change, which will undoubtedly influence the lives of humans and all life forms alike. Media Coverage Similar to the news coverage of the Iraqi war where journalists were bombarding one another regarding their lack of knowledge on the war, the media coverage on climate change has created mass media controversy. Some news outlets and journalists write that climate change is nothing but a hoax (Lewandowsky, 2013). Yet other journalists have responded by addressing the public regarding what the scientific community believes about climate change. They have said that 97 percent of the climate scientists on the United Nations panel agree that humans have contributed to the accelerated rate of climate change (Lewandowsky, 2013; Planet Green, 2013; Planet Save, 2013; Monbiot, 2010). To help the public understand the wrongdoings of certain media outlets, journalists have tried to enlighten the public on climate change and how some media misconstrued the truth about it. Planet Save (2013) said that even though only 3 percent of scientists dont believe in climate change, that over 25 percent of major news companies stories were neutral on the subject or quoted doubters. The Wallstreet Journal was recognized as publishing articles that involved over half of its interviewees discrediting the climate scientists. CBS News quoted 20 percent doubters, which is six times more than the scientific community. Also, Fox News brought in guest experts to talk about climate change. Out of these interviewees, 69 percent denied climate change. Yet after further review, 75 percent of these

CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE MEDIA experts had no qualified background in climate science. Why would this misleading information from unqualified sources be allowed in the media? Often, the ideologies of journalists and news outlets override the truth about a topic. Yet why would a topic as important as climate change be misinterpreted to the public? As various

journalists have noted, it is because of the financial impact that responding to climate change will have on numerous companies (Planet Save, 2013; Monbiot, 2010). Emitting less carbon into the atmosphere would help to slow climate change. One of the leading emitters of carbon is the use of oil. Hence, to help slow climate change, less oil must be used. Yet oil companies dont want that to happen, as this would detract from their profits. These oil companies have ties to various politically conservative news outlets to be able to help persuade the public that climate change is not an issue. The Heartland Institute promoted a billboard that compared those who believe in global warming to serial killer and domestic terrorist Ted Kaczynski, also known as the Unabomber. Between 1998 and 2006, the Heartland Institute received grants from Exxon Mobil worth a total of $736,500. In 2011, the institute received $25,000 from foundations affiliated with Koch Industries, which has substantial oil and energy holdings (Planet Save, 2013). Thus, the desire of maintaining profitable oil companies overrides the truth about climate change when displayed through certain media sources. Furthermore, there are news outlets that dont reject climate change, yet they are still able to misconstrue information about it. Massey University (2013) says that certain news outlets conduct media framing in order to portray climate change in various ways. By framing the news story as they please, news outlets have made climate change a topic of politics and not science. News media framings of climate change investigates implications of distorted media coverage and framing of climate change as politically controversial at the expense of reporting data and

CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE MEDIA impacts (Massey University, 2013). A critical problem is the way scientific data flows from experts to non-experts. This sometimes results in critical information being under-reporting in the news media, leading to confusion among the public about the extent and the reality of the risks of climate change (Massey University, 2013). The dissemination of framed media stories helps to disregard expert opinions on climate change. As an average media consumer, I would likely be neutral on the existence of climate

change. Seeming that both sides take shots at each other through the media, it is difficult to know who is actually correct. One group says that the climate control believers are inept because the facts are misleading. The other group says that those who dont believe in climate control are mistaken because the facts are clear, according to the scientific community. With no one on the same side, it would be easy for an average media consumer to take middle ground on the topic. This would mean I would not believe that climate change was happening or not happening. Rather, I would just not know. I would be deprived of truthful information regarding a happening impacting the entire globe due to overpowering ideologies stemming from hegemony. The journalists who believe in climate change and accused other journalists for misconstruing information were able to use scholarly research and theoretically insights in their works. Almost every source that I reviewed cited the UN report regarding the recent findings on climate change and the thoughts of climate scientists concerning the issue (Lewandowsky, 2013; Living Green, 2013; Monbiot, 2010; Planet Save, 2013; Theel, 2013). Lewandowsky (2013) and Planet Save (2013) referenced the presence of hegemony. Media framing (Massey University, 2013) was also described as being influential throughout news stories regarding this topic. A variety of mass media theories were evident throughout the articles as well. The accumulation of limited influences theory relates to how people who take in only certain media products are

CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE MEDIA

enabled to have their opinions massively swayed. Various media sources reflected this theory, as people have had their opinions swayed through their daily media source (Lewandowsky, 2013; Living Green, 2013; Massey University, 2013). Also, the gatekeeping theory was evident, as the people who decide what gets into the media obviously had an influence within different news organizations (Planet Save, 2013; Monbiot, 2010; Theel, 2013). The political economy theory and propaganda model, which say that the media is influenced by the economy and the outlets owners, was present in various articles (Lewandowsky, 2013; Living Green, 2013; Monbiot, 2010; Planet Save, 2013) due to the influence of oil companies and conservative owners. Finally, Herman and Chomskys theory that the government and media are in cahoots to sway the public opinion way apparent in various articles (Lewandowsky, 2013; Living Green, 2013; Monbiot, 2010; Planet Save, 2013) in order to not overwhelm the public into having them change its habits. The government reaps the benefits of a flourishing economy and the oil industry is an essential aspect of it. Hence, the political economy theory is apparent yet again. Overall, I feel as though these journalists and news sources did an effective job at presenting the wrongdoings of false media regarding climate change due to their uses of media theories and scholarly work. The journalists created complete arguments that properly displayed the faults of other media sources. Scholarly Coverage Scholarly sources have also given their respective opinions on the controversy in the media regarding climate change. They cited many of the same happenings that the media coverage sources did. The scholarly sources agreed that the overpowering nature of ideologies in the media led to misconstrued information regarding the climate change. Also, media framing was referenced as an issue in the media, as the public is shorted on proper information.

CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE MEDIA Furthermore, the field of journalism itself has inherent issues that lead to the public being misinformed regarding climate change. Overriding the truth of a story in order to fulfil a personal ideology is a recurring issue

throughout the scholarly sources I examined. It is apparent that journalists ideologies cloud the truthful relevance of climate change in order to fulfill a particular objective (Engels, Pansegrau, & Weingart, 2000). Often, news sources reconstruct scientific claims in their favor to be able to present an argument a certain way. Ideology works as a powerful selection device in deciding what is scientific news, i.e. what the relevant facts are, and who are the authorized agents of definition of science matters (Carvalho, 2007). Reshaping news stories to fit a certain build is known as media framing. Boykoff (2007) says that framing in journalism leads to doubt amongst the public on the existence of anthropogenic climate science. Yet there should be no doubt because this climate change is scientifically proven. He goes on to say that many of these false news outlets use television and newspapers to portray their stories. Seeming that old and young people alike use these mediums for their media, there are massive influences on all levels of the public. Other scholarly sources think that a key issue regarding the portrayal of climate change through the media isnt necessarily related to purposeful misconstructions of the topic. Rather, journalists simply arent able to use the proper scientific language in their articles. This is because they have not had adequate academic experience with something as scientifically complex as climate change. According to Bell (1994), one in six news stories regarding climate change used inaccurate terms. Some stories overstated the advance of climate change or confused ozone depletion and the greenhouse effect (Bell, 1994). This creates uncertainty and misinformation for the public on a crucial social issue. The article goes on to say that solutions

CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE MEDIA should be sought between scientists and the media in order for the evidence brought about by scientists to be properly understood by the media. Hence, by working together, the media can describe proper information in their outlets. Another source (Engels, Pansegrau, & Weingart,

2000) also agrees that the scientific dialect is too complex for journalists. Hence, policy-makers and the public who arent part of the relevant research community have to form opinions about the reality of global climate change on the basis of conflicting descriptions provided by the media (Oreskes, 2004). Media sources owe it to the public to be able to properly convey the information regarding climate change in order for people to respond to the issue properly. Finally, scholarly sources noted that there are journalistic norms that aid the misleading information found in the media. Journalists attempt to create the most riveting stories possible. Hence, dramatization and personalization influence the informationally deficient media coverage of climate change (Boykoff & Boykoff, 2007). Engels, Pansegrau and Weingart (2000) say that communication through the media creates hazards for relaying proper information on climate change. Flamboyant opinions and creative writing can overshadow the relevant facts about climate change. Hence, there are inherent issues with relaying information through the media due to the nature of the mass media industry. Many of the same theories presented by the media sources are evident in the scholarly sources as well. The accumulation of limited influences theory was apparent in various sources (Bell, 1994; Boykoff, 2007; Engels, Pansegrau, & Weingart, 2000; Oreskes, 2004) as they talked about how the average person intakes a relatively small amount of media compared to how much media exists. Hence, the misleading information that they acquire can influence their opinions. Hegemony is also relevant through these sources (Bell, 1994; Boykoff, 2007; Engels, Pansegrau, & Weingart, 2000; Oreskes, 2004) because of the influence that the news outlets have over the

CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE MEDIA opinions of the public. There is a common goal to dispute climate change amongst various news outlets and it has misled the understanding of climate change for the public. Finally, the gatekeeping theory is present amongst these sources (Boykoff, 2007; Boykott & Boykott, 2007; Carvalho, 2007; Engels, Pansegrau, & Weingart, 2000) as well. The journalists are acting as gatekeepers of information for these inaccurate news stories. Because of journalistic norms and personal ideologies, the incorrect information is being conveyed regarding climate change. Comparisons Both the media sources and scholarly sources had many of the same arguments against the misrepresentation of climate change in the media. Their arguments could easily be used parallel with one another to refute the media sources that disprove climate change. A common

idea amongst all of the sources was the presence of ideologies overpowering the factual evidence behind climate change. Both media and scholarly sources said that ideologies got in the way of the truth. Hence, too much misinformation was presented to the public, which has led to misunderstandings of climate change entirely. Even though the media sources effectively communicated the wrongdoings of other media sources in a comprehensive manner, I feel as though a better solution could have been sought. The journalists who support climate change say that the untruthful journalists are morally corrupt and blatantly unintelligent. Yet the untruthful journalists just point their fingers right back at the climate change reporters, saying that they are foolish for believing in such a thing. Hence, as a media consumer, one might get stuck between these endless arguments that dont seek a collaborative solution. Bell (1994) said that there is simply too much inaccurate information in the media regarding climate change. It does not matter whether this is because of media sources ideologies or the incompetence of the journalists regarding scientific linguistics.

CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE MEDIA

10

He said that the media and scientists need to work together on issues as complex as this in order to convey the proper messages to the public. It is possible that scientists could give certain media professionals approval to write articles based on the information derived by the scientists. Hence, there would be accurate information being presented to the public rather than unqualified media professionals misleading people with incorrect information. The scholarly sources were less dramatic than the media sources. Many of the scholarly sources focused on how media outlets frame stories in order to present the most enticing news. Yet this can be misleading for the public. They did not apply some of the theories that the media sources did such as the propaganda model and Herman and Chomskys theory. These theories can be categorized as conspirator theories because there is this underlying idea that a group of people such as the government is secretly using the media to best their own interest. I was surprised to not find much attribution to oil companies regarding their influence of ideologies onto media sources. There is evidence of these companies contributing financial donations to these media outlets. Therefore, it is reasonable to think that they would have influence on what is portrayed through that news outlet. Hence, I feel as though the scholars could have examined that idea more. Yet they focused more on the nature of being a journalist. One issue with journalism is having a lack of intelligence regarding concepts needed to provide an accurate portrayal of topics. Another is that journalists are praised for timely, exhilarating stories. Hence, topics can be dramatized, which can mislead the reader. Conclusion Climate change will be an endless challenge for future generations. It will affect every life form on Earth in one way or another. Some people disregard its existence, yet there is overwhelming opinion in the climate scientific community that it is happening. Furthermore, it is

CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE MEDIA happening at an accelerated rate due to the actions of human beings. With a rising global population and a deteriorating atmosphere, measures must be taken to help alleviate climate change. As a result of climate change, scientists believe that coastal cities will be affected by rising sea water, animals will be forced in and out of environments, food production will drop and natural disasters will increase. Hence, it is a matter that will critically affect everyone and everything. As the people endowed with the ability to inform the entire public, media

11

professionals must properly communicate the happenings of climate change. In order to take the proper steps toward revolutionizing the way we act as humans, media professionals must act with both moral and intellectual intelligence, thus enabling humans with the mental capacities necessary to maintain the health of our planet.

CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE MEDIA Reference List Bell, A. (1994, July). Media (mis)communication on the science of climate change. Public Understanding of Science, 3(3), 259-275. Retrieved from http://pus.sagepub.com/content/3/3/259.short Boykoff, M. T. (2007, October) From convergence to contention: United States mass media

12

representations of anthropogenic climate change science. Transactions, 32(4), 477-489. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-5661.2007.00270.x/full Boykoff, J. M., & Boykoff, M. T. (2007, November). Climate change and journalistic norms: A case-study of coverage. Geoforum, 38(6), 1190-1204. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016718507000188 Carvalho, A. (2007, April). Ideological cultures and media discourses on scientific knowledge: re-reading news on climate change. Public Understanding of Science, 16(2), 223-243. Retrieved from http://pus.sagepub.com/content/16/2/223.short Engels, A., Pansegrau, P., & Weingart, P. (2000, July). Risks of communication: discourses on climate change in science, politics, and the mass media. Public Understanding of Science, 9(3), 261-283. Retrieved from http://pus.sagepub.com/content/9/3/261.short Lewandowsky, S. (2013, December 6). Media failure on Iraq War repeated in climate change coverage. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-percent/2013/dec/06/media-failure-iraq-war-climate-change Living Green Magazine (2013, December 4). How the media cover, or dont cover, climate change. Living Green Magazine. Retrieved from http://livinggreenmag.com/2013/12/04/video/media-cover-dont-cover-climate-change/

CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE MEDIA

13

Massey University (2013, November 20). Media framing of climate change. Massey University News. Retrieved from http://www.massey.ac.nz/massey/aboutmassey/news/article.cfm?mnarticle_uuid=7A719C35-CD07-A1DB-440034D1EA9197F1 Monbiot, G. (2010, December 8). David Roses climate science writing shows he has not learned from previous mistakes. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/dec/08/david-roseclimate-science Monbiot, G. (2010, December 8). David Roses climate science writing shows he has not learned from previous mistakes. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/dec/08/david-roseclimate-science Planet Save (2013, December 5). Hear what 259 world experts said about the physical science of climate change? Planet Save. Retrieved December 7, 2013, from http://planetsave.com/2013/12/05/hear-un-scientists-said-physical-science-climatechange/ Theel, S. (2013, November 11). Fox attacks foolish George Clooney over typhoon Haiyan and climate change. [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/11/11/fox-attacks-foolish-george-clooney-overtyphoon/196843