On Whom Do Media Rely?

Qifeng Yan
Jul 27, 2017 · 5 min read

Investigating the expert sources relied on in coverage of climate change’s role in polar ice melt

Recently, the breakup of an Antarctic ice shelf received wide attention due to the unusually large size of the newly formed iceberg. Earlier this year, articles about the record winter-low sea ice extent in the Arctic were also shared by a large audience. These two events have prompted discussion regarding the impacts of climate change on ice in polar regions, with dozens of articles published over the past few months.

While some articles explained that human-induced climate change has an important influence on the Arctic and Antarctic regions, some promoted contrarian views. We analyzed the articles that received the most attention on social media to see whether their claims are based on scientifically credible information.

Methods

We measured the attention received by each article using the total number of shares as of July 25, 2017 on social networks provided by Buzzsumo, querying for articles in 2017 including the following terms: “arctic”, “antarctic”, “polar ice retreat”.

We produced a map with Kumu, a network visualization tool, to illustrate which sources (scientists, journalists, and organizations) media articles rely on primarily to support their statements.

Each node in the map above represents an organization or a person. The arrows between nodes show citations from an article or news organization to the “source” it relies on.

Key scientific experts

We can see on the map that most articles have quoted Adrian Luckman, a Professor of Glaciology at Swansea University and a leader of the MIDAS project, which is a UK-based research project focusing on the impacts of melt on ice shelf dynamics and stability. We contacted Prof. Luckman for a comment on the accuracy of one of the articles citing him — the Washington Post article was chosen because it received among the largest number of shares and we found it to be representative of the other mainstream articles, which do not deny the human influence on polar climate. Accurately reflecting the original statement of the MIDAS research group, the Washington Post article does not directly attribute the breakup of the ice shelf to climate change, but the article also claims that the event is “certainly suggestive” since the ice shelf will be in its “most retreated position ever recorded” and that the event “appears tied to the warming of the Antarctic Peninsula in recent decades”. According to Prof. Luckman, even though the way in which the article interprets the issue is somewhat more alarmist than he himself would have done, the article is still accurate overall.

Another story (in The Guardian) that received a lot of attention covered the record winter-low ice extent in the Arctic. The article refers to several sources including NASA and the National Snow and Ice Data Center, attributing the record low extent of Arctic sea ice to high temperatures caused by climate change.

The New York Times also reported on this story, mainly referring to Mark Serreze and Walt Meier, both of whom The Guardian also cites in its article. Mark Serreze told The New York Times that “such a situation, which would leave nothing but open ocean in summer until fall freeze-up begins, could occur by 2030”. It should be noted that all sources used by these traditional media articles to support the idea that human-induced climate change may have influenced polar regions are either scientists or scientific institutions actively participating in relevant research and thus have legitimate expertise.

Contrarian articles ground their claims on thin ice

While most media organizations have been commenting on the ongoing ice shelf breakup, as well as the Arctic record winter-low ice extent, some online outlets like Breitbart and the Conservative Tribune chose to report instead on a cancelled scientific expedition to the Arctic.

Both articles focus on the irony they find in the fact that a study on climate science was impeded by the thickness of sea ice at one location, which they argue should have been greatly reduced due to global warming. However, scientists at Climate Feedback, a global network of scientists working on fact-checking climate change media coverage, explained that sea ice is still expected to be thick in places in a warming Arctic. The articles both quoted David Barber, a researcher from Manitoba University who was leading the expedition. But Dr. Barber also dismissed the Breitbart and Conservative Tribune’s central claims, explaining in a University of Manitoba press release that “Climate-related changes in Arctic sea ice not only reduce its extent and thickness but also increase its mobility meaning that ice conditions are likely to become more variable and severe conditions such as these will occur more often.”

Several other articles published by Gateway Pundit, American Thinker, and VivaLiberty promoted a contrarian view that there are no signs of polar ice loss — though they garnered a smaller number of shares on social media. All of these articles relied primarily on a Forbes article by James Taylor published in 2015, in which a similar claim was made. However, James Taylor’s article has been rated by Climate Feedback to have “very low” scientific credibility. In the review, eight scientists from different institutions analyzed James Taylor’s article and concluded that it was “not accurate at all”.

Finally, some articles focused on the impacts of climate change on polar wildlife.

An article in The Federalist, for example, claimed that Arctic animals can simply adapt to climate change and that polar bear population will be growing. However, The Federalist relied on a blog post at Polar Bear Science that actually shows an estimate that was adjusted upward rather than a recorded net increase of the polar bear population, a distinction that is lost in the article.

Another example is an article in The Blaze that indirectly cites a study by a research group from Southern Denmark University to support the claim that climate change does not have negative effects on polar ecosystems, and would even benefit local animals. The direct source of information that the Blaze cites is Watts Up With That, a blog promoting skepticism towards climate change. In a blog post, Watts Up With That author Anthony Watts interpreted the study as showing melting sea ice and climate change to be beneficial to polar life. However, Heidi Sørensen, the first author of the academic paper cited, pointed out that in the Blaze article, “statements from the paper are taken out of context” and that “the perspective of the Blaze article is skewed towards stating that climate change impacts are positive”. She said that even though it is possible that some opportunistic species will benefit from the alternation in climate, it would be wrong to think that all animals present nowadays will benefit from climate change.

What have we learned?

Among the articles we analyzed, those acknowledging the connection between glacial ice loss and climate change phrased the evidence in a way that is generally loyal to the original source, and by and large rely on scientifically credible sources. The contrarian articles express skepticism towards the link between glacial ice loss and climate change. However, in contrast the contrarian articles tend to support their statements with low-credibility sources like blog posts, or make conclusions based on scientific evidence that are taken out of context. Even though many of the sources that these articles refer to are scientifically credible, scientists quoted often indicated that they were misrepresented in ways that misled readers.

Appendix:

List of articles analyzed in this study with number of shares provided by Buzzsumo (as of July 25, 2017)

Climate Feedback Insights

Climate Feedback is a worldwide network of scientists who collectively assess the credibility of influential climate change information and media coverage. Find our reviews at climatefeedback.org

Qifeng Yan

Written by

Climate Feedback Insights

Climate Feedback is a worldwide network of scientists who collectively assess the credibility of influential climate change information and media coverage. Find our reviews at climatefeedback.org

Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade