A crisis not only for the climate, but also for us.
What do you believe in… when it comes to science?
In recent times, the reporting surrounding climate change has gained greater awareness by the public through accessible media platforms. However fairly portraying this issue in the news and through media continues to be a struggle. Disseminating the issue on climate change has clashed with journalistic norms because reporters have treated the topic as a debate, presenting ‘both sides’ of the story. Whereas, scientists have been increasingly pressured to speak more clearly about the data collected.
Both are trying to tell the information about climate change but presenting it in different ways to the public. On one side journalists are trying to produce an engaging story of opinions to grab your attention and on the other side is facts and data presented by scientists that can’t be argued.
“There are many facets of climate change that make the issue novel for journalists.”
But in reality, there are no sides to the story, just scientific evidence and data. The news media serves to combine a connected space for both science and politics into everyday life. However, with rapidly changing news media norms and freedom of speech online, stories on climate change have been distorted in the process. Also, having a dramatically different media and political landscape from just ten years ago, we’re faced with challenges that didn’t exist then.
One is how to effectively engage the public on pressing social/environmental problems within this different media space? And who is responsible for disseminating this information accurately?
Peoples attention is grabbed by whacky content, not depressing content, prompting the first problem for journalists and news companies. When you scroll through social media or read the news you won’t see the severity of climate change because “environmental news just isn’t sexy enough”. However, when discussing a topic that is a potentially life-threatening and with 97% of scientists are agreeing it is real and happening, do you think this is the best approach?
I think not. We are all in survival mode. We must be aware, educate and collectively work together to find solutions.
Unfortunately, people still don’t seem too concerned. Despite the urgency and valid science behind climate change, some still believe that the media has exaggerated the problem like in the 2006 Time magazine cover featured above as an example.
How does this make you feel? Scared? This example shows that media institutions play an essential role in shaping and framing climate news as well as shaping public perceptions and policy agendas, accordingly.
Framing simplifies complex issues and helps to communicate why an issue should matter to the audience. Audiences then can interpret and make sense of the information themselves. But you can imagine how confusing it is if there are multiple stories on climate change showing!
Especially when news outlets such as Fox News channel and Wall Street Journal opinion pages are downplaying and misinterpreting climate change to their audiences. The image below represents the amount of misleading content these news companies produced.
Framing can therefore expose civilians to interpret the information in a misleading way and construct beliefs around the information received wrongly. Frames are a “unavoidable reality of the public communication process”.
However, this increases the problem of ‘false balance’. In America, 76% of articles included uncertainty, making it the second most frequent frame when discussing climate change coverage.’The way journalists explain scientific uncertainty affects how the public interpret such uncertainty’ and might negatively impact how the public react about climate change and policies.
In the news coverage the desire for balance is steered more towards drama and conflict. This makes presenting climate change facts complicated as they are harsh and scientific with no further discussion or engagement.
While it is important for journalists to expose evenly and fair sided stories, it quickly becomes awkward when talking about climate change and the existence or cause of it. This is because the credibility of each side does not have equal weight and thus reinforces the problem between journalists and scientists when media information is disseminated.
While greater awareness has been captured through the media coverage on climate change, the problem continues in how to portray this scientific data in a manner that is understandable for the audience.