Gavin at RealClimate.org points to a two-part series by Curtis Brainard in the Columbia Journalism Review, "Public opinion and climate" (part 1, part 2). I encourage you to read the whole thing, but Brainard makes several especially important points.
- [T]he press doesn't do a good job with basic, textbook-style education, whether it be the principles of climate change or any other subject, from economics to heart disease. So expecting the New York Times, the BBC, NPR, or any other news organization to greatly improve the public's understanding of climate is expecting the wrong thing.
- Delineating and accurately describing the various points of science ... and explaining where "consensus" (a controversial term) lies and where it doesn't is one of the most important and challenging tasks for climate reporters. So expecting the New York Times, the BBC, NPR, and other news organizations to get the balance right is something we can expect them to do. And getting the balance right doesn't mean including a climate denialist in every report. It means "eliminating false balance when addressing human activity's role in global warming."
As scientists we should worry less about whether the public understands why the climate is changing and more about how climate change will affect them. Consider Brainard's analogy with smoking.
1Interestingly, papers in the UK did not show this dramatic change. Even in 2003, fewer than 2% gave scientists arguing against a human influence equal weight. By 2006, the number had dropped to less than 0.5%
Most people wouldn't be able to describe, even basically, the chemical and physical processes by which it creates tumors. Nevertheless, despite a disinformation campaign that has parallels in the saga of climate science, prolonged attention has convinced the public that there is universal agreement that cigarettes are dangerous.Brainard cites work by Max Boykoff showing a significant change in how five national newspapers in the United States reported on climate change from 2003 to 2006. In 2003, nearly 37% of stories gave roughly equal weight to scientists arguing for a significant human influence on climate change and those arguing against. In 2006, barely 3% of stories show such false "balance".1 So major news outlets "get it" the same way they "get" the health effects of smoking. But we've reached an impasse, because we all tend to be apathetic when the threats we face are far off and hard to imagine.
As [Matt] Nisbet, the American University professor, has argued, one of the most effective journalistic strategies for breaking through such impasses is choosing the right frame for climate stories. These can include the "environmental stewardship" frame, the "public health" frame, or perhaps most importantly, the "solutions" frame.If Sizzle! is effective, Katrina and the lower 9th ward will be the reason. Let's hope that Gustav doesn't give us more.
1Interestingly, papers in the UK did not show this dramatic change. Even in 2003, fewer than 2% gave scientists arguing against a human influence equal weight. By 2006, the number had dropped to less than 0.5%
Leave a comment