How Does Journalism Feed a False Perception of Climate Change?
By Jake Ures, WELLKIND Forestry Intern
Jake Ures was an intern for WELLKIND Forestry during our summer 2021 session, exploring gaps in the media’s coverage of climate change and other important environmental issues.
Information in the modern world is often spread over social media apps and accredited news outlets. The scary fact is that these accredited outlets are controlled by six companies that make up 90 percent of all reporting. We all know that companies are profit-driven and incentivized to protect and grow their assets. These priorities shape news coverage.
This becomes an issue especially when climate change is brought into the equation. These companies do not want to lose investors, including those from the fossil fuel industry. So media outlets give both sides—climate deniers and climate believers—equal say. What this means is that climate change, a claim supported by 100 percent of scientists, is now on par with the baseless ideas of climate deniers. The media creates a false balance portraying each side of the issue as equal, when science, reason, and all plausible evidence beg to differ.
Now with the advent of social media, companies such as Facebook have become major spreaders of information in the United States. In fact, 36 percent of Americans said they received their news from Facebook (Anderson, 2019). There is no problem with wanting to get news from Facebook, but there is a problem with how you might see it. Facebook’s guidelines classify climate change-related posts as purely opinion. Unfortunately, this means that people who report something skeptical of climate change on Facebook, with no evidence or scientifically backed proof, have their post protected as an opinion under free speech. It is great that voices are protected, but what is not great is when scientific fact becomes a matter of opinion, claims without merit become supported, and viewers then consume incorrect information that is incorrect, without them even knowing it.
What Effects Does This Have on the Viewer?
The illusion that climate change is a 50-50 issue contributes to skewed views of the issue on a large scale. In 2009, a Pew Research Center survey reported that 43 percent of Americans did not think there was substantial evidence that the Earth is warming. This is a very close margin to 50 percent, perhaps a near reflection of the 50-50 reporting of climate. In effect, the audience believes that the subject is up for debate and controversial. Why does controversy matter? If climate change is a matter of opinion, and independent of facts, it is easier to believe that climate change is not happening and that the science behind it is controversial. This is a nasty cascade.
The cascade can fall even into our political decisions. Just look at American voting patterns. The Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism polled that 89 percent of those identified on the left report serious concerns about the climate, while only 18 percent of those on the right do.
Heightening this stark contrast, former President Donald Trump pulled out from the Paris Agreement, and what this tells the public is that if the president does not believe in climate change, why should they? Unfortunately, this provides grounds for the notion that politicians lacking scientific knowledge and expertise in the world of climate change can properly represent the issue. Here’s another cascade: When the majority of Republicans view climate change as not serious, then of course they vote for somebody who reflects their beliefs.
What Can Be Done?
An important action that the media should take on is bringing climate change to the forefront of presidential campaigns. This can be done by reporting climate change accurately and frequently, and raising questions about climate change in debates.
Dr. James Powell, a world-renowned scientist, stated, “Creating widespread change on the national level will require common Americans to vote for politicians that support climate change, and more importantly support science.” Voting is a powerful tool. It allows you to become the center of attention by compelling candidates, desperate for your vote, to adhere to what you care about in order to gain your support.
As well, activism by the right-wing politicians in support of climate change action could be a deciding factor in helping the environment. Adam Berinsky, professor of political science at MIT, believes that conservatives are far more likely to change their minds about climate if they hear it from sources that they identify with, such as other conservatives (Holden, 2019).
More importantly, what can you do now? Educating yourself is the best thing you can do in support of climate change. Follow these links to jumpstart your activism:
Further reading
U.C. Merced Study on False Balance in Climate Change Coverage
The Guardian on How the Media Should Cover Climate Change During Elections
Reuters and Oxford University on How People Access News about Climate Change