Study Shows 14 Years Of BS In Climate Change "Journalism"

[hatrack]

SANTA CRUZ, CA--Reporters and editors at four of the nation's top newspapers adhered to the journalistic norm of balance at the expense of accurately reporting scientific understanding of the human contributions to global warming, according to an analysis that appears in the current issue of the journal Global Environmental Change. The new study, "Balance as Bias: Global Warming and the U.S. Prestige Press," examined coverage of human contributions to global warming in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and the Wall Street Journal from 1988 to 2002 to assess how scientific findings were conveyed to readers.

EDIT

Although some media analysts assert that coverage improved as scientific understanding grew, the study suggests otherwise. Recognizing the challenges of characterizing the views of the scientific community on a controversial topic, the Boykoffs focused on the findings of groups like the United Nations-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which was created in 1988. The scientific community reached general consensus by late 1990 that immediate action should be taken to combat global warming, yet media coverage lagged through 2001, according to the Boykoffs.

EDIT

The researchers also documented trends in coverage, attributing one shift--from a focus on anthropogenic contributions in 1988-1990 to "balanced" accounts--to the "increasingly complex politicization of the global warming issue" and the "well-publicized research efforts of skeptics." They also note the role of concerted "disinformation" campaigns funded by carbon-based industries that catered to journalists' need to represent opposing viewpoints. One proposal, leaked to the press, advocated recruiting a "cadre of scientists who share the industry's views of climate science and to train them in public relations so they can help convince journalists, politicians and the public that the risk of global warming is too uncertain to justify." With a $600,000 media-relations budget, the campaign was designed to target science writers, editors, columnists, and television reporters with the explicit goal of undercutting prevailing scientific wisdom in the press, according to the Boykoffs.

The Boykoffs found that in 1989 and 1990, government officials, armed with the assertions of skeptics, surpassed scientists as the most cited source in prestige-press articles. Calling for more research as a precursor to taking mandatory action, these politicians contributed to coverage that indicated an even split within the scientific community, at a time of general agreement among scientists about the existence of anthropogenic influences on global warming."

EDIT

http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?section=communique&newsid=6397

[sally343434]

1. Another example of the moribund "journalism" profession

This is another example of the lazy press and their "He said, she said" reporting which permeates everything these days. Instead of actually debunking fakery, all they care about it getting something in their medium as soon as possible so they don't miss their 4 PM tee time.

You know, I always thought the earth was round. But there was a report that said this is a controversial topic because there are some "scientists" that argue the Earth is flat (there really are, by the way.) I guess the matter hasn't been settled yet, so I'm going to become undecided on the issue.

[Viking12]

2. Not really news, but

good to see the issue getting a thorough treatment.

See also:

Global Spin: The Corporate Assault on Environmentalism
by Sharon Beder

Trust Us We're Experts: How Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles with Your Future
by John Stauber, Sheldon Rampton

The Heat Is on: The Climate Crisis, the Cover-Up, the Prescription
by Ross Gelbspan

The Carbon War: Global Warming and the End of the Oil Era
by Jeremy K. Leggett