Newspaper Coverage of Climate Change

[donsutherland1]

Even as climate change receives coverage that is disproportionately limited relative to its societal impact in the United States (The Washington Post’s Capital Weather Gang is a notable exception), The Sydney Morning Herald is one major newspaper that now provides dedicated coverage to climate change. That newspaper’s coverage includes articles on recent events and even articles concerning new research published in scientific journals on the issue. 

The section can be found at:

https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change

Perhaps similar coverage could be useful in the United States. A regular source of articles, including new scientific research findings, could weaken the ability of “denier activists” to confuse and mislead the American public. Certainly, the issue of climate change is at least as consequential to some of the other areas that receive dedicated coverage. The Washington Post might be ideally positioned to assume that role of journalistic leadership given the work of the Capital Weather Gang, the quality of its journalism, and its reach.

[donsutherland1]

New research highlights the role “new media” is playing in promoting climate disinformation. That role underpins the importance of assuring the public a reliable and continuing source of climate science information.

From Nature:

We juxtapose 386 prominent contrarians with 386 expert scientists by tracking their digital footprints across ∼200,000 research publications and ∼100,000 English-language digital and print media articles on climate change. Projecting these individuals across the same backdrop facilitates quantifying disparities in media visibility and scientific authority, and identifying organization patterns within their association networks. Here we show via direct comparison that contrarians are featured in 49% more media articles than scientists. Yet when comparing visibility in mainstream media sources only, we observe just a 1% excess visibility, which objectively demonstrates the crowding out of professional mainstream sources by the proliferation of new media sources, many of which contribute to the production and consumption of climate change disinformation at scale. These results demonstrate why climate scientists should increasingly exert their authority in scientific and public discourse, and why professional journalists and editors should adjust the disproportionate attention given to contrarians.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09959-4

[donsutherland1]

Washington Post feature on climate change:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/climate-environment/climate-change-america/

 

[etudiant]

On 8/14/2019 at 8:11 PM, donsutherland1 said:

New research highlights the role “new media” is playing in promoting climate disinformation. That role underpins the importance of assuring the public a reliable and continuing source of climate science information.

From Nature:

We juxtapose 386 prominent contrarians with 386 expert scientists by tracking their digital footprints across ∼200,000 research publications and ∼100,000 English-language digital and print media articles on climate change. Projecting these individuals across the same backdrop facilitates quantifying disparities in media visibility and scientific authority, and identifying organization patterns within their association networks. Here we show via direct comparison that contrarians are featured in 49% more media articles than scientists. Yet when comparing visibility in mainstream media sources only, we observe just a 1% excess visibility, which objectively demonstrates the crowding out of professional mainstream sources by the proliferation of new media sources, many of which contribute to the production and consumption of climate change disinformation at scale. These results demonstrate why climate scientists should increasingly exert their authority in scientific and public discourse, and why professional journalists and editors should adjust the disproportionate attention given to contrarians.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09959-4

Dr Judith Curry is not a fan of this work, calling it 'the worst paper I have ever seen published in a reputable journal'.

Her blog explains why she is irate.  https://judithcurry.com/2019/08/14/the-latest-travesty-in-consensus-enforcement/

[donsutherland1]

31 minutes ago, etudiant said:

Dr Judith Curry is not a fan of this work, calling it 'the worst paper I have ever seen published in a reputable journal'.

Her blog explains why she is irate.  https://judithcurry.com/2019/08/14/the-latest-travesty-in-consensus-enforcement/

Since the time I posted about the article, I have seen her piece. As I was traveling in China and just got back, I could not access it until my return to the United States. Based upon some of the criticism, Dr. Curry's included, my view is that the general ideas likely hold up, especially when it comes to "new media" coverage. In areas where the differences were small e.g., certain major media outlets, the conclusions may not hold up e.g., (the small advantage in coverage for contrarians may, in fact, be a modest advantage for the climate scientists). It would be interesting to see what the numbers look like if things are re-run to take into consideration some of the criticism e.g., one climate scientist who debated the contrarians at the Heartland Institute was grouped as a contrarian (the general category for all Heartland participants).