In "Weather Runs Hot and Cold, So Scientists Look to the Ice" the NYT reaches into their old files and includes rhetoric of climate denialist John Christy to provide some (false) "balance" to this story.
NYT > More Denialism:
In an example of a falsely balanced climate story, Justin Gillis of the New York Times went to one of the most media saavy denialists in "Rising Sea Levels Seen as Threat to Coastal U.S.." Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute has amazing access to top media companies.
Myths from Michaels:
In yet another response to the infamous Wall Street Journal piece, "No Need to Panic about Global Warming," Forbes.com has published the delusions of legendary climate crank (and regular Forbes contributor) Patrick Michaels: "What Happens When You Rub Two Climatologists Together?" For background on Patrick Michaels, see:
DeSmogBlog.com: "Disinformation Database - Patrick Michaels"
ExxonSecrets.org: "Factsheet: Patrick J. Michaels"
PRWatch: "The Cato Institute's Generous Funding of Patrick Michaels"
Climate Science Watch: "Pat Michaels, Virginia 'State Climatologist?' A critical perspective on the issues"
DeSmogBlog.com: "Disinformation Database - Patrick Michaels"
ExxonSecrets.org: "Factsheet: Patrick J. Michaels"
PRWatch: "The Cato Institute's Generous Funding of Patrick Michaels"
Climate Science Watch: "Pat Michaels, Virginia 'State Climatologist?' A critical perspective on the issues"
RealClimate.Org Debunks Climate Nonsense:
"RC Wiki" provides an index for debunking climate nonsense
Current Climate >> case studies of US media climate coverage > self-censorship and denial:
After many years of scientific consensus on the reality and critical nature of anthropogenic climate change, there has of late been some improvement in the manner and extent of US press coverage on this issue. Surely, better news reporting has had some role in the documented growth of awareness of climate change by the US citizenry. But US carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions continue to rise even as the level of CO2 in our atmosphere has reached its highest level in human history. In the words of NASA climate expert James Hansen (2008), there is “a wide gap … between what is understood about global warming by the relevant scientific community and what is known by policymakers and the public.”
Antilla Journal Article: Self-censorship and Science
Self-censorship and science: a geographical review of media coverage of climate tipping points, Public Understanding of science, March 2010 (online September 2008) Vol. 19, No. 2, 240-256 DOI: 10.1177/0963662508094099. Abstract: Public perception of global climate change is strongly influenced by media constructions of scientific knowledge. This paper explores recent scientific findings and the press coverage thereof and is based on a content analysis of two years of global reporting on climate related positive feedback mechanisms (climate system responses to global warming which lead to further warming). Results indicate that non-US news organizations, especially in the UK, are at the forefront of the discourse on climate feedback loops. Poor US press coverage on such climate thresholds might be understood not only as self-censorship, but as a "false negative" error.
The Climate Con > media, misinformation & the masters of spin:
[Click on Title for Full Text]
Despite climbing US greenhouse gas emissions and in the face of international consensus, the Bush administration—enabled by industry influence over both Congress and big media—continues to suppress and distort climate science while pushing regressive energy policies. A prime sponsor of the “Bush stance” is ExxonMobil.
Despite climbing US greenhouse gas emissions and in the face of international consensus, the Bush administration—enabled by industry influence over both Congress and big media—continues to suppress and distort climate science while pushing regressive energy policies. A prime sponsor of the “Bush stance” is ExxonMobil.
The Counterbalance of Climate News:
In a Washington Post op-ed, David Ignatius observed:
Scientists believe that new habitats for butterflies are early effects of global climate change—but that isn’t news, by most people’s measure. Neither is declining rainfall in the Amazon, or thinner ice in the Arctic. We can’t see these changes in our personal lives, and in that sense, they are abstractions. So they don’t grab us the way a plane crash would—even though they may be harbingers of a catastrophe that could, quite literally, alter the fundamentals of life on the planet.… The failure of the United States to get serious about climate change is unforgivable, a human folly beyond imagining.
Excerpts from Open Letter to Washington Post Ombudsman: climate skeptics as sources
Open Letter to The Washington Post
February 11, 2006
Deborah Howell, Ombudsman
The Washington Post
RE: Coverage of climate change news
Dear Ms. Howell,
I am a reader of the Washington Post and a human geographer with an interest in media coverage of science....
I have just completed a LexisNexis review of seven months of climate change coverage by the Washington Post. While I commend the Post on providing some fine reporting on this vital issue, I believe that there is one aspect of your coverage that should be reviewed. Articles that grant equal space to “climate skeptics” severely limit the understanding of readers by diverting their attention away from the fact that there is international scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change being a dangerous, current reality. I hope that you will share this letter with the science writers and editors at the Post so they might reconsider some of their reporting procedures.
February 11, 2006
Deborah Howell, Ombudsman
The Washington Post
RE: Coverage of climate change news
Dear Ms. Howell,
I am a reader of the Washington Post and a human geographer with an interest in media coverage of science....
I have just completed a LexisNexis review of seven months of climate change coverage by the Washington Post. While I commend the Post on providing some fine reporting on this vital issue, I believe that there is one aspect of your coverage that should be reviewed. Articles that grant equal space to “climate skeptics” severely limit the understanding of readers by diverting their attention away from the fact that there is international scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change being a dangerous, current reality. I hope that you will share this letter with the science writers and editors at the Post so they might reconsider some of their reporting procedures.
NYT & Denier John Christy > abbreviated versions of 2 open letters to ombudsman:
Open Letter to The New York Times
December 27, 2005
Byron Calame, Public Editor
The New York Times
RE: Coverage of climate science news
Dear Mr. Calame,
I am a reader of the New York Times and a human geographer with research interests in science and the media. As you are aware, our nation presently faces many formidable challenges—not the least of which are the ramifications of our dependence on foreign oil and the well-documented changes in the earth’s climate.... As I present the below case study involving coverage of the issue of climate change by the New York Times, I ask that the same be brought to the attention of your science reporters and editors so that they might reconsider some of their procedures.
December 27, 2005
Byron Calame, Public Editor
The New York Times
RE: Coverage of climate science news
Dear Mr. Calame,
I am a reader of the New York Times and a human geographer with research interests in science and the media. As you are aware, our nation presently faces many formidable challenges—not the least of which are the ramifications of our dependence on foreign oil and the well-documented changes in the earth’s climate.... As I present the below case study involving coverage of the issue of climate change by the New York Times, I ask that the same be brought to the attention of your science reporters and editors so that they might reconsider some of their procedures.
Antilla Journal Article > Climate of Scepticism:
Climate of scepticism: US newspaper coverage of the science of climate change
Global Environmental Change 15(4): 338-352 (December 2005) Abstract:This two-part study integrates a quantitative review of one year of US newspaper coverage of climate science with a qualitative, comparative analysis of media-created themes and frames using a social constructivist approach. In addition to an examination of newspaper articles, this paper includes a reflexive comparison with attendant wire stories and scientific texts. Special attention is given to articles constructed with and framed by rhetoric emphasising uncertainty, controversy, and climate scepticism.
Global Environmental Change 15(4): 338-352 (December 2005) Abstract:This two-part study integrates a quantitative review of one year of US newspaper coverage of climate science with a qualitative, comparative analysis of media-created themes and frames using a social constructivist approach. In addition to an examination of newspaper articles, this paper includes a reflexive comparison with attendant wire stories and scientific texts. Special attention is given to articles constructed with and framed by rhetoric emphasising uncertainty, controversy, and climate scepticism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)