Duck and Cover: Climate News Reporting Routinely Draws Big, Loud Pushback

Publish a climate change-related news story, and be ready for pointed attacks, long knives, and brutal dismissals. And expect accusations of political bias and conspiracy.

That’s still the rule for the nation’s veteran environmental and science reporters, despite changing attitudes on climate change from the public at large.

Like many other communicators, reporters often find that when they think they’ve thrown a boulder in to a pond, it generates nary a ripple of response, a near-deafening silence. That isn’t the case, however, when their reporting, even routine straight-news reporting, involves climate change or “global warming.”

Lots of response, lots of ripples.

Take for example an article by Perry Beeman, environmental reporter for The Des Moines Register in Iowa. His recent straight news story on Ames city hall and its attempts to reduce carbon emissions seemed innocuous enough. It didn’t even focus on climate science; it just catalogued a growing trend among municipal officials in Iowa and beyond who are trying to curb their carbon footprints.

The response, at least in his Web comments section, was overwhelming. One person writes, “Someone finds out the Ames city manager drives an electric car and the Register extrapolates it into global movement.” Another reader says, “This paper believes Iowans will believe whatever they write … It’s been going on for millions of years.”

And then, by yet another respondent, the standard charge: “The scientists who have not been bought out by the Democrats and liberals agree it has nothing to do with humans.”

In an e-mail interview with The Yale Forum, Beeman, a former president of the Society of Environmental Journalists (SEJ), allowed that the reactions usually aren’t very pretty.

“Whenever I cover the climate change issue, the reader comments attached to my Web story tend to be mostly from people who do not believe climate change is happening,” he wrote. “I have yet to see any cite a peer-reviewed, objective scientific study to support the contrarian view.” (Also see Yale Forum article, Plain Dealer Reporter Michael Scott Explores Cleveland’s Broadcast Met Attitudes, for another example of a story’s generating extensive and highly vocal reader response.

Among beat reporters, hard-hitting denial from often anonymous readers is a common point of frustration that’s vented the way waiters might complain about bad-tipping tourists. It’s an emotional dimension that doesn’t always factor its way – with some exceptions – into those specialty climate change blogs and sites that attract mostly science junkies and enviro insiders.

The denial rhetoric continues even as belief in man-made climate change is growing over time in the U.S. The rate of belief that global warming is already happening went from 48 percent of citizens in 1997, to 51 percent in 2004, to 61 percent in April 2008, according to Gallup.

James Bruggers, also a former SEJ president and a veteran environmental and climate change reporter with the Courier-Journal in Louisville, Kentucky, says he finds there’s often a difference between the comments directed at his blog posts and those for his general-audience articles.

“The blog has a more dedicated readership of people who seem to have greater environmental literacy,” he wrote in a Yale Forum e-mail interview.

There are exceptions to the rule for him. A general-interest story that he wrote about renewable energy and hydropower received what Bruggers called a “sympathetic” response.

But he acknowledges that he sometimes gets some big waves of pushback, like those familiar to the Des Moines Register‘s Beeman. “Generally, the comments run the gamut: some thoughtful, others knee-jerk opposition and scientifically illiterate, and even some over the top enviro perspective,” he said.

National Public Radio’s science reporter Richard Harris says his audience might tend to deliver “more sophisticated responses” than perhaps consumers of other general distribution media do. (Comments are attached to his stories at npr.org.) He sometimes hears from the environmental crowd that he’s “not being panicky enough.”

But Harris too still sees his share of sharp denial and criticism. “There are some people who have read a Michael Crichton novel or listened to Rush Limbaugh or gotten it into their head that there’s some type of conspiracy,” he said in a phone interview with The Yale Forum.

Harris said climate “skeptics” reacting to his on-air reporting often portray uncertainty as going only one way: that scientific doubt about the pace of climate change inevitably means it’s not going to happen, as opposed to its also leaving open the prospect that things may get worse than currently projected.

“I haven’t pointed out people’s logical fallacies,” he said, “… though I’m sorely tempted to do that.”

The pattern of response to climate change stories generally is hard to quantify. And it’s tough to know exactly how much of the hard-core denial in the Web traffic is the same old set of people, perhaps making sport of hectoring the resident environmental journalist and keeping him or her “honest,” as it were.

Yet, ongoing climate change reporting may increasingly force skeptical readers to talk right past the point of articles – reader feedback on Beeman’s city hall article being a classic example – as the sometimes arcane and dense climate science debate becomes secondary and reporters focus increasingly on actions by public officials, the private sector, and citizens.

Indeed, coverage increasingly is focusing on response, “adaptation and mitigation,” as it’s known in the field, and that trend is likely to accelerate.

Asked about the prospects for climate change reporting under the coming Obama administration, NPR’s Harris said: “I think it will probably be less about science and more about what we’re going to do about it. It will be more about energy policy.”

It’s a perspective many of his science and environmental journalism counterparts, in both print and broadcast media, most likely share.

John Wihbey

A regular contributor to The Yale Forum, John Wihbey is an editor and researcher at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. (E-mail: johnwihbey@gmail.com, Twitter: @wihbey)
Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Duck and Cover: Climate News Reporting Routinely Draws Big, Loud Pushback

  1. rpauli says:

    Climate change stories in MSM (Mains Stream Media) will often bump up against the financial interests of the publication or station. Note that most all advertising is based on heavy carbon fuel consumption.

    Any thoughtful climate change story will too quickly reach the conclusion that human carbon consumption is the big fault – and the best we can do is stop CO2 output by any means. And advertiser interests sort of kills any possiblity of follow up stories.

    Anecdotally I have observed a proliferation of web sites that cover the story. It seems that a year or so ago the sheer number of sites exploded. I have no idea what their usage numbers might be.

    By ignoring this story, It could be that television news organizations and newspapers – acted against their best interests by driving people to alternative media sources. Not very smart. But then we can add that to the growing pile of not very smart actions when it comes to ignoring this problem.

  2. James Mayeau says:

    NPR’s Harris said: “I think it will probably be less about science and more about what we’re going to do about it. It will be more about energy policy.”

    This is the business as usual model of global warming reportage. The sort of one sided myopia which foster’s commentary backlash. For years now we have been fed a steady diet of reports claiming “the evidence is firming up”, “there is a consensus of scientific opinion”, “there are few doubts on climate change”.
    “Nine out of ten scientists surveyed agree” isn’t evidence. That’s a commercial, and I am sick of commercials for windmill merchants.
    Instead of complaining about your detractors lack of evidence perhaps you could show us some yourself.

    Lets talk about something real for a minute. Tuvalu – the small island nation which is supposed to be one of the first victims of climate change as rising sea levels inundate the low lying land.
    A serious problem confronts any researcher who looks into the question of tides and sea levels, especially when searching for that elusive concept known as `mean sea level’, (MSL) or “Zero Point of the Sea”.
    The MSL is different over different points on the globe, there is a difference in real time sea level by up to 1.5 metres, or around 5 feet between the western Pacific and the Antarctic Ocean. (see Topex Poseidon Satellite).
    The IPCC claims that sealevel will rise due to thermal expansion, that is the water collumn will grow larger because warm water takes up more volume then cold water.
    This would be good news for Tuvalu. Why? Because Tuvalu is located in the middle of the western Pacific “highspot”, near the Equator where thermal expansion of the sea has reached it’s fullest expression, due to the centrifucal force of the Earth’s rotation and the near constant warm seas of the south Pacific, there is just not much fear that the ocean will rise an additional amount.
    But instead of reporting this good news in an objective fashion our media feed us scaremongering stories about consensus and how self imposed austerity is the only thing that will “save” Tuvalu.

    And that’s just one aspect of the global warming panaplay of stories, undone by a bit of investigation.

    “I haven’t pointed out people’s logical fallacies,” [Richard Harris] said, “… though I’m sorely tempted to do that.”

    I strongly suspect the reason Mr Harris doesn’t point out these supposed fallacies is because he can’t.

    Richard should expect more sharp denial and criticism rather then less until he does bestir himself to lay out actual evidence refuting skeptics and making a fact based case that global warming is:
    A) real, and
    B) something to be feared.

  3. paul says:

    This article is bizarre. The media is consumed with reporting uncritically doomsday climate scenarios that have no basis in fact and any scientific rebuttal is ignored. You can fool some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time. The media is biased. It makes money out of “sensational “stories . Print newspapers are on the financial ropes and competing with the democratic internet. The vast majority of people don’t buy global warming. Human created co2 is only 3-4% of what is annually added naturally to the atmosphere. In the meantime the world continues to cool.

  4. John says:

    No doubt there is some genuine pushback. There are also stories that the far right funds people to post such objections on a regular basis. The easy way to check is to have posters identify themselves with a credit card. It seems that once posters are identified the paid posters are deterred.

  5. John Wihbey says:

    An interesting set of points, rpauli. I agree that there has been a surge in attention, especially in the blogosphere and on niche sites. I’m not sure how much this is the byproduct of a money-focused MSM, though that’s certainly one hypothesis and I’m sure you could find people who would explain their flight to the Internet just that way. I don’t mean to let all mainstream outlets off the hook — many reporters within them have complained loudly about the contraints they have operated under and about the short shrift the global warming story got until recently. But in the past few years the scope of mainstream coverage of climate change has, by almost any measure, expanded. It may that there’s simply more interest, and intensity of interest, than there’s ever been on the issue, with ample attention for both mainstream and alternative sites.