None of this is to say that there is no room for skepticism about the soundness of various mitigation policies or technologies. Also, assuming greenhouse-gas emissions continue to climb as they have for the last hundred years, there is room for skepticism about how fast the world will warm, whether or not there will be cool periods in the process, and when, how, and where a given amount of warming will affect this planet. It’s a lot, right? Too much to address in every news article? Absolutely.
Another reason that Rosenbaum may have misunderstood the meaning of CJR’s article, is that he still writes about “climate science” as being monolithic rather than an incredibly multi-faceted subject (a double shame, because our piece was precisely about the issue’s polymorphic transformation). No one news item can settle “the debate” on climate change, as if such a singular thing even existed. Rosenbaum wants “equal time” for “different arguments” about climate change, but the amount of attention that should be given this or that argument really depends on the story’s subject matter.
For example: Reporters covering hurricanes’ relationship to warming should note that their intensities could either increase because of higher sea-surface temperatures or decrease because of greater tropospheric windshear. Another example: There is no doubt that the seas will rise and polar ice will melt if warming continues. Reporters must note, however, the disagreement about how quickly the world will warm and how sea-rise and ice-melt proceed, even given certain temperature patterns.
Rosenbaum, quoting the dean of Columbia’s Journalism School, which publishes CJR, advises journalists to “find the arguments.” He is quite right—they should. But his advice is dangerously incomplete. In a blog post that was also critical of the way Rosenbaum cited his work, New York Times reporter Andrew Revkin added that science journals “find the agreements.” Put the two together and you have the bottom line. Climate journalists have to accurately describe the most significant scientific arguments and agreements involved in various aspects of global warming. But, again, it all comes down to what the article is about. Not every fact of climate science can or ought to be mentioned in every article. When judging the media’s (or a single outlet’s) treatment of dissent, critics must differentiate between individual stories and the entirety of its coverage.
That said, from time to time, publications have a responsibility to revisit the fundamental question of the anthropogenic basis for global warming. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is ever more certain that humans are culpable, but there is enough dissenting science out there to warrant investigations of warming’s relationship to the sun, the Earth’s orbital patterns, and other alternative hypotheses. But until something changes, journalists must still note, in any such piece, that the majority of scientists dismiss these explanations in favor of human industry.
Journalism is not about quashing dissent, but nor is it about providing “equal time” to every Tom, Dick, and Contrary Theory simply because they exist. Journalistic “balance” is not physical balance, with two equal masses on each side of a fulcrum.
The problem is not that press quashes dissent (the public knows that there are skeptical climate scientists out there—roughly half, if not more, of the public is itself skeptical) or even that, as environmentalists argue, it gives dissent too much attention. The problem is that the press has done a poor job, over all, of delineating the various questions that pertain to climate science and of accurately characterizing the weight of the agreements and arguments that pertain to each.
Journalism is not about quashing dissent, but nor is it about providing “equal time” to every Tom, Dick, and Contrary Theory simply because they exist. Journalistic “balance” is not physical balance, with two equal masses on each side of a fulcrum.
Hmm, I'll remember this the next time I read a mainstream journalism piece on the safety of nuclear power. No doubt Curtis Brainard, the watchdog of “science journalism”, will be all over that.
Posted by TDC on Thu 14 Aug 2008 at 01:07 PM
Re Curtis's disparaging the call to cover the denial industry - would it make any sense to write about the "safety of smoking" question without exploring Big Tobacco's disinformation efforts? To me it's a no-brainer, that to enlighten the public, you need to expose massive PR efforts to confuse them. If you don't agree, please watch the latest (UCSD provost and historian of science) Naomi Oreskes talk on this subject; pay particular attention to her description of the (naive) "supply-side" model of public understanding of science.
(p.s. 2 fyis: Rosenbaum is an English Lit major who writes for Pajamas Media, and I'm not the one who contacted Curtis about Exxon.)
Posted by Anna Haynes on Sat 16 Aug 2008 at 01:00 PM
Dear CJR and CB,
I am the “one of the regular commenters on Revkin’s blog” to whom you refer in your piece, Jeff Huggins.
That said, in the way of clarification, you seemed to substantially miss most of my point, a point that should have been clear if you had read my posts on this subject.
The essence of my point is this: If people understand something, i.e., if people “get it”, they are less likely to be confused by any arguments that are indeed nonsensical or are already addressed by the basic explanation, and (importantly) they are more able to decide for themselves in an informed way. In other words, if someone doesn’t “get”, i.e., understand, the basic causal dynamics that most scientists see as causing climate change, even in simple conceptual form, and especially if he/she is totally confused by those dynamics, he/she is without much of an anchor and is much more likely to accept even nonsensical arguments or be pushed around by the winds of ideology, which blow very hard sometimes, as we all know.
On the other hand, if she/he at least understands what most scientists see as causing global warming, then she/he can interpret and consider arguments that the press may cover in its efforts to achieve a genuine and healthy balance of the sort you support.
So, the most central part of my criticism of the press does not concern whether, and to what degree, the press includes only the mainstream view or also includes critiques of that view or dissenting views. I’ll leave it to the press to decide how to achieve genuine “balance” in a way that considers the various points you raise and strives to generate valid information. Instead, my central concern is that the press has failed, fairly miserably, to even explain and illustrate the main view (that is, of the majority of scientific organizations) in a way that the public actually “gets.”
(This failure is fairly clear: Ask 100 people on the street to explain the main dynamics of climate change to you, and see how many can do it, even very roughly?)
Indeed, not so long ago, one of the main writers of The New York Times (whose work I usually enjoy and who expresses much concern about climate change) went on Letterman (I think it was Letterman) and gave an explanation of the dynamics at the root of climate change that was amazingly INaccurate. Thus, that particular newsperson, even after writing long and hard about the problem itself, didn’t really “get it”, apparently. How many writers actually understand, truly, what the mainstream scientific view is? I haven’t seen much evidence that many do!
Also, regarding your point about “nefarious” organizations: Although I don’t like it when certain organizations provide info that they know is not quite right, or when they communicate only a narrowly selective “5%” of a story when they know that’s misleading, I don’t think I ever used the word “nefarious”, nor am I a person who blames The New York Times for the fact that some organizations seem to like to mislead the public. Instead, I criticize The New York Times for two things, as they relate to the present subject: First, that it has failed to clearly explain the view of most scientists in a way the public actually “gets.” And second, that it has failed to do much of any true investigative journalism regarding the partial (meaning, not-the-whole-story) facts and misleading arguments included by ExxonMobil (for example) in huge advertorials in The New York Times itself.
The mainstream of my latter criticism does not dwell on whether ExxonMobil funded, or still funds, some organizations that may or may not spread confusion. Instead, ExxonMobil runs major advertorials in The New York Times itself, and the facts and assertions included in those ads, and the facts not included in those ads, are not even explored and discussed clearly in the newspaper. Oh well, global warming and related energy matters are only the largest issues facing humankind today, and ExxonMobil is only the most profitable company in U.S. history. Why should The New York Times bother to investigate whether ExxonMobil is including all the facts and whether their arguments make any sense whatsoever?
Now, the main question I have, for present purposes, after taking the time to read the column here and to respond, is this: Will you, CJR and CB, actually take the time to read my various posts on the subject, and understand my criticisms, before you characterize them, and will you (ideally) write another column that actually explores and comments on the specific two failures that I highlight above? If so, you’ll have my respect. If not, what do you want me to say?
Also, if you like, you can reach me through Andy Revkin (he has my e-mail address). I would very much enjoy talking to you, CJR or CB, to discuss these matters and how we can help the media cover these pressing issues at a substantially higher level of quality.
Best Regards,
Jeff Huggins
Posted by Jeff Huggins on Sun 17 Aug 2008 at 06:19 PM