Sign up for The Media Today, CJRâs daily newsletter.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change seems to have caught a touch of mediaphobia from last yearâs largely debunked controversies stemming from a couple minor errors in its 2007 report and from a batch of leaked e-mails from the University of East Anglia.
New York Times blogger Andrew Revkin had an important scoop on Saturday highlighting a letter that IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri recently sent to the 831 researchers who will contribute to the panelâs next assessment report, its fifth. In it, Pachauri tells scientists to be wary of reporters:
I would also like to emphasize that enhanced media interest in the work of the IPCC would probably subject you to queries about your work and the IPCC. My sincere advice would be that you keep a distance from the media and should any questions be asked about the Working Group with which you are associated, please direct such media questions to the Co-chairs of your Working Group and for any questions regarding the IPCC to the secretariat of the IPCC.
Revkin sent an e-mail to Pachauri asking about the letter and whether or not it meant, for instance, that a reporter from South Africa wanting to interview a contributing author from his/her country would be barred from doing so. Pachauriâs response:
Not at all. They can certainly speak about such issues, but it would be inappropriate and premature for them to offer an opinion on what would go into a working group report or what the I.P.C.C. plans to do. In such cases they must direct the query to the appropriate authority as I have advised them to do.
We are only trying to bring some order into the system precisely because we would like to be more transparent and systematic in responding to the mediaâs growing interest in climate change â which we welcome greatly.
Revkin also got in touch with Edward R. Carrâa contributing author to the IPCC report who received Pachauriâs letterâwho had written a post at his blog fretting that climate scientists had âlearned nothingâ from last yearâs controversies. While a series of inquires and investigations have reaffirmed the integrity of the IPCCâs work and that of the climate scientists involved in the so-called âClimategateâ affair, they have also recommended that both the panel and individual researchers strive for greater transparency and openness with regard to dealing with public requests for information.
Revkin asked Carr about Pachauriâs explanation of the letter, and his take was that:
Pachauriâs response is legitimate â but that is not really how his message in the letter was phrased. If this was the concern, he should have simply said âplease do not speak on behalf of the I.P.C.C.â â a standard admonition, even in academia, for those of us who engage in public outreach. Iâm not saying that he is disingenuous in his response to you â but that the letter was itself tone-deaf. For an organization that now âhas in place a structure and a systemâ for outreach, you would think that someone might have picked up that this paragraph will play right into the hands of the climategate crowd, making it look like those of us on the I.P.C.C. are engaged in back-room dealings. Optics are everything these days, and this letter utterly failed in that regard.
Carrâs analysis is dead on. There has been a seemingly infinite amount of discussion on blogs and in the halls of research about the need for climate scientists and the IPCC to wise up when it comes to their communications strategies, and it is worrisome to see Pachauri (who once criticized Science reporter Pallava Bagla for his scoop on an IPCC error related to the melt-rate of Himalayan glaciers, and later had to recant his words) stumble so soon.
In his post, Revkin also linked to a three-page document that the IPCC sent to all its contributing authors, titled âBackground and Tips for Responding to Media.â Produced for the panel by Resource Media, a nonprofit communications consultancy, it is a document that every journalist who covers climate should read. It will give reporters a very good idea of how researchers may view and approach them.
There is nothing nefarious about the tipsheet, but itâs interesting (if not somewhat comical) to see how the IPCC pigeonholes journalists: âcollege-educated, overworked, underpaid, inquisitive, skeptical, jaded, world-weary, generalists.â The concerning point is this: âDonât say âno comment.â This instantly raises a reporterâs hackles (and interest level). Instead, bring the conversation back to where YOU want it to be.â But every good reporter should expect that sources they interview are trying to control the conversation anyway.
Whatâs more troubling, in my opinion, is the way that the background-and-tipsheet underestimates reportersâ intelligence. The last page of the document advises researchers to âavoid scientific jargon.â This is an important pointer, and one that many journalists themselves have put forward for yearsâbut there is a limit to its utility. While it is true that more reporters are generalists these days, that doesnât mean theyâre daft. I would agree that scientists should avoid subjective words like âexoticâ and acronyms like âSSTâ (sea surface temperature); but other terms, such as âuncertaintyâ and ârisk,â are common enough that scientists should be encouraged to explain what they mean and how they are measured.
Still, the real disappointment here is Pachauriâs letter, and, if nothing else, one hopes that it will at least get far enough under journalistsâ skin to motivate more coverage of the ongoing IPCC review process being carried out by InterAcademy Council, an association of science academies from around the world, as well as preparations for the fifth assessment report.
Has America ever needed a media defender more than now? Help us by joining CJR today.