8 ms·

> Approximately 14% of press releases opposing climate action or denying the science behind climate change received major national news coverage, she found, com

by 0-O-0 6y ago

> Approximately 14% of press releases opposing climate action or denying the science behind climate change received major national news coverage, she found, compared to about 7% of press releases with pro-climate action messages. There might be a very simple explanation: there are significantly more pro-climate change press releases, than anti. Comparing percentages without correcting for that seems to be dishonest.

acqq 6y ago
It's in The very Fine Article: "While just 10% of the press releases Wetts found featured anti-climate action messaging, those rarer releases were twice as likely to get coverage as pro-climate action press releases" "Wetts said the results seem to support the popular opinion that mainstream news organizations often mislead readers by giving equal weight to two sides of an argument, even when one side isn’t as widely believed or lacks scientific evidence."
- reaperducer 6y ago
  news organizations often mislead readers by giving equal weight to two sides of an argument, even when one side isn’t as widely believed or lacks scientific evidence. News organizations used to filter out the cranks. Some still do, but more have buckled to the pressure to shove out metric assloads of low-quality content in order to satiate people who only get their news by scrolling. (It's called "feeding the beast.") And those that still do filter out the low-quality garbage are attacked on social media for being left-wing or right-wing, or whatever wing the social media megaphones decide is bad at that particular nanosecond.
  - VBprogrammer 6y ago
    When heads of state of Western nations are pushing the crank theories it's hard to blame the media for not filtering them.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- valvar 6y ago
  I know this is beside your point, but the following part of the last sentence stung my eyes somewhat: >even when one side isn’t as widely believed or lacks scientific evidence This is not how ``Science'' is supposed to work. While the comparison is in all likelihood not accurate in this case (I happen to think that the establishment is usually right, and that it is mostly right when it comes to the subject of climate change), it is very reminiscent of the classic example of how the establishment viewed Gallileo's objections to the geocentric model of the universe. Science is advanced by adversity, and especially by figuring out what should be done when parts of mainstream theories are falsified or challenged. Science is not advanced by eliminating everything that disagrees with the establishment. The establishment are all very excellent scientists, but science (should) never really become ``established''. I think perhaps the most important reason for why the currently mainstream climate models are actually so strong is that it has been necessary to overcome a lot of adversity.
  - acqq 6y ago
    > Science is not advanced by eliminating everything that disagrees with the establishment. That however has nothing to do with the news coverage. That coverage does a poor job or is even harmful to all the citizens if it falls prey to the manipulations of the political parties and corporations which are making simply wrong claims, using the paid actors. And that's what is happening behind the "climate change denial." The most current example of such manipulations, in something much more short-term than climate change, this is just not science: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/dark-money-pac-s-coordinated-reopen-push-are-behind-doctors-n1235100 https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/dark-money-pac-s-c... And these surely aren't Galileos: https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/87797 https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/87797 "No Evidence That Doctor Group in Viral Video Got Near COVID 'Front Lines'" https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/07/28/stella-immanuel-hydroxychloroquine-video-trump-americas-frontline-doctors/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/07/28/stella-... "Immanuel has asserted that many gynecological issues are the result of having sex with witches and demons (“succubi” and “incubi”) in dreams, a myth that dates back at least to the “Epic of Gilgamesh,” a Sumerian poem written more than 4,000 years ago. She falsely claims that issues such as endometriosis, infertility, miscarriages and STIs are “evil deposits from the spirit husband.”" Likewise, the claims from the "climate change deniers" could be checked by the other scientists, and if they are rejected, it's not because of some conspiracy, but because there is typically no science there. It's just a bit more subtle to be shown to the "common people" than "sex with demons." The science behind the climate change was developed through the last 150 years. Those that denied until quite recently denied what was already proven 150 years ago, then much later started to deny what was proven 100 years ago etc. That's not science. But boy were they supported politically, by the sponsors and by the news giving them "equal time." Also: https://commoninfirmities.com/2015/03/26/the-patron-saint-of-cranks-and-charlatans/ https://commoninfirmities.com/2015/03/26/the-patron-saint-of... "Galileo was not dismissed by the scientific experts of his day. His theories and discoveries were controversial, but he was generally acclaimed by scientific authorities. He was punished for contradicting the Church’s entrenched philosophical commitments." His actual sentence: "suspected of" "having believed" "heresy" "that the sun is the center of the world" "contrary to the Holy and Divine Scriptures": http://hti.osu.edu/sites/default/files/documents_in_the_case_of_galileo.pdf http://hti.osu.edu/sites/default/files/documents_in_the_case... "We pronounce, judge, and declare, that you, the said Galileo . . . have rendered yourself vehemently suspected by this Holy Office of heresy, that is, of having believed and held the doctrine (which is false and contrary to the Holy and Divine Scriptures) that the sun is the center of the world, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the earth does move, and is not the center of the world; also, that an opinion can be held and supported as probable, after it has been declared and finally decreed contrary to the Holy Scripture". By the way Galileo was really the "first" in hist "front line": he constructed his own telescopes and was the first to see the moons orbiting around Jupiter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_moons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_moons
- ojbyrne 6y ago
  Isn’t this just the nature of news? Common events are not news, uncommon ones are. So news is always going to give more coverage to the less common theory.
- Aunche 6y ago
  10% of anti-climate action messaging isn't causing ~30% of people being opposed to taking measures against climate change. It's the other way around.
reaperducer 6y ago
In my observation, 90% of the pro-climate change press releases are meaningless fluff. Just companies putting out the equivalent of "Giant Energy Company, Inc. approves of bake sales by six-year-olds to fight climate change, aren't we great? Buy our stock." Newsrooms get a flood of worthless masturbatory press releases each day where companies position themselves as being in faithful allegiance with whatever is trending on Twitter that day. It's no surprise that 99% of them end up in the round file.
take_a_breath 6y ago
In fact, i think that is the entire point. Our media is built on clicks and eyeballs. Promoting the idea of legitimate "debate" in the science helps drive more clicks and eyeballs. It's the same things media does with politics.
netcan 6y ago
Covid has really driven home a point to me. As a society, we are statistically illiterate. Politicians and journalists particularly so. Most of our important, newsworthy information today is statistical. This is a real problem. In the context of public schooling, I think statistics needs to become the primary discipline taught in high school maths. It's more useful to our work life, and (relevant in the context of public schooling) essential to informed citizenship. Literacy is a pretty close analogy here. The average person is totally ill equipped to to read politically relevant news and form an opinion about it. Often, the person who wrote it is just as ill equipped. Statistical statements have a tricky form. They seem like a statement of fact. They are, kind of. It's a fact that this researcher measured what she measured. The implication though, that's conjecture, and it may or may not be a good one.
- throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
  Upvoted because it's a good point but I think the problem goes deeper. Simply expressed most people will deny or plain block out what they don't want to hear, and education can't cure that. There are plenty of people still denying that covid is of significant risk - and we're right in the middle of it!
- taneq 6y ago
  Statistically and scientifically illiterate, yes. There is this overall belief that one person's opinion, however gained, is equal to another person's opinion, however gained. If one opinion is the result of multiple well designed scientific studies and the other is the result of some late night YouTube indulgement then no, they're not equal.
- tomp 6y ago
  If anything, COVID drove the opposite point for me. The whole "masks don't work" spiel that the WHO did was statistically legitimate... We really don't have proof (or whatever the medical community considers is "proof" - like double blind large scale trail with less than 5% chance of being false) that masks work. Statistically, we don't know. But operationally masks have negligible risk and practical burden, while having a huge potential benefit (stopping the pandemic in its tracks), so even if the overall probability of this benefit is low (or at least not necessarily 95+%), it's the correct decision from an executive perspective. Basically: scientific / statistical opinion: masks aren't proven to work; executive decision: recommending masks has minimal downside and massive potential upside;
bzb3 6y ago
This entire debate is about dishonesty. It is like supporters of football teams at this point.
csallen 6y ago
How would that explain things? If there were significantly more pro-climate action press releases than anti-, you'd expect to see similar a proportion of coverage, not the opposite. A better explanation is that the news likes to focus on rare, novel, and/or controversial statements. It's also worth noting that the article doesn't seem to differentiate between positive and negative coverage. So anti-climate action press releases might be receiving significantly more negative coverage.
- cptnapalm 6y ago
  The old explanation that "dog bites man" is not news, but "man bites dog" is. I do wonder what the effect is when the news on a topic is all "man bites dog". Does an appreciable percentage of readers begin thinking that "man bites dog" is so incredibly common now that something must be done and that "dog bites man" is just a myth?
  - imtringued 6y ago
    When you "consume" a new piece of information you have are three options: verify it yourself, believe without proof or dismiss it without proof. The problem is that some claims are hard to verify so you immediately have to believe or dismiss the claim without proof. However, when you receive new information it is possible to change your stance on unproven claims. Over time you develop a network of claims that strengthen each other. This makes you less susceptible to obviously wrong information because you can easily cross check it based on several existing claims. The downside is that when you see a new obviously correct claim it could potentially require you to throw out a large portion of your existing beliefs. It's less risky to just deny the claim even if it had substance.
chippy 6y ago
I think the explanation about why certain things get more news is in the word "news". News is just that, new. New, interesting, unique, different, something to be talked about. An accepted truth like "climate change is real" isn't really that new today. Page 10: "Another professor agrees with the professor from last week who talked about this topic, read more on page 56." A protest turned riot about climate change is news. Crackpot theories are also new and news worthy. The entire premise that the news is impartial and should cover issues statistically equally is utterly at odds with the core principle of what the news actually is. The news is not information and never has been. It's telling stories about the world.
- WarOnPrivacy 6y ago
  >The news is not information and never has been. Assuming that's true then perhaps we need more journalism & less news. Journalism here being performance of those duties implied by the 1st Amendment's Freedom Of The Press clause.
  - jjk166 6y ago
    No one was ever going to win a Pulitzer for "yet another climate scientists agrees with widely accepted consensus." I do believe journalistic standards have fallen in recent times, but their job has always been to update us on new and surprising developments, not provide all the information a person would ever need. Climate change, just as an example, is a complicated process and the science behind it can not be accurately conveyed in a 30 second snippet by a layman. A responsible citizen should be able and willing to go out and acquire the background information they need to make an informed opinion, and in this day and age that information is probably only a few clicks away.
- handol 6y ago
  > Crackpot theories are also new and news worthy. Only when the crackpots have wealthy benefactors.
- imtringued 6y ago
  Most climate change news is always the same "eat your veggies" style reporting. We need x,y,z and we have time until current date + 30 years [0]. There is also the opposite. "Wind power and grid expansion permits have started piling up for the third year in a row". Not exactly exciting. There is also the yearly CO2 tax article and people always respond "I hate taxes". Usually the only exciting times are when the government decides to change things up. [0] worst cases keep getting worse but the amount of work stays the same, if you tell people we have 12 years left to reach the old temperature goal they'll just give up and call you a doomsayer
taneq 6y ago
> there are significantly more pro-climate change press releases, than anti This was my immediate thought. There have got to be at least twice as many "climate-change-is-happening"[1] articles as "climate-change-isn't-happening" articles, given the current indications that climate change has, in fact, happened and continues to do so. [1] I can't bring myself to call it 'pro climate change' or 'anti climate change' because it's about whether it's happening, not whether I think it should.
- peroporque 6y ago
  There are not only two positions on it, like the dumbed down vocabulary tries to suggest. But anything more than binary choices seems to be too complex for today's "journalism".
TheOperator 6y ago
I wouldn't call it dishonest but it is important context. "Study says same thing as consensus" doesn't garner clicks. I think the broader issue is how much the news is tilted towards focusing on contrarian viewpoints.
peroporque 6y ago
Scholars in politically charged fields have to find certain results, or they risk their reputation. Or worse. No surprise there.
boomlinde 6y ago
I don't think it's dishonest. I expect editorial responsibility, and lack thereof discredits the publication.
jellicle 6y ago
If there are 100 press releases that say "earth is round" and 10 press releases that say "earth is flat", how many of each should be publicized by your local newspaper?

by 0-O-0 6y ago

acqq 6y ago

It's in The very Fine Article: "While just 10% of the press releases Wetts found featured anti-climate action messaging, those rarer releases were twice as likely to get coverage as pro-climate action press releases" "Wetts said the results seem to support the popular opinion that mainstream news organizations often mislead readers by giving equal weight to two sides of an argument, even when one side isn’t as widely believed or lacks scientific evidence."

reaperducer 6y ago
news organizations often mislead readers by giving equal weight to two sides of an argument, even when one side isn’t as widely believed or lacks scientific evidence. News organizations used to filter out the cranks. Some still do, but more have buckled to the pressure to shove out metric assloads of low-quality content in order to satiate people who only get their news by scrolling. (It's called "feeding the beast.") And those that still do filter out the low-quality garbage are attacked on social media for being left-wing or right-wing, or whatever wing the social media megaphones decide is bad at that particular nanosecond.
- VBprogrammer 6y ago
  When heads of state of Western nations are pushing the crank theories it's hard to blame the media for not filtering them.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
valvar 6y ago
I know this is beside your point, but the following part of the last sentence stung my eyes somewhat: >even when one side isn’t as widely believed or lacks scientific evidence This is not how ``Science'' is supposed to work. While the comparison is in all likelihood not accurate in this case (I happen to think that the establishment is usually right, and that it is mostly right when it comes to the subject of climate change), it is very reminiscent of the classic example of how the establishment viewed Gallileo's objections to the geocentric model of the universe. Science is advanced by adversity, and especially by figuring out what should be done when parts of mainstream theories are falsified or challenged. Science is not advanced by eliminating everything that disagrees with the establishment. The establishment are all very excellent scientists, but science (should) never really become ``established''. I think perhaps the most important reason for why the currently mainstream climate models are actually so strong is that it has been necessary to overcome a lot of adversity.
- acqq 6y ago
  > Science is not advanced by eliminating everything that disagrees with the establishment. That however has nothing to do with the news coverage. That coverage does a poor job or is even harmful to all the citizens if it falls prey to the manipulations of the political parties and corporations which are making simply wrong claims, using the paid actors. And that's what is happening behind the "climate change denial." The most current example of such manipulations, in something much more short-term than climate change, this is just not science: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/dark-money-pac-s-coordinated-reopen-push-are-behind-doctors-n1235100 https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/dark-money-pac-s-c... And these surely aren't Galileos: https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/87797 https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/87797 "No Evidence That Doctor Group in Viral Video Got Near COVID 'Front Lines'" https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/07/28/stella-immanuel-hydroxychloroquine-video-trump-americas-frontline-doctors/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/07/28/stella-... "Immanuel has asserted that many gynecological issues are the result of having sex with witches and demons (“succubi” and “incubi”) in dreams, a myth that dates back at least to the “Epic of Gilgamesh,” a Sumerian poem written more than 4,000 years ago. She falsely claims that issues such as endometriosis, infertility, miscarriages and STIs are “evil deposits from the spirit husband.”" Likewise, the claims from the "climate change deniers" could be checked by the other scientists, and if they are rejected, it's not because of some conspiracy, but because there is typically no science there. It's just a bit more subtle to be shown to the "common people" than "sex with demons." The science behind the climate change was developed through the last 150 years. Those that denied until quite recently denied what was already proven 150 years ago, then much later started to deny what was proven 100 years ago etc. That's not science. But boy were they supported politically, by the sponsors and by the news giving them "equal time." Also: https://commoninfirmities.com/2015/03/26/the-patron-saint-of-cranks-and-charlatans/ https://commoninfirmities.com/2015/03/26/the-patron-saint-of... "Galileo was not dismissed by the scientific experts of his day. His theories and discoveries were controversial, but he was generally acclaimed by scientific authorities. He was punished for contradicting the Church’s entrenched philosophical commitments." His actual sentence: "suspected of" "having believed" "heresy" "that the sun is the center of the world" "contrary to the Holy and Divine Scriptures": http://hti.osu.edu/sites/default/files/documents_in_the_case_of_galileo.pdf http://hti.osu.edu/sites/default/files/documents_in_the_case... "We pronounce, judge, and declare, that you, the said Galileo . . . have rendered yourself vehemently suspected by this Holy Office of heresy, that is, of having believed and held the doctrine (which is false and contrary to the Holy and Divine Scriptures) that the sun is the center of the world, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the earth does move, and is not the center of the world; also, that an opinion can be held and supported as probable, after it has been declared and finally decreed contrary to the Holy Scripture". By the way Galileo was really the "first" in hist "front line": he constructed his own telescopes and was the first to see the moons orbiting around Jupiter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_moons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_moons
ojbyrne 6y ago
Isn’t this just the nature of news? Common events are not news, uncommon ones are. So news is always going to give more coverage to the less common theory.
Aunche 6y ago
10% of anti-climate action messaging isn't causing ~30% of people being opposed to taking measures against climate change. It's the other way around.

reaperducer 6y ago

In my observation, 90% of the pro-climate change press releases are meaningless fluff. Just companies putting out the equivalent of "Giant Energy Company, Inc. approves of bake sales by six-year-olds to fight climate change, aren't we great? Buy our stock." Newsrooms get a flood of worthless masturbatory press releases each day where companies position themselves as being in faithful allegiance with whatever is trending on Twitter that day. It's no surprise that 99% of them end up in the round file.

take_a_breath 6y ago

In fact, i think that is the entire point. Our media is built on clicks and eyeballs. Promoting the idea of legitimate "debate" in the science helps drive more clicks and eyeballs. It's the same things media does with politics.

netcan 6y ago

Covid has really driven home a point to me. As a society, we are statistically illiterate. Politicians and journalists particularly so. Most of our important, newsworthy information today is statistical. This is a real problem. In the context of public schooling, I think statistics needs to become the primary discipline taught in high school maths. It's more useful to our work life, and (relevant in the context of public schooling) essential to informed citizenship. Literacy is a pretty close analogy here. The average person is totally ill equipped to to read politically relevant news and form an opinion about it. Often, the person who wrote it is just as ill equipped. Statistical statements have a tricky form. They seem like a statement of fact. They are, kind of. It's a fact that this researcher measured what she measured. The implication though, that's conjecture, and it may or may not be a good one.

throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
Upvoted because it's a good point but I think the problem goes deeper. Simply expressed most people will deny or plain block out what they don't want to hear, and education can't cure that. There are plenty of people still denying that covid is of significant risk - and we're right in the middle of it!
taneq 6y ago
Statistically and scientifically illiterate, yes. There is this overall belief that one person's opinion, however gained, is equal to another person's opinion, however gained. If one opinion is the result of multiple well designed scientific studies and the other is the result of some late night YouTube indulgement then no, they're not equal.
tomp 6y ago
If anything, COVID drove the opposite point for me. The whole "masks don't work" spiel that the WHO did was statistically legitimate... We really don't have proof (or whatever the medical community considers is "proof" - like double blind large scale trail with less than 5% chance of being false) that masks work. Statistically, we don't know. But operationally masks have negligible risk and practical burden, while having a huge potential benefit (stopping the pandemic in its tracks), so even if the overall probability of this benefit is low (or at least not necessarily 95+%), it's the correct decision from an executive perspective. Basically: scientific / statistical opinion: masks aren't proven to work; executive decision: recommending masks has minimal downside and massive potential upside;

bzb3 6y ago

This entire debate is about dishonesty. It is like supporters of football teams at this point.

csallen 6y ago

How would that explain things? If there were significantly more pro-climate action press releases than anti-, you'd expect to see similar a proportion of coverage, not the opposite. A better explanation is that the news likes to focus on rare, novel, and/or controversial statements. It's also worth noting that the article doesn't seem to differentiate between positive and negative coverage. So anti-climate action press releases might be receiving significantly more negative coverage.

cptnapalm 6y ago
The old explanation that "dog bites man" is not news, but "man bites dog" is. I do wonder what the effect is when the news on a topic is all "man bites dog". Does an appreciable percentage of readers begin thinking that "man bites dog" is so incredibly common now that something must be done and that "dog bites man" is just a myth?
- imtringued 6y ago
  When you "consume" a new piece of information you have are three options: verify it yourself, believe without proof or dismiss it without proof. The problem is that some claims are hard to verify so you immediately have to believe or dismiss the claim without proof. However, when you receive new information it is possible to change your stance on unproven claims. Over time you develop a network of claims that strengthen each other. This makes you less susceptible to obviously wrong information because you can easily cross check it based on several existing claims. The downside is that when you see a new obviously correct claim it could potentially require you to throw out a large portion of your existing beliefs. It's less risky to just deny the claim even if it had substance.

chippy 6y ago

I think the explanation about why certain things get more news is in the word "news". News is just that, new. New, interesting, unique, different, something to be talked about. An accepted truth like "climate change is real" isn't really that new today. Page 10: "Another professor agrees with the professor from last week who talked about this topic, read more on page 56." A protest turned riot about climate change is news. Crackpot theories are also new and news worthy. The entire premise that the news is impartial and should cover issues statistically equally is utterly at odds with the core principle of what the news actually is. The news is not information and never has been. It's telling stories about the world.

WarOnPrivacy 6y ago
>The news is not information and never has been. Assuming that's true then perhaps we need more journalism & less news. Journalism here being performance of those duties implied by the 1st Amendment's Freedom Of The Press clause.
- jjk166 6y ago
  No one was ever going to win a Pulitzer for "yet another climate scientists agrees with widely accepted consensus." I do believe journalistic standards have fallen in recent times, but their job has always been to update us on new and surprising developments, not provide all the information a person would ever need. Climate change, just as an example, is a complicated process and the science behind it can not be accurately conveyed in a 30 second snippet by a layman. A responsible citizen should be able and willing to go out and acquire the background information they need to make an informed opinion, and in this day and age that information is probably only a few clicks away.
handol 6y ago
> Crackpot theories are also new and news worthy. Only when the crackpots have wealthy benefactors.
imtringued 6y ago
Most climate change news is always the same "eat your veggies" style reporting. We need x,y,z and we have time until current date + 30 years [0]. There is also the opposite. "Wind power and grid expansion permits have started piling up for the third year in a row". Not exactly exciting. There is also the yearly CO2 tax article and people always respond "I hate taxes". Usually the only exciting times are when the government decides to change things up. [0] worst cases keep getting worse but the amount of work stays the same, if you tell people we have 12 years left to reach the old temperature goal they'll just give up and call you a doomsayer

taneq 6y ago

> there are significantly more pro-climate change press releases, than anti This was my immediate thought. There have got to be at least twice as many "climate-change-is-happening"[1] articles as "climate-change-isn't-happening" articles, given the current indications that climate change has, in fact, happened and continues to do so. [1] I can't bring myself to call it 'pro climate change' or 'anti climate change' because it's about whether it's happening, not whether I think it should.

peroporque 6y ago
There are not only two positions on it, like the dumbed down vocabulary tries to suggest. But anything more than binary choices seems to be too complex for today's "journalism".

TheOperator 6y ago

I wouldn't call it dishonest but it is important context. "Study says same thing as consensus" doesn't garner clicks. I think the broader issue is how much the news is tilted towards focusing on contrarian viewpoints.

peroporque 6y ago

Scholars in politically charged fields have to find certain results, or they risk their reputation. Or worse. No surprise there.

boomlinde 6y ago

I don't think it's dishonest. I expect editorial responsibility, and lack thereof discredits the publication.

jellicle 6y ago

If there are 100 press releases that say "earth is round" and 10 press releases that say "earth is flat", how many of each should be publicized by your local newspaper?