There are three ways in which a journalist reports on climate
debate: the judge, the stenographer, and the referee. Judge reporting is
opinion based, such as Nicholas Kristof’s editorial on “Neglected Topic Winner: Climate Change.” Kristof focuses on the
public’s lack of interest in climate change, and says, “We’re much more likely to
believe that there are signs that aliens have visited Earth (77 percent) than
that humans are causing climate change (44 percent).” Judge reporting rules who
is right and who is wrong. It does not analyze a counterargument.
On the other hand, veteran energy reporter for the Washington Post, Steven Mufson reports
more as a stenographer because he “didn't want to come down too heavily [on his
source] because [he’s] going to keep covering this topic, and wants everyone to
keep talking” (Pooley 13). Mufson asserts that withholding information enables the
reader, rather than the reporter, to judge who is “right or wrong” in the
climate debate. According to Pooley, stenographer reporting is categorized with
“he said, she said” and “balance as bias” reporting. Balance is often considered a
journalistic norm because getting both sides of the story is desirable and
ethical. However, Pooley advocates that a balanced scientific report is
actually an imbalance of what science has found. He admits that the task of leveling
balance and perspective can be very challenging, especially when reporting on
scientific issues, like climate change.
Moreover, Pooley understands that all three reporting styles may
be appropriate at different times, but he highly advocates the referee as the
most valuable journalistic role. In policy reporting, “reporters who aim to serve as honest
referees—keeping score, throwing flags when a team plays fast and loose with
the facts, explaining to the audience what’s happening on the field and why—
serve a crucial purpose in the debate” (Pooley 4). Unlike Mufson, Pooley wants journalists to have a larger, more analyzed
look at reporting on climate change policy.
In-depth analysis leads to long-term effects and solutions. At
what point does global warming become reality? Global warming became a debate
in 1989, but over the past 10 years, the concept and debate have grown
exponentially. Most
Americans express low levels of concern about global warming. According to Gallup’s Editor-in-Chief, Frank Newport’s article, “Americans Show Low Levels of Concern on
Global Warming,”
a little more than a third say they worry “a great deal” about climate change
or global warming, putting these concerns at the bottom of a list of eight
environmental issues. Pooley contends this lack of worry is due to the lack of
analyzed information journalists are giving to the public.
It’s proven that environmental concerns are highest when issues
have a direct effect on the public’s daily life. While 49% of Democrats believe
global warming is “underestimated”, 68% of Republicans categorize global
warming as “exaggerated” and that global warming won’t affect them personally
in their lifetimes (Gallup). Pooley would agree that all eight of these
environmental issues will gradually happen if global warming and climate change
continue to rise. As these issues rise, our concern should also rise,
regardless of political views. Global warming is occurring and is affecting
everyone. Some just don't see it quite yet. Pooley thinks by the time people
start to see it, it may be too late to fix.
According to IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report,
global average temperatures are continuing to rise. Okay, we get it. However,
IPPC does not make it that simple. Their judge-like writing and scientific cryptic
jargon hinders the public’s ability to understand the global warming concepts. “Doubling down on serious
work—by making complex issues understandable and even compelling, by offering
honest judgment along with clear supporting evidence—is the best recipe for
continued relevance” (Pooley 4). To understand the long term effects of global
warming, reporters must clarify the confusing issues so that the public can
understand what scientists are trying to explain.
According
to Wyss, author of Covering the Environment, the tales of
miscommunication between journalist and scientists have been all too common, causing
the public to be uninformed, misinformed and often overwhelmed. In addition to
Pooley, Thomas Patterson, author of Informing
the News, would agree that distrust, wariness, and at times, hostility
between journalists and scientists are some of the greatest challenges in
environmental reporting. Increasing the knowledge of the scientific articles
will require more resources and people, but the long-term affect of an informed
public is worth the short-term costs.
From
language, timing, balance, bias, and professional reluctance, journalists and
scientists do not see eye to eye. Scientists like to take their time on finding
the answer, while journalists have deadlines and need answers in a timely
manner. Journalists use language that pertains to a wide age-range audience,
while scientists tend to have more complex word choice. This is why Pooley
recommends a team of reporters to dedicate to this “beat”. It is imperative
that the public understands the extreme consequences of their actions that
could harm the future.
By
using relatable vocabulary and analyzing both sides thoroughly, referee reporting
will enable journalists to address the issues of global warming more
effectively to the public. In return, the public will be more informed and know
how to vote on future policy that will most definitely have an enormous impact
on their lives.
Greenhouse Effect: Well-established theory; no debate; without it, life on Earth is not possible; not synonyms with--
These terms are not easily communicated through traditional journalism. While in Australia, it is our job to improve our reporting by understanding the scientific terminology.
