Rachel Robillard Reports on Referee

Many political issues cause debate. How journalists address these political issues determines the public’s ability to make informed decisions. Eric Pooley, author of “How Much Would You Pay to Save the Planet? The American Press and the Economics of Climate Change,” argues that journalists are not reporting on global warming appropriately. He contends this lack of accurate reporting is limiting the ability of the public to making informed policy decisions.  

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.