Too often journalists getting the facts about climate change wrong, say scientists.
Credit: iStockphoto
COPENHAGEN: The task of informing the public about climate change should not be left to journalists, says the chair of the International Scientific Congress on Climate Change, which took place in Copenhagen, Denmark, last month.
Katherine Richardson, marine biologist and conference convener, said journalists worked for organisations more interested in making money than presenting a clear interpretation of climate change to the public.
"Maybe journalists aren't the ones who should be communicating science to the general public," she said, adding that communicators from within the scientific community should be getting the message across."
Media organisations need to sell their newspapers and magazines, so "expecting journalists to do this job for us when they are being paid to earn money for a newspaper isn't correct — it isn't going to happen," Richardson said.
Media mistakes
Addressing journalists during the debate she cited an example where a photo of a melting ice cap was published with captions announcing a new and profitable shipping route to China or a new frontier for oil exploration.
Scientists were frustrated that these articles had not explained how the ice melt would affect Earth's systems and, consequently, future generations of humans.
"We want you [the media] to understand what we really know about climate change and its potential consequences and what we can do about it, so that you can make this available to society at large. We're not always good at talking to you and explaining ourselves in non-technical language but we want to talk to you. So if you don't understand, please ask," said Richardson.
Martin Parry of Imperial College London and a working group co-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said climate change research was unusual because it is often conducted in parallel with political decision-making, leaving little time for journalism to perform an adequate filtering process.
Scientists to blame, too
Patrick Luganda, chair of the Network of Climate Journalists of the Greater Horn of Africa, urged climate scientists to appreciate how the media works.
For example, he said, striking a balance is important in reporting.
Journalists must strengthen their relationships with the experts to better understand the significance of research findings, Luganda said. Journalists in developing countries need more training, networking and mentoring in order to communicate science better.
Saleemul Huq, head of the Climate Change Group at the London-based International Institute for Environment and Development said both sides were to blame. "The trouble with scientists is that they don't like talking to media. Scientists in general deal in complexity. They have to simplify."
Climate change reporting required a different type of journalism from typical science reporting: challenging climate research just to create a contrasting view in the name of balance was a "disservice", he said.
Journalists blasted over climate change
I couldnt agree more - scientists and journalists need to come together to find common language and understanding so we can communicate effectively to the public on issues of huge social importance. Much of the general confusion on climate change comes from exactly this. So fellow scientists....how do we fix this?
Here in Australia we have
Here in Australia we have the Australian Science Media centre which emails journalists with information and background around the latest science topics. They also provide contacts for scientists who work in those fields. That's a start.
I also think that in journalism courses, we should have a compulsory "science basics" course. This will increase the science literacy of journalists who, for the most part, would only focus their studies on humanities. This would give journalists more confidence and depth in their reporting.
how do we fix this?
Simply tell the truth. Scientists AND journos. There is no evidence of man made global warming. There is no evidence of man made night and day, seasons, years, and ice ages. There is every evidence of natural processes. The truth is easier. Tell one lie and you have to spend the rest of your academic life concocting others to cover up and dress up the first. Come clean even if it means your research funding ceases - at least you'll sleep better at night and your kids will like you more for being honest.
science and journalism
Would it be too much to ask journos to go to a University library and read up on the science? If they rely upon the opinion of others we get repotted versions of the same, which might be coloured by the fact that the writer is depending upon his/her view to further a lucratic academic position. There are plenty of grants and jobs deriving from the AGW position but almost none to disprove it.
We must always defer back to hard core texts to verify what scientists are trying to say.
Dart.