A recent report from Oxford University’s Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism analyses the way that climate scientists and journalists interact, and the effects which this is having on public policy and public opinion.

The book launch last night included an interesting panel discussion including:

 
Fiona Fox, Science Media Centre (chair), Richard Black, Environment correspondent, BBC news website, Ben Jackson, Environment editor, The Sun, Tom Clarke, Professor Roger Pielke Jr, University of Colorado, Professor Mark Maslin, University College London, Dr Emily Shuckburgh, British Antarctic Survey and Dr David Viner, British Council.

Lots of interesting ideas came up. I have tried to summarise some of the key discussion points below. There are no right answers, but I think consideration of how best to engage with the media to create action is a very important topic!

How important is balanced reporting?

Many scientists believe that journalists are being irresponsible in their fervour for ‘balanced’ reporting and that continuously quoting sceptics gives a voice to opinions which are not supported by scientific evidence. As one panellist pointed out- we do not always quote sceptics of whether smoking causes lung cancer, or whether HIV causes aids! At which point in the production of rigorous scientific evidence can we consider something ‘proved’?

The book also raises the interesting observation that sceptics are almost exclusively quoted in the western press. To what extent does this represent our different cultures, attitudes to climate change or modes of reporting?

What effect has ‘climategate’ had on climate change reporting?

The news last year found that scientists at the University of East Anglia had deliberately misrepresented data they had collected related to climate change. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/07/climate-emails-question-answer. But what affect has this had on climate change reporting and public opinion?

One BBC study found that, while a significant minority still do not believe in man made climate change, their views had not been significantly altered by the ‘climategate’ incident. Frustrated scientists often quote the wealth of corroborative evidence to back up the reports from the University of East Anglia, while others question the misrepresentative reporting of their data.

Too little focus on the science?

How much do, and should, journalists focus on the science of climate change in their reporting?

 Analysis of the reporting from Copenhagen found that more than 80% of articles quoted the science in less than 10% of their column space.

But should science drive the debate at what is essentially a political conference? Presumably all governments were there because they had read the science and wanted to take action! And how much, if at all, should science be driving policy?

Additionally, if the science should be reported more often, who should take responsibility for this? The IPCC currently has one person employed to communicate with the media- surely the wrong information in the IPCC about the possible disappearance of the Himalayas would have been far less damaging if they had had a good team able to deal quickly with the media and correct the error?

 I'd be very interested to hear anyone's views as to how this relates to the climate and health debate- an issue which I feel is currently very underreported!

The book is entitled ‘Summoned by Science’ Reporting Climate change at Copenhagen and Beyond, by James Painter.

http://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/about/news/item/article/marked-differences-between-countrie.html

Also see Al Gore’s analysis here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/al-gore/the-media-has-failed-in-c_b_785209.html?ir=Yahoo