Climate Follies
Climate blogger Eli Rabett, presumably in response to this recent post of mine, let off some steam at his site. He begins:
Kloor, Randy Olson and to an extent Andy Revkin, but a whole lot of other people appear to think that scientists are lousy communicators, and indeed, a whole lot of scientists agree and there are workshops, meetings and even, shudder, blogs, devoted to self improvement, or not. This goes into the file under missing the point.
It’s not that scientists are or are not lousy communicators (say that and Eli will lock you in a room with Richard Alley for example), but that journalists are lousy communicators. It’s their fucking (emphasis added) job and they are screwing it up to a fare-thee-well. It ain’t just climate either. What journalists produce often makes the average cut and paste student paper blush with modesty.
To bolster his case about journalists being mostly stenographers, Eli goes on to mention a new British website called Churnalism (which, btw, I think is a great idea), written up recently in a Columbia Journalism Review post. Eli then provides a few of his own examples of badly flawed journalism:
If you wondered why every piece of crazy gets its day in the headlines here is one answer, the churnalists walking, nay sitting on their butts and printing everything that is spoon fed to them without working (shudder) to figure out whether there is any there there. There are lovely examples recently, the collapsing arsenic eating microbe story, the even faster collapsingbacteria in a meteor story, the stuff about vaccines causing autism, which STILL ten years later, after being shown conclusively to be a fraud, endures.
In the comment thread, John Fleck, the science reporter and columnist for the Albuquerque Journal, takes the bait:
Yes, there is a significant amount of bad science journalism out there, and bad journalism in general. But your willingness to generalize from that to all journalism (“journalists are lousy communicators”, not “some journalists”) weakens your argument here. There also is good journalism, and one wonders why you chose one from which to generalize and not the other.
The cases you cite – autism/vaccines, arsenic-eating microbes and the bacteria-eating microbes – each started with *bad science*. But it would be no more appropriate for me to generalize from those cases – “scientists are lousy scientists” – than it would be for you to generalize from individual cases of bad journalism. You have to look at what happened next.
The vaccine-autism issue started with an atrociously bad bit of science endorsed by the Science Establishment (published in Nature! The Lancet). The bad science got legs as a result of bad journalism. But for years the journalism on this subject has been dominated by good journalism – the debunking of the autism-vaccine link has been widespread and repeated in the mainstream press for years. There are, of course, exceptions, but as in generalizing from instances of bad science, it’s important here not to generalize from instances of bad journalism.
The arsenic bacteria story similarly started with what one might characterize as bad science, abetted by the scientific establishment (NASA! A paper published in Science!) and science journalists. From the beginning, there were good scientists and good journalists who began whacking it down, and the tandem of good science and good journalism kicked into gear pretty quickly to deflate the claims. The robust science blogging world helped good journalists a great deal in that regard.
The bacteria-from-outer space one looked like bunk straight out of the gate, and all the science journalists I know, good ones, were in debunking mode from the beginning. (Revkin’s an exception here. I saw his piece and said “WTF Andy?)
But the vaccine case in particular illustrates a problem. Despite widespread, repeated debunking of the vaccine-autism link in the mainstream press over many years, the bunk endures. This suggests the importance of an observation WC made over at his blog: “If the public wanted intelligently written journalism that actually explored issues carefully, they would get it.” In fact, such intelligently written journalism is more available now than ever, thanks to the way the Interweb allows you to read whatever you want. Part of the blame here has to go to the reading public, which when faced with good solid debunking of the vaccine-autism link that conflicts with their world view (or good coverage of evolution or climate change), turns to Huffington Post instead.
To which Eli basically said, call off the dogs or talk to the hand:
John, tell your friends to get off the all scientists are lousy communicators and its their fault that the science is not being communicated kick and maybe we can talk.
There are a whole lot of journalists and politicians and political science types and economists out there pedaling the nonsense that it is fault of scientists that the science is not being communicated. That is the journalists’ job.
Fleck, realizing that he wasted his time trying to engage seriously with Eli’s criticism, writes back:
So this then is satire?
You were pointing out what you view as the flaws in the Kloor/Olson argument by doing the same thing yourself? And you’ll stop the “all the journalists are lousy communicators” schtick as soon as Keith and Randy stop the “all the scientists are lousy communicators” schtick? Clever rabbit, thanks for clarifying, I’ll bring the issue up at our next weekly coven.
I hope I didn’t blow our cover by revealing the existence of the coven. I won’t tell ’em where we meet.
Isn’t Eli the guy who refers to himself in the third person? He’s lamenting the poor communication skills of others? Everyday we descend further into the irony mines.
What if the rich and powerful in this country are not scientists, journalists, or even rabbits?
Can we declare a truce for a minute and address the question underlying all the frustration?
If we put too much weight on journalism and too much weight on science, if this is the best we can do, how are we, all of us, journalists, scientists, bloggers, day traders, divas and dogwashers, supposed to manage the complexity of the future? ,
Better, subtler, smarter, more integrated policies are an absolute requirement for not grossly damaging the world for our descendants, as I think you both agree. And we still value democracy as a core value; I think we agree on that too. So what exactly are we to do?
Finger pointing isn’t the point. I for one don’t hate you guys. I just think you aren’t rising to the occasion. Admittedly, it’s a hell of an occasion, and we scientists aren’t rising to it either.
But what should we do? There isn’t enough understanding to go around. It needs fixing. The trouble is somewhere between us and you. Nobody else is going to fix it. And it’s big, big trouble, bigger than our professional traditions, and outside the box by definition.
So the real question isn’t “whose fault?” It’s “what now?”
Not many richer than Craig Venter or Tom Friedman, and Updike’s book ‘Rabbit is Rich’ makes ironists cheer.
Tobis, you don’t get to waltz directly from ‘I say we have a problem’ to ‘let’s make nice and work for a solution.’
I asked on the other thread. I asked last week. I’ll ask again. Where is your evidence that your ‘problem’ exists? Where is the evidence that there is a false balance in media coverage of climate change?
Do your own Google search. Report back.
A little more nuance to the Borenstien/312 days story, I think. Even beyond false balance of attention. If the media needs a good hook to find the needed audience for the risks of climate change, how can this “hook” manifest? According to prevailing journalist logic, if the story is too extreme, the story is tuned out. If the story has no bite, there’s no hook, no one’s interested, no story is written. Where is the window that scientists and journalists need to live within to get the stories out there to get the public interested? This looks like an impossible spot if everything I hear from KK is accurate.
I always recall manufacturing class from university.
The 1st rule of engineering design is that the welder and machinists that are going to end up building your product are at best mediocre.
There may be great welders in the world. No one ever got fired for being a mediocre doctor or lawyer or college professor and the local factory wasn’t going to fire mediocre production workers.
It’s not a design engineer’s job to ‘build’ the product. But if the design engineer didn’t design the product to be build-able by mediocre production workers then the product doesn’t get built.
grypo, yes, I like that.
It’s like the thermostat in an old person’s house. A young person can tolerate a wide range of temperatures, but as you get older you really like your house between 70 and 80. As you get older still, the range narrows, and you want the temperature above 72 and below 78. Eventually the threshholds cross, and you need the temperature to be above 75 AND below 73 to be comfortable. Then 74 degrees is the worst temperature at all, as you will be BOTH too hot AND too cold.
Given the scale of the actual real problem, there is nothing that mainstream climate scientists can say that isn’t either too hot or too cold for the mainstream press. If we aim just perfectly we can manage to be too hot AND too cold at the same time, and that’s about the best we can do.
c’mon Tobis. Can you pro ide any e vidence at all for your claims?
I think there are a lot of faulty assumptions that underlie this whole debate. Communication isn’t simply transmitting information – the information must be received, processed and filtered through the mindset and cognitive biases of each individual. The common assumption in this debate seems to be that improving the message automatically results in better “communication.” Further, some suggest that if only the appropriate “facts” were transmitted then people would be convinced to support their particular policy preferences. The fact that people don’t support those policies is used as evidence that the message is inadequate, resulting in another round of blame the messenger.
The problem, of course, is that the sender of information is only half of the equation. Further, in my opinion the sending side is less important than the receiving side when it comes to effective communication and I think the cognitive science literature supports that opinion. Journalists and scientists can always improve their messaging and narratives, but they should be cognizant that there are real limitations to what the “message” can do. The assumption that people will be convinced if they are only shown the “facts” is naive. Anyone who has tried to convince their best friend that the person they are in love with is a philandering scoundrel understands this.
Additionally, the sad fact of the matter is that a lot of people don’t trust journalists and, these days, a lot of people aren’t exposed to journalism at all, much less a journalist who specifically covers science. When journalists relay information contrary to people’s predilections and biases then distrust is only heightened. The same goes for scientists. Eviscerating each other over perceived failures in messaging does nothing to solve the real communication problem, which is on the receiving end. The number of people who are genuinely open to convincing evidence one way or another is quite small. Brink Lindsey explains this better than I can. Although he focuses on partisanship, the description is not limited to partisans (emphasis added):
It’s not just that partisans are vulnerable to believing fatuous nonsense. It’s that their beliefs, whether sensible or otherwise, about a whole range of empirical questions are determined by their political identity. There’s no epistemologically sound reason why one’s opinion about, say, the effects of gun control should predict one’s opinion about whether humans have contributed to climate change or how well Mexican immigrants are assimilating “” these things have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Yet the fact is that views on these and a host of other matters are indeed highly correlated with each other. And the reason is that people start with political identities and then move to opinions about how the world works, not vice versa.
This is not something that journalists and scientists can easily overcome. Convincing people will be a long, hard slog no matter how convincing the message appears and no matter how much one believes one’s facts “speak for themselves.” If climate scientists want to convince the public, they should not make unnecessary enemies of journalists and instead consider alternative approaches.
Reading Andy and Michael, it is obvious that the churnalists here do not believe that they have a teaching mission. Sad.
Excellent post Andy, well said. People don’t seek the truth; they seek to confirm what they already believe, their pre-existing narratives. Partisans also seem to notice the bias in everyone but themselves; the dreaded “bias” bias.
If the consternation about climate change communication is rooted in the fact that there still hasn’t been any meaningful legislation or demand for legislation on AGW then I think people are barking up the wrong tree by blaming journalists or climate scientists (though both probably play a minor role). Here’s an instructive poll I often refer to: http://media.economist.com/images/20090704/CUS717.gif
Now I’m no evolutionary psychologist but I’m pretty sure the human brain has historically never had to deal with anything remotely resembling the climate change issue. Frankly, humanity has never been wealthy enough to have had the luxury to consider self sacrifice in the present for the benefit of those several generations ahead. The human brain is wired to attend to tangible immediate threats not those hinged on the faith that scientists are telling the truth. I find it amusing that people are shocked -SHOCKED- that society hasn’t just dropped everything and done whatever the climate scientists say we should, or *gasp* are skeptical of the claims they make.
Now if you spend all day reading Climate Progress, working yourself into an aneurysm over how dire everything is it’s easy to understand your frustration, you’ll just have to forgive the single mother who works at wal-mart from 7 to 3 and burger king from 3 to 7 for not giving much of a s__t about a scary climate model.
4. Michael Tobis Says:
March 8th, 2011 at 7:51 pm
“Finger pointing isn’t the point. I for one don’t hate you guys. I just think you aren’t rising to the occasion. Admittedly, it’s a hell of an occasion, and we scientists aren’t rising to it either.
But what should we do? There isn’t enough understanding to go around. It needs fixing.
[…]
So the real question isn’t “whose fault?” It’s “what now?”
Michael Tobis’ message in #4 is no doubt a sincere statement and an example of why individuals like myself tar “climate scientists/eco-journalists” with the same broad brush.
More should be said but I am flabbergasted. How is it conceivable to move forward with an entire culture of Michael Tobis’ who decade after decade having failed to bring to fruition their solutions(policies) to their perceived problem when they rigidly hold on to a starting points exhibited by Michael Tobis’ statements in comment #4?
Tom Fuller in #6 touched on it.
Andy, well said. That is the problem described nicely.
Now if we have no choice other than repairing the problem you describe or facing extinction, we have to try to repair the problem.
Cultures can and do change. So, now what?
I don’t know why people who claim to be guided by science think that they can trot out a simple assertion and demand action without providing any evidence at all.
Where is the peer-reviewed paper demonstrating false balance in the media? Where are the dissertations written on the subject? Where is Chomsky? Where is Hermann?
Hell, where’s an anecdote? Where is Case Zero?
What Andy said. Well put.
That is the heart of the problem, Michael, and it’s a tough one. This is not about the assertion that reporters make endless calls to Lindzen (it’s testable – they don’t) or a hope that somehow what’s needed is a debunking Inhofe’s latest press release (it’s a distraction). Until you avert your gaze from the bunk and allegations of “false balance” that so absorb your time and focus your considerable intellect on the problems Andy’s laying out, Michael, I just don’t see much point to the conversation you keep asking for.
re: Tobis #4 et al,
Yes, there is nothing that mainstream climate scientists can say that isn’t either too hot or too cold for the mainstream press. In addition, not one more word from climate scientists is necessary to accomplish the transformation that solves the problem the science says must be repaired.
“Better, subtler, smarter, more integrated policies are an absolute requirement.” I particularly like the word subtle here. Last year, MT did a post on a way of measuring sustainability that looked like it could be adapted as a measurement of fossil fuel replacement.
The problem does not seem to be one of “false balance” or any balance at all. The problem is in tone and conduct and in the not unrealistic perception that the job of environment reporters is to get in the tank with the activists and stay there.
In a sense, this is a problem which goes back twenty or thirty years to a world in which science and journalism were both cloistered, top down, professions. Scientists discovered things and published in the peer reviewed literature where, from time to time, a journalist, perhaps even a science journalist, would run across a nugget and write a story. The story would tend to be accurate because within the dominant norms of scientific culture a scientist was humble and understated about his work. Rarely, if ever, would a published result end up being press released.
And there was a good deal of deference to the guys who could do calculus from the journalists who couldn’t.
Just as importantly, MSM actually meant something back then. Network news was followed, national newspapers – particularly the Times and the Post as well as national weeklies like Time and Newsweek – set an agenda and to an astonishing degree defined what “news” was. They controlled – to a very significant degree – the means of publishing and broadcasting the news.
All of that is gone. Newsweek was sold for a buck. Time looks and reads like a travel brochure, the Times and the Post are losing circulation and are there still nightly network newscasts? (I know there are but I – in the tradition of Pauline Kael – don’t know anyone who watches them.)
Other guys who can do calculus and might just be a bit better than climate scientists at statistics and time series analysis can a) do the work, b) publish it outside the “peer reviewed” literature, c) attract a significant following, d) do it without funding from big oil or big government.
The journalists in the tank can publish a bit of press released scare “science” and see the comment section in their paper – well website – explode with knowledgeable, fact checked comments.
Worse, tools which used to be the exclusive province of the MSM, everything from good graphics to FOI requests, are readily available to iconoclastic amateurs unconstrained by concerns about tenure or peer acceptance.
For old school journalists and scientists, the dis-intermediation of knowledge has been a huge and largely unwelcome shock. And it is not getting any better because now even the Team coverups are better reported in the blogs than they are in the MSM.
It is no longer a matter of the scientists and journalists learning to communicate “better”. That is no longer on offer; now they have to learn to communicate in a completely different world where what they say and write will be live blogged and “fisked” and run through rigorous, non-deferential analysis.
You don’t have a communications problem, you have a shift in the very meaning of communications.
I concur with Andy (#11) and have a related comment on the demand side.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/2011/03/04/why-scientists-cant-tell-their-stories/#comment-50802
For-profit media gives the public what it demands, and a large chunk of the public has an insatiable and sometimes fervent demand for global warming denialism for mainly ideological (and some economical) reasons. Journalists are the drug dealers in that sense – rightly scolded, and certainly making the problem worse, but not necessarily deserving of the lion’s share of the blame.
Tom (#6),
Have you forgotten about your call to sing kumbaya?
It sounded very much like mt’s call to (in your words) “waltz directly from “˜I say we have a problem’ to “˜let’s make nice and work for a solution.'”
mt basically says (in my words) “let’s stop the blaming for a moment and try to have a constructive conversation about how to deal with this situation”
Let’s bury the hatchet. At least for a moment and see how it feels. Sing kumbaya, you know. Halleluya. Whatever. If you’re not willing to, than at least let those who do do so in peace. Thank you.
“We’re right! And the only reason you don’t agree is because you’re psychologically impaired.”
Impaired humans miscalculate long term risks in light of short term preferences.
Does it not occur to everyone that this works both ways. Maybe poli-advo-scientists are overestimating long term climate risk in light of their short term incentives – research $$ and bloggin fame, for example. Maybe part of the public overestimates climate risk in light of their policy preferences – things they want to do anyway.
Otherwise, you are simply offering: you humans are flawed, we scientists (and those who listen to us) aren’t. And that’s balderdash!
Of course there is a very simple explanation for the current state of affiars: the case for action on climate isn’t as compelling as certain people think.
So, for Tobis and the other mono-riskers, consider, if ever so briefly, the possibility that, in the contexct of the real poly-risky world, we’re doing just about the right thing on climate. Which is nothing, at least for now.
Andy (11):
Very well said, as others have already noted. Last week I attended an excellent conference that laid out the latest research on the points you make. I have a post in the works about it, but meanwhile, those interested can click on the link to see what it was all about. A good starting point I suggest would be to scroll down to Cognitive Biases: When, how and why do we deviate from rational decision-making.
Michael (15):
I suggest you pay more than lip service to Andy’s comment and really think about it. Otherwise, you’re likely to fall back into your familiar pattern of blaming journalists, in which I would then agree with John (17), when he says, “I just don’t see much point to the conversation you keep asking for.”
Bart (21):
I agree that Tom Fuller should be less of a bull-dog at times, but at the same time I’m looking for some sign from Michael that he’s willing to actually engage with the social science literature (nicely summed up by Andy) that wholly contradicts his assertions and claims repeated ad nauseum at his blog and in comments at this site. Time will tell on that, I suppose.
Reading Andy and Michael, it is obvious that the churnalists here do not believe that they have a teaching mission. Sad.
Eli (#12),
I think some journalist do think they have a teaching mission. However, that’s irrelevant to my point. The public are not doe-eyed students legally bound to sit in a classroom and receive the wisdom of journalist-teachers. Our media is diverse and global which allows individuals to pick and choose the “news” they want to hear. Even if your message gets through, there’s no guarantee that people will listen, no matter how compelling the evidence or argument. If that were how humans worked, then Americans would not smoke at all and eat only healthy food. There’s a reason that public-awareness campaigns take a lot of time to have any effect at all and why many of them fail – convincing people who do not want to be convinced is hard.
Note that I’m not saying the message isn’t important – it is – I just think you have unrealistic expectations about what journalists can accomplish even if they operated they way you would like them to. In that regard I think it is a mistake to make them into enemies and lay blame at their feet for the failures of climate legislation. They cannot give you what you seek.
This is all very interesting and I agree with Andy’s very relevant point that is as much about the political inclinations of the those reading the news as it is about the message being relayed by scientists and journalists.
On a more fundamental level, though, I agree with Tom Fuller that I would really like to see evidence that journalist (at least what I would call mainstream media) are really bungling the messaging. With the exception of Fox News, from what I see in the likes of the major networks and major newspapers and periodicals, the stories are at least 80% following the IPCC consensus position or even saying that things are even worse than that. Sure you have a few commentators such as George Will expressing a contrary position, but the vast majority of stories are very much in line with “global warming is bad and it is only going to get worse”. In other words, I see very little evidence that, as a whole, journalists are bungling the message.
Boykoff & Boykoff. 2007. Climate change and journalistic norms: A case-study of US mass-media coverage. Geoforum, vol. 38, no 6.
From the article:
> This paper demonstrates that consistent adherence to interacting journalistic norms has contributed to impediments in the coverage of anthropogenic climate change science. Through analysis of US newspaper and television coverage of human contributions to climate change from 1988 through 2004, this paper finds that adherence to first-order journalistic norms ““ personalization, dramatization, and novelty ““ significantly influence the employment of second-order norms ““ authority-order and balance ““ and that this has led to informationally deficient mass-media coverage of this crucial issue.
This should at least answer the call for anecdotal evidence.
Scopus tells me that (Boykoff & Boykoff, 2007) has been cited by 29 papers, among which we find:
Eide & Ytterstad. 2011. The Tainted Hero: Frames of Domestication in Norwegian Press Representation of the Bali Climate Summit. The International Journal of Press/Politics January 7, 2011, vol. 16, no. 1.
Here is the abstract:
> This article presents an analysis of two major Norwegian newspapers’ coverage of a major transnational media event””the Bali Climate Summit in December 2007. Climate Summits are seen as ample opportunities to study journalism at the global level and simultaneously the relation between global and local perspectives. It demonstrates how main national actors within the political field exercise their hegemony toward the press and that the Norwegian leaders in Bali are partly framed as global heroes. But it furthermore reveals how a critical scrutiny of Norway’s role as a major oil polluter emerges in the press in opposition to the hero framing. Thus, a distinction between different modes of journalistic domestication is made, which invites more critical scrutiny of Climate Change actors both within the confines of the nation-state and more globally. The investigation is based on textual analysis as well as framing theory””and on perspectives of hegemony and “good sense” within the journalistic field.
One can see a lot just by looking.
Willard, thank you for at least taking the time to look, which Tobis did not.
However, the problems noted do not seem to me to point at all towards false balance, which one would expect textual analysis and good framing to catch–and which one would also expect to receive significant emphasis in a paper.
Problems? Yes. False balance? Still waiting to hear. And for those who think I’m being a bulldog on this, I am being emphatic because it isn’t the first time consensus holders have invented a problem and called for a solution without the intermediate steps of actually showing the issue exists. (No, not that…)
I would really (in as unbulldoggish manner as I can assemble or pretend to) like to see Tobis offer one or two specific examples of false balance and why he thinks there are more. It would be more useful if they were recent, but anything. As noted above, this is testable–do we see Lindzen’s name in the news a lot?
What you call being bulldoggish I call being firm but fair. And I choose that method of engagement with Tobis precisely because he doesn’t play fair.
An interesting reference in (Eide & Ytterstad, 2011):
McCright & Dunlap. 2003. Defeating Kyoto: The Conservative Movement’s Impact on U.S. Climate Change Policy.
Punchline:
> This study demonstrates how a powerful counter-movement effectively challenged the environmental community’s definition of global warming as a social problem and blocked the passage of any significant climate change policy.
URL at JStor:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3648857
Jstor tells me that (McCright & Dunlap, 2003) has been cited by seven items, among which we find:
Caren B. Cooper. 2011. Media Literacy as a Key Strategy toward Improving Public Acceptance of Climate Change Science. BioScience, vol. 61, no 3.
DOI: 10.1525/bio.2011.61.3.8
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/bio.2011.61.3.8
Here is the abstract:
> Without public trust of climate change science, policymaking in a democratic society cannot address the serious threats that we face. Recent calls for proposals to increase “climate literacy” from federal agencies such as NASA, NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), and the National Science Foundation illustrate the urgency of this crisis. Although more climate change education is certainly needed, focusing solely on climate literacy will not garner public trust and may leave out high-impact media literacy education. Climate change deniers have been more effective “educators” than scientists and science educators because their messages are (a) empowering, built on the premise that every individual can quickly learn enough to enter public discourse on climate change; and (b) delivered through many forms of media. A more effective strategy for scientists and science educators should include not only discourse approaches that enable trust, with emphasis on empowerment through reasoning skills, but also approaches that embrace the maturing discipline of media literacy education.
Yup.
In terms of hegemony, it seems to me that the ownership information contained, for example, in the following links needs to be taken into account:
http://www.gannett.com/section/WHOWEARE11
http://www.medianewsgroup.com/consumers/Pages/OurBrands.aspx
When Tom Fuller says things like this:
> Problems? Yes. False balance? Still waiting to hear.
after reading an abstract in which we find this sentence:
> Through analysis of US newspaper and television coverage of human contributions to climate change from 1988 through 2004, this paper finds that adherence to first-order journalistic norms ““ personalization, dramatization, and novelty ““ significantly influence the employment of second-order norms ““ authority-order and balance ““ and that this has led to informationally deficient mass-media coverage of this crucial issue.
one has to wonder what being firm but fair means for Tom Fuller.
***
Let’s forecast that we’ll hear about the biased methodology of one of this study next.
Boykoff on “flogging a dead norm”:
“This research finds that “˜balanced’ reporting on
scientific investigations of human-induced climate
change in these newspapers is no longer evident,
and thus suggests that we may now be flogging a
dead norm.”
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-2745-2007.39.pdf
Willard (26)
I don’t dispute the Boykoff paper’s findings, but it’s worth mentioning that the data (ending at 2004) is now 7 years old.
Meanwhile, this Boykoff paper, while limited to one aspect of climate science, might be a more accurate indicator for how the press is doing in recent years.
Ah, I see that RPJ has added some additional context while I was making my comment.
Not having read all Boykoff papers in detail, I do wonder about the quite different messages one gets from the abstracts of both Boykoff 2007 papers cited by Willard (26) and RPJr (33). Guess the false balance situation has improved in some quarters, yet not in others. Is that a fair rundown?
Keith,
My main point was more about a trick for a 30 minutes research:
– Searching Google Scholar:
http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=climate+science+media+coverage
– Picking a most cited paper.
– Finding papers that cite this paper.
A way to add depth to this research is to search of an author, Boykoff here, like you and Roger Jr did.
Another way would be to look for keywords; my own bet would be “framing”.
Et cetera. But the other services are available only for premium members of my Neverending Audit 😉
***
I only have time for now to note two points where an agreement can be reached.
First, the idea that there is no such thing as balance in journalism is compatible with the idea of false balance. So Tobis and Pielke Jr. could meet there. “Balance” is just a way to express the principle of justice anyway.
Second, your article about the coverage of sea-level makes me think of this post by your favorite blogger, after Joe of course:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2011/02/science-as-she-should-be-reported.html
So you and Eli could meet there.
***
Sometimes, it might be fruitful to underline some places where conflicting positions can meet.
Willard –
But see also Boykoff’s 2007 “Flogging a Dead Norm” paper. It reflects more recent data (ending in 2006). He found that the false balance found in his earlier paper had largely disappeared.
Importantly, we don’t need to quibble about Boykoff’s methodology, because he made changes himself between the first and second papers, which I discussed here:
http://www.inkstain.net/fleck/?p=2427
Also, see Boykoff’s paper on sea level rise, to which Keith links above.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/publications/searchResults.php?field=author&pub_keyword=boykoff
John Fleck,
Here is the abstract of (Boykoff, 2007), which is the very same year as my (Boykoff & Boykoff, 2007):
> The journalistic norm of “˜balanced’ reporting (giving roughly equal coverage to both sides in any significant dispute) is recognised as both useful and problematic in communicating emerging scientific consensus on human attribution for global climate change. Analysis of the practice of this norm in United States (US) and United Kingdom (UK) newspaper coverage of climate science between 2003 and 2006 shows a significant divergence from scientific consensus in the US in 2003″“4, followed by a decline in 2005″“6, but no major divergence in UK reporting. These findings inform ongoing considerations about the spatially-differentiated media terms and conditions through which current and future climate policy is negotiated and implemented.
That abstract does not make me believe that “the false balance found in his earlier paper had largely disappeared.”
In fact, if you look at figure 2, you’ll see exactly that: the US newspaper coverage of anthropogenic climate change by year, 2003″“2006, n=421 is less and less balanced.
***
On the other hand, one sees clearly that by the sheer amount of words depicting the anthropogenic contributions as significant overwhelms everything else. At least, as far as MSM are concerned. So Michael Tobis should take note.
***
But that does not mean that we should focus on the aspect of balance. Using framing theory to analyze the story elements of the coverage, as did (Eide & Ytterstad, 2011), deserves due diligence.
And we should also enlarge the field of research. Printed media is not central anymore. We should focus more on the Intertubes, where contrarianism is budding.
And so we should also encompass political counter-movements, which were analyzed by (McCright & Dunlap, 2003).
On the subject of whether scientists make good communicators, check out Rabett’s reviews on ratemyprofessors. He gets just over 2 out of 5.
I am frankly waiting for people to proffer examples of offending journalism with an explanation of why they believe false balance to be prevalent.
There are two issues with media coverage of climate change that seem to be of interest at the moment. The overall tone, which I believe to be overwhelmingly sympathetic and oriented towards the consensus position. It seems clear to this observer that indeed there is no balance–that the weight of journalistic sentiment and bias is clearly on the side of Tobis et al.
The other issue is false balance, where a skeptic is contacted to provide a response to a consensus claim. I see no evidence of this. The papers cited above do not mention it at all. At all.
Willard provides evidence of issues that journalism faces on every social policy argument that comes down the road–and yes, that certainly includes climate change. But they don’t talk about false balance, the famous ‘opinions on the shape of the earth differ’ that people like Joe Romm and Eli Rabett trot out on any occasion.
Boykoff seems to hint that the problem has changed since 2006–but doesn’t offer evidence or explanation of what it was like, what happened, or what it’s like now.
Could someone please provide a link to an actual example of false balance in reporting of climate change? “James Hansen predicts X, but when we contacted Dick Lindzen he said Y.”
Thank you in advance.
re:False balance in climate reporting..where’s the beef?
Well, Mr. Fuller, there’s these folks, who have been studying the matter for awhile:
Boykoff, M. T. (2007), Flogging a dead norm? Newspaper coverage of anthropogenic climate change in the United States and United Kingdom from 2003 to 2006. Area, 39: 470″“481.
Boykoff MT, Rajan SR. Signals and noise. Mass-media coverage of climate change in the USA and the UK. EMBO Rep. 2007 Mar;8(3):207-11.
Balance as bias: global warming andthe US prestige press$
Maxwell T. Boykoff, Jules M. Boykoff. Global Environmental Change 14 (2004) 125″“136
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.168.4283&rep=rep1&type=pdf
They’re not alone,e.g.:
Liisa Antilla, Climate of scepticism: US newspaper coverage of the science of climate change, Global Environmental Change Part A, Volume 15, Issue 4, December 2005, Pages 338-352
And then there’s this guy, who some here may have heard of, seems to think false balance exists and is a problem (see the section called ‘The Tyranny of Balance’, p 152.)
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.169.9175&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Nature magazine refers to the false balance problem as ‘long standing’ here.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7318/full/467883a.html
“”We’re right! And the only reason you don’t agree is because you’re psychologically impaired.” ”
Well, there’ s Malka et al(2009)…which doesn’t blame *psychological impairment* as such, it’s more just being a Republican…
Malka, A., Krosnick, J. A. and Langer, G. (2009), The Association of Knowledge with Concern About Global Warming: Trusted Information Sources Shape Public Thinking. Risk Analysis, 29: 633″“647
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2009.01220.x/abstract
sorry to seemingly step on willard’s toes there — but like him, I know how to use Google Scholar, jstor, and Pubmed, and how to find ‘related references’. In minutes. Does Mr. Fuller know how to do that, or is he gonna just keep bleating ‘show me the evidence’ even after he’s shown the evidence??
Willard –
I’m puzzled by your reading of figure 2. It shows “balance” in 39 percent of accounts surveyed in 2003 in US newspaper coverage. By 2006, that has dropped to 3 percent. He’s clearly here empirically describing a decline in what Tom, Michael and I are all talking about when we discuss “false balance”.
In UK coverage (fig. 3) false balance represents 1.67 percent in 2003 and 0.41 percent in 2006, which Boykoff uses to conclude that false balance was not a problem in the UK over the entire time of his study.
To repeat Boykoff’s conclusion:
“This research finds that “˜balanced’ reporting on
scientific investigations of human-induced climate
change in these newspapers is no longer evident,
and thus suggests that we may now be flogging a
dead norm.”
(And as for the publication dates on the two papers, I think the more relevant time frame is the years of media coverage they analyze. 2006>2004.)
Sullivan, pay attention here. I am asking those who are demanding action to address a problem to show signs that there is a problem. A little due diligence is in order.
If it is a problem they should be able to rip and read it write off the wire. There are plent of stories about the subject and plenty of scientists and pundits are interviewed.
When a physical scientist tells me something is impossible, there is an accompanying explanation of WHY it is impossible, based on well-established principles expressed in mathematical form which apply to the situation at hand. e.g., “That amounts to a perpetual motion machine so it violates the second law of thermodynamics.”
When a social scientist tells me something is impossible, I find it indistinguishable from “nobody has ever figured out how to do this”, or even “it hasn’t been done much lately”. e.g., “Go back to Liverpool, Mr. Epstein, four-groups are out.”
Great. Got an example of false balance? Some time from this century?
Look, Tom, I never brought false balance into this thread, which is why I don’t think your insistence has anything to do with it.
I am not especially interested in most metajournalism. But now you are asking for an example. That is sort of amazing. If you can’t come up with an example, you really aren’t paying attention. I will therefore bring your attention to the event that moved me from casual blogger to committed blogger.
Andy Revkin, to his credit, appears to have expressed some regret for this piece. But it’s still the thing that first energized me, that made me realize that there is a missing link in public communication, that made me think that blogging is more than a hobby.
Here is another example of scientists blaming journalists and visa versa (From SciAm asking the question why are americans so ill-informed about climate change):
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-are-americans-so-ill
“You haven’t persuaded the public,” replied Elizabeth Shogren of National Public Radio. Emanuel immediately countered, smiling and pointing at Shogren, “No, youhaven’t.” Scattered applause followed in the audience of mostly scientists, with one heckler saying, “That’s right. Kerry said it.”
In reality it is not the job of either the scientist or the journalist to “persuade the public”, in my opinion.
The job of the scientist is to do science – not advocate.
The job of the journalist is to report – not advocate.
When either journalists or scientists stray from their actual job to try to advocate – trouble usually follows.
What Eli is saying is that science journalists should report in a manner like their jock-sniffing brothers on the sporting green. The recent Yulsman piece that attempts to sell a trivial technician drudge duty as the most important job in the universe is a perfect example of what RealKlimateScientists want from the press.
MT:
False balance is newspeak for don’t look behind the curtain. Your team is saying the message is the goal and the science must be framed to stay on message. This is why the moniker keeps changing from global warming to climate change to climate disruption to climate extremism… what’s next, climate terrorism?
Tobis, Revkin was right. Both Gore and Will exaggerated. If that’s what moved you to become a committed blogger, it’s just proof of the butterfly effect.
If that’s your example of what’s wrong with journalism, you have gone off the deep end.
So: You don’t think the problem with journalism is false balance. You have already acknowledged that most journalists and most stories start from the consensus POV as a premise.
At this point, I am struggling to see what your objection is to journalistic coverage of climate change. Please feel free to use words of one syllable.
I think your argument is really about the readers of journalism. Convince me otherwise. But if Revkin’s piece is an example of what you think is the problem, you probably needn’t bother.
Oups! I should stop working in only one file. Here the relevant part:
***
John Fleck,
We might be talking past each other here. What I want to say is that in Boykoff was already discovering that the practice of “balancing” views was disappearing. In fact, here is a relevant passage from Boykoff & Boykoff’s conclusion (2007):
> However, the explicit principles of journalism ““ such as objectivity and its recent lexical replacements, fairness, balance, accuracy, truth, and comprehensiveness ““ have proven to be more of a lofty ideal than a consistent, quotidian practice. Moreover, the professional, pragmatic norms and rules have combined to affect news content, as we have seen with US mass-media coverage of anthropogenic climate change.
I believe that Boykoff & Boykoff are already uncovering that journalistic principles (expressed with terms like balance) do not squarely represent journalistic practices.
I predict that soon enough we’ll see “the problem has changed since 2006″³ meme. For me, this would not only be the wrong take-home message, but that would serve as a trick. In fact, reading back the thread, I see that this meme has already been adopted in #41, which shows once again that Tom Fuller works like a meme machine.
A problem with that meme is that it abstracts away a more general problem: journalists saying they follow some norms they are simply not following. Let’s call that the justification problem. This justification problem does not fade away because there are no more “balance” in the stories.
Let’s return to what appears to me an important topic: the relationship between first-order journalistic norms ““ personalization, dramatization, and novelty ““ and second-order norms ““ authority-order and balance. For me, the first-order norms are way more important, as the second-order norms are mainly there to solve the justification problem.
To show how it’s important, just take for instance the personalization. My impression about personalizing stories is that this is not a practice that will be disappearing soon. In fact, reading this thread should be enough to prove my point.
Personalizing is what we do. We just can’t help it. And it’s not helping.
Well, Willard, I have also lost weight, so I guess that makes me a lean, mean meme machine.
I don’t see this problem with journalism. I see lots of problems with media business models that contribute to less than perfect dissemination of accurate knowledge. I think that has worked as often to the advantage of the consensus position as to its disadvantage.
This whole line of argument also serves to deny agency to readers. First, anybody who wants to explore the subject further has avenues to explore and can find a wealth of knowledge available. Second, they do have the right to reserve their own opinions. They even have the right to change their minds. Blaming journalists for a recalcitrant republic not only won’t get you where you want to go, it betrays a conception of the public mind as a pretty low thing.
Tempest. Teacup.
Lean, meme machine,
I do not believe that am blaming journalists, nor do I believe that what I am trying to do “serves to deny agency to readers.” For now, if I can succeed in reading properly what researchers are saying, I will be happy.
Trying to provide a balanced view, ya know… 😉
Ok, enough for me for the day. Steve Sullivan, tag me.
Some observations from the study cited by RPJ in #33:
– It only covers the period 2003-2006, not a particularly bad period for newspaper media coverage of climate change.
– The study provides evidence that coverage can change quickly from year to year. Note the high incident of false balance in the U.S. in 2003. No one could seriously argue the 2006 numbers have held up over the last few years, but I suspect an update study will shed more light on that.
– It only covers newspaper sources (no TV), and a few of them:
UK: Guardian, Times, Independent
US: LA Times, NY Times, WA Post, USA Today, WSJ
Why no Telegraph? How about major TV networks like Fox News and CNN?
Most of the above sources have degraded significantly in the last couple of years. It’s gotten much worse than false balance. With Fox News, climate science is a few devious scientists “hiding the decline” while honest qualified scientists like Joe Bastardi give us a clear view.
Fox News managing editor Bill Sammon:
we should refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question. It is not our place as journalists to assert such notions as facts, especially as this debate intensifies.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201012150004
And that’s Fox News on a good day.
From Randy Olson, via email:
I’ll try to offer up a few comments to address the initial point of this thread — that the journalists are more at fault for the fuzzy communication of science than scientists. I, of course, disagree with that.
Let me start with an analogy from my world of filmmaking. Think of directors and actors. It’s the job of the actor to be “the vessel” of the director and the script — to help communicate the ideas and thoughts of others. The material is supposed to pass through the actor, not originate with the actor, on its way to the audience. It’s great when the actor can add an interpretation to the process, but when the actor goes off on his or her own and fails to convey what the director wanted is when you end up with a mess.
Now think of scientists as the director, journalists as the actor. That’s how it ought to work. But then think of a situation where the director says, “Anh, this stuff is for flakes, I’m gonna focus on my writing and let the actors do what they want.”
That is exactly what happened in 2005. The scientists weren’t communicating global warming to the masses so Al Gore & Co. came along and decided to do it for them. And the majority of scientists were ecstatic about it — I know, I saw the stampede at the 2006 AGU meeting when he spoke. I’ve never seen such a star struck horde.
But in a perfect world none of that should have happened. The science world should have already had a powerful and effective mass communication program sending out the science of global warming in a clear and compelling manner. And when Gore came along the response should have been, “Thanks, but we don’t need the help, we’ve got it under control.
And yes, I regret to inform you that the ultimate responsibility for the accurate communication of science does rest with scientists, just as it does with the director. They carry “the big stick.” When they speak, people listen. Last year when I visited CDC they told me whenever there’s a disease outbreak the media rushes to them, shoves their communications people out of the way, and says, “Where’s the scientists — that’s who we want to speak with.” Which is why they put so much effort into helping their scientists interface with the public.
And which is why I’m enjoying so much working with them and other public health/epidemiology groups. They “get it.” They understand the importance of communicating effectively with the public. And they don’t waste their times sitting on blogs bitching about journalists, who in the end, for the most part, are not much different than actors when it comes to communication.
Science is a tough job, and yes, this is yet another facet of it. Sorry.
I’m sure Mr. Revkin would like this episode to go away, but I stamd by my position. Suggesting any comparability between Mr. Gore and Mr. Will on these matters is shallow, glib, pandering, lazy and false balance. It seeks political centrism at the expense of the hard work of objectivity.
No, it is the opposite–showing how the extremes compete for absurdity. Revkin was right.
No, it is the opposite”“showing how the extremes compete for absurdity.
Watts competing with McIntyre, George Will, Fuller, etc.
MT’s right, and I think Revkin knows he was lazy in that piece. He should have known better. More precisely, he engaged in a false equivalence.
See Dr. Somerville’s first comment:
Andy, I admire and respect you, but in this case I fault you for seemingly equating the articles by Gore and Will. Your piece has them appearing comparable and comparably mistaken. That just doesn’t square with the facts. It’s a false dichotomy, and I doubt you could find well-regarded climate scientists who would agree with your framing. Gore is imperfect here and there. Will is just 100% plain dead wrong throughout. There’s a huge qualitative difference between them, and your readers deserve to hear that from you.
http://community.nytimes.com/comments/dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/25/gore-and-will-and-climate-and-the-press/
Actually there’s very little difference between Gore and Will. They’re just on different sides.
Actually there’s very little difference between Gore and Will. They’re just on different sides.
Most scientists would disagree.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/27/AR2006062700780.html
Now I know scientists find flaws in some of the details of Gore’s documentary, in the way that Somerville describes, but I don’t think any George Will column would receive a passing grade, any more than Michael Chrichton’s book. Will’s views are demonstrably utterly wrong.
Andy Says:
The problem, of course, is that the sender of information is only half of the equation. Further, in my opinion the sending side is less important than the receiving side when it comes to effective communication
Bingo.
The first rule of communication is that is doesn’t matter what you communicate if you lose your audience.
I.E. The Charlotte Observer is owned by the Washington Post.
Many articles written by Washington Post staff writers are ‘re-edited’ in Charlotte in order to be acceptable to the audience in Charlotte. It’s a common practice in the conglomerate newspapers.
The Associated Press offers a number of ‘pre-slant’ options to it’s clients. The same associated press article can appear in 3 different newspapers in the world, one with a pro American slant, another with and anti American slant and a 3rd that is ‘middle of the road’.
CNN does the same. If anyone in Atanta were to see the CNN Middle East edition the mob in Atlanta would burn down CNN headquarters.
Of course the reverse is true as well, if people in the Middle East saw the CNN US edition they would burn down CNN Middle East offices.
Folks can complain that Revkin is too something or other and he should be more like MT or Joe Romm or Eli Rabbit, but if he was more like MT or Joe Romm or Eli Rabbit he would end up with an audience the size of MT or Joe Romm or Eli Rabbit.
Unfortunately with an audience the size of MT, Joe Romm or Eli Rabbit the number of congress critters that will be influenced is none.
Of course this whole ‘we have to communicate correctly and all have the same reason for taking a specific action’ is nonsense anyway.
James Inhofe is from Oklahoma, they are never doing to believe in Global Warming or Climate Change. But they do believe in nuclear power.
So Senator Inhofe communicates the exact same solution to climate change that James Hansen would(nuclear power is good).
Senator Inhhofe just uses the phrase ‘energy security’ wherever Hansen would use the phrase ‘climate change’.
In the real world, unlike academics, being effective counts for more then being right.
Tom –
I’d argue that the case at hand very much illustrates a substantive difference between Will and Gore. Gore made an error, it was pointed out, and he corrected it. Will has made repeated scientific errors, had them pointed out, and not only refused to correct them but willfully repeated them.
John, you are correct about their behavior, IMO, and I am happy to acknowledge that Gore acted better than Will on this occasion (partly because I voted for him 3 times). But I think the comparison is apt about the scientific depth of their knowledge and about their position along the spectrum of opinion.
Fuller is quite right in a world where there is no truth; where science is just a type of argumentation; where one person’s impression is as good as the next on matters of substantive fact; where Moynihan’s law does not apply.
In such a world, obviously Gore is no better or worse than Will.
Nations which go too far down this road of magical realism do not have a good prognosis. And that is the road that journalism leads us down, just by trivializing science and celebrating politics. Getting the science wrong is not the main problem.
False balance is just a symptom. Not having a nickel’s worth of concern about which is the real body of scientific knowledge and which is a collection of tiresome old blowhards is the problem. False balance is just the natural outcome of this indifference.
This indifferent attitude is pervasive among those interested in politics. Did it originate in the press? I don’t know, but it certainly permeates the press, and the press certainly isn’t resisting very hard. The only places you see charts and graphs in the mass media are the financial section and the sports section.
To me, fixing the problem amounts to a population that understands how truth is distinguished from fantasy. If that is too hard, then democracy continues to depend on dumb luck, and our luck appears to be running out. So, now what?
Tobis has the right to be wrong. We liberals (in the U.S.) used to be proud to say the facts were on our side. Someone who shares your political goal but distorts the truth is not your ally. He is destroying your credibility. Gore has done far more damage to the cause of combating climate change than George Will ever could, precisely because Will is an expected foe and Gore was titularly on the side of the angels.
It’s funny that only now and only in this case do we hear from a consensus player that the deconstructionist model of subjective reality is not really helpful. Wake up–the rest of us knew this all along.
As for magical realism, rejecting the calls from people like the two Pielkes and so many others to focus on ‘no regrets options’ as traitorous while focussing on some international agreement to impoverish hundreds of millions certainly qualifies.
Tom Yulsman has some fun in a post over at his site. Plus, check out John Fleck’s comments in that thread, as well.
“From what you’ve heard or read, do you think the evidence on global warming is widely accepted within the scientific community, or do many scientists have serious doubts about it?”
Widely accepted:37%
Many have serious doubts: 49%
Unsure: 14%
Dumb scientists have obviously done a terrible job of explaining to the public that they accept what they accept.
harrywr2 –
FYI, the bit about the AP offering “pre-slanted feeds”? Total fiction.
“False balance”? Surely you jest! Haven’t you heard:
“awareness on climate change issues has reached a level unanticipated in the past. Much of this change can be attributed to the findings of the AR4 which have been disseminated actively through a conscious effort by […] most importantly the media.” [Rajendra K. Pachauri, July 2009]
http://hro001.wordpress.com/2011/03/03/a-merchant-in-venice-pachauris-vision-for-ar5/
MT –
I’ve been thinking hard about your question: “What should we do?”
The short answer is that I’ve some ideas of my own, and I’m pursuing them. I’ve worked hard over the last three decades to build a skill set and insinuate myself into a place where I could use it. There are lots of serious people with serious ideas who are doing the same. Tom Yulsman does. And Keith, and Manzi, and Pielke Jr., and Gavin Revkin and Judith Curry and James Hamilton and the anonymous staffers on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the former mayor of Albuquerque and Gernot Wagner and Krugman and Romm and Nordhaus (heck, all the Nordhaus’s – they’re a family with a history of doing stuff). Or especially my young friend Shrayas Jatkar, a local level community organizer who no one will likely ever have heard of, who shares all your frustrations but who is actually getting stuff done (or failing in the effort, but actually trying).
You need to get out there yourself and do whatever it is that you think needs to be done. The stuff you think needs to be communicated is very hard to communicate. But you need to go ahead and just do it.
Take yesterday’s congressional hearing as an experiment. Look at it as an opportunity to do the new journalism you so much believe is needed. Imagine the naive audience who has political views and no scientific knowledge. Imagine how you might explain to them what just happened. Then do it. Do the journalism you say you believe is needed, figure out how to make it work in reaching the people you want to reach, then find a home for it.
I will reiterate my proposal for how to improve science communications. A side benefit that may appeal to some on this thread is that it would potentially reduce quite a bit of the back and forth in the comments sections of weblogs, although I may be over-optimistic about that.
Set up a wiki. Section it by themes. Have a central page describing a phenomenon. By invitation only, have participants with known political profiles color sections they agree with. Hence, a section colored by (eg) Gavin Schmidt and Roger Pielke Sr. would be fairly obviously considered non-controversial. Those selections highlighted by one one side could be explored in a spawning blog tied to that wiki page, loosely operated as an open thread. (I prefer that to wiki discussion because it is easier to refer to and manage a weblog externally, and this would probably require external volunteers).
Let Judith Curry and William Connelly serve as project administrators.
And let’s find out what we agree on before we continue throwing mud at each other.
willard
“their messages are (a) empowering, built on the premise that every individual can quickly learn enough to enter public discourse on climate change; and (b) delivered through many forms of media. A more effective strategy for scientists and science educators should include not only discourse approaches that enable trust, with emphasis on empowerment through reasoning skills, but also approaches that embrace the maturing discipline of media literacy education.”
so, since 2007 or so folks like me have been calling on folks like Gavin to support and encourage citizen scientists. You know by releasing code. At first, our requests were met with derision.
We pointed out how cool the surface stations project was ( gosh get volunteers working on things) and folks like Eli derided that.
At one point I suggested that warmists get involved in the citizen science project set up by watts. Oh no.
So, it’s nice that you and others finally recognize the importance of empowering people. As I explained long ago, if you release your data and your code you are sharing your power.
Now. I have some projects that warmists could help with.
Sorry Steve, I think Willard may be busy providing succor to one of our regular commenters. Seems there’s some dark conspiracy afoot that has him concerned, and only Willard can provide the cryptic comfort that he craves.
As for everthing else, Ari has a list:
http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2010/10/04/papers-on-media-and-climate-change/
Michael Tobis said yesterday: “The only places you see charts and graphs in the mass media are the financial section and the sports section.”
I grabbed at random yesterday’s New York Times, the print edition, to test this assertion. There were four separate graphs in the newspaper’s A section, from a simple graph of gasoline prices over time to a rich graphical presentation of the new California census data.
It’s a reminder of the assertion I’ve made over and over again in these discussions – that Michael’s critique of what the news media is doing is not, in fact, based on what the news media is doing.
Tom,
Willard should be aware of the advice I gave Tobis a while back. MT, like me, is an open source advocate. My suggestion to MT was that he should marry his passions for open source and his passion for doing something about climate change. .
So, wilard has shown us why the skeptics are better at this. They empower people. Now, the funny thing is this. Some scientists worried about giving power (data and code) to just anybody. Well, I say that “theory” has been tested. We are better off with an empowered public.
Those who fought against code and data release were wrong. Its time to embrace it, promote it, CREDIT THOSE WHO CALLED FOR IT, and get on with the task. Now willard has also said that warmists should NOT listen to my advice. Then of course he quotes somebody who essentially supports me.
whatever. I’ll renew my invitation to MT to join me in focusing on bringing tools to folks so they can answer questions for themselves. I like Mike. We went to the same university. Hell, I would volunteer my time to ANY programming project he thought could help HIS CAUSE. how’s that? even if he wants to do it in python..
yeah, steve, but you’re heathen scum and associate with people like me.
Here is what Boykoff & Boykoff (2007) have to say about personalization:
> Personalization ““ “the tendency to downplay the big social, economic, or political picture in favor of the human trials tragedies, and triumphs that sit at the surface of events” (Bennett, 2002, p. 45) ““ is a fundamental journalistic norm. Viewed through the personalization lens, the intersection of science and politics becomes a competition between personalities struggling for power and acting strategically in order to improve their prestige and socio-political leverage. The personalized, human-interest story conforms to the idea that news should be about individuals and personalities rather than group dynamics or social pro- cesses (Gans, 1979). Instead of concentrating on power, context, and process, the media tend to personalize social issues, focusing on the individual claims-makers who are locked in political battle. In other words, the macro is foregone in favor of the micro; structural or institutional analyses are skipped over in favor of personalized stories that stress the trials and tribulations of individuals. Only seldom are these personalized stories linked to deeper social analysis.
The two references are:
Bennett, W.L., 2002. News: the Politics of Illusion, Longman.
Gans, H., 1979. Deciding What’s News. Pantheon.
They still print that thing?
OK, not to be stubborn, I back down on my assertion insofar as the NY Times is concerned.
And I should have exempted the Economist. (And of course, USA Today has been famed from its inception on perfectly horrible ultra-lite infographics, but presumably we can leave that example out.) I don;t know that this is general, though.
How is your paper doing on this score, John?
Suppose I retreat to the point of claiming that nothing so complicated as Kiehl & Trenberth’s atmospheric energy budget diagram ever appears in a newspaper science story? I believe that this diagram should be taught in high school and that the newspapers should be getting people who have already graduated up to speed on it.
willard, personalization is considered a primary tactic for journalists and good luck getting them to abandon it. Personalization gets articles read and sells soap. It is misused and overused, but it will continue.
Tobis, I wonder what you think of the state of high school education. I would be greatly pleased to see high school students get to the point where most can appreciate or understand even such a simple diagram as Kiehl and Trenberth created, let alone discuss it. And perhaps I am over-pessimistic.
Why don’t you go to your local school board and propose it be included in the high school curriculum? Why let creationists hog the stage? (And no, I’m not comparing you to a creationist–they just do this stuff all the time.)
My point is that you are prescriptive and passive and negative about the state of affairs. When in fact you possess all the elements needed to be an agent of the change you seem to so desperately desire.
Do something about it.
Tom Fuller in #84:
> willard, personalization is considered a primary tactic for journalists and good luck getting them to abandon it. Personalization gets articles read and sells soap. It is misused and overused, but it will continue.
Tom Fuller in #81:
> yeah, steve, but you’re heathen scum and associate with people like me.
Tom Fuller in #77:
> Sorry Steve, I think Willard may be busy providing succor to one of our regular commenters. Seems there’s some dark conspiracy afoot that has him concerned, and only Willard can provide the cryptic comfort that he craves.
Willard,
when we think fight, it gets polarized
when we think debate, it gets how it should be
Tom,
Setting up a wiki takes minutes. If you don’t have a server with a public IP address, buy hosting from GoDaddy or someone. The climate-wiki.com domain is available. Take the advice you have given others and be the change you want to see.
Steve, pondering your offer.
I agree with you about open code and open data, and I don’t think the climate community is a flawless paragon of scientific virtue by any means.
Still, I don’t think a frontal attack on the community serves any purpose but to provide cover for cynical people with an interest in delaying any of the desperately needed policy action. So I have a hard time forgiving you for your past behavior and affiliations even though I agree with some of your stated goals.
Michael –
My newspaper is a disaster on this score. You got me on that one.
Though, in our defense, we did run a version of that atmospheric energy budget diagram with one of my stories a few years back. Really. Which is to say that I read lots of newspapers, and hunt out good ones that do graphical communication well. It’s a very hard problem, harder I think than writing stories, and I love it when publications devote the resources to make it happen.
My point here is that you make these grand pronouncements about the press that are wrong, and that suggest you’re not actually reading the press. If you were, you’d know that some publications are doing a good job, working hard at the problem of visual communication of quantitative information, while others are not.
It’s hard to have a useful conversation about what the press is doing with someone who doesn’t seem to be reading what we’re doing. It’s a frustration that I have over and over again in these conversations with you. If I can reach for an analogy I hope you might grasp, it’s like it must feel to you when you hear from someone who claims, “You climate guys never consider that it might be the sun!”
RE: “citizen science” and the superior involvement/personal investment/buy-in that denialist/”skeptic”/contrarian blogs seemed to offer, I wrote something in May of 2008 on that but never got it in good enough shape to put on the blog.
I think that there is certainly an element of truth to it, but I think that Mosher and others might be overestimating the actual merit somewhat (NOTE: by this I am not trying to say that it lacks value, on the contrary) for at least two reasons-
One: It’s impossible to disentangle the “buy-in” factor of contrarian blogs due to their “citizen science” projects from the general sort of in-grouping that accompanies rejection of mainstream science. Much of the same dynamic seen in the comments section of WUWT is also present in anti-vaxx forum/blog comments and they aren’t doing much in the way of “citizen science” or open source.
Two: there already are/have been examples of involvement/citizen science by the mainstream. Climateprediction.net went live in like ’03 (think SETI@home), there have been calls for citizen/volunteers for phenology projects (Project Budburst was like ’07/08), etc.
None of that is to take away from the points that: climate campaigns if not science (but likely both) would benefit from greater participant involvement, and open source is generally a good thing.
But it’s also good to keep in mind that the rejection of the implications of mainstream climate science as well as the science itself is highly correlated with political/ideological self-identification, and that no amount of open sourcing and lay involvement in the world is going to be sufficient to flip a significant number of “black helicopter” voters, much less cancel out the effect of Club For Growth/Americans For Prosperity/Heartland groups on political primaries to allow a significant number of otherwise-appealing-to-conservatives-politicians to support significant action on climate change.
So Steve, once again we see:
“the world is heading for a disaster.”
“but we decline your offer of help to prevent disaster because we don’t like the company you keep.”
A strong and interesting point, Tom. But on the other hand, you are not personally acquainted with the injured parties.
Tom (90),
I see Michael’s comment (87) as more nuanced than that–one might say, conflicted.
I realize your past history with Michael and other denizens has made you cynical and somewhat bitter, but try viewing his comments on a comment by comment basis. The excessive personalization of these discussions is mostly good for point-scoring, not for advancing the ball.
PDA, thank you for your kind advice. I have set up and administered wikis several times in the past for clients, and believe I remember how to get them set up and running.
For now, I will decline your request for two reasons. First, I am not among those who believe the process is irretrievably broken. I think the truth does come out and we converge at a newer, higher point on the spiral of learning.
Second, due to people like you, thingsbreak, willard and Tobis, I am associated with skinheads who pretend the Holocaust never occurred, despite fairly clear explanations of what I really believe. I think that my participation in a project would lead to quick dismissals of any claim to legitimacy, much like is happening with BEST from creeps like Joe Romm.
My co-author, being possessed of a larger heart and good will, could actually help, but he is rejected. I, who have actually managed projects of this scope successfully in the past, have been pre-disqualified because of lies about what I think and believe.
So go to your high school district and get Trenberth’s graph put in the curriculum. And please don’t stop moaning about the dire state of journalism. It is quite entertaining.
> [D]ue to people like you, thingsbreak, willard and Tobis, I am associated with skinheads who pretend the Holocaust never occurred, despite fairly clear explanations of what I really believe.
Tom Fuller should provide evidence for his claims from time to time.
Tom Fuller should do his own Google search and report back.
Even an anecdote would be fine.
Some people are not worth the effort. Fortunately, Tobis is linked from here.
“willard: but he’s fluff
to spot memes
he learns his lines
and then he repeats them
ad nauseam
copycat strategy
“hmmm
here is a skeptic blog
let’s go tell them about green stuff
oh look, a warmist blog, let’s try hockeysticks
but
behind his character
there is a loyalty to the contrarians
he took the whip away from jeff id at Bart’s
he derails you
willard: the trick is that what he says has no importance whatsoever
it’s what he does that counts
willard: just ask yourself what he’s doing
lol
greasemonkey can do that
why take on Kloor?
willard: Keith is mocking you and your kind
just let him be
you have more to provide than a fight with keith”
So, willard, go bother someone else.
Tom (95)
I too read the latest amusing climate psychotherapy session over at Michael’s site.
So listen, all this stuff said on other blogs goes with the territory. Gotta pick and choose your battles.
Keith #96, I think that’s what I just did, innit?
@93 Tom Fuller:
Second, due to people like you, thingsbreak, willard and Tobis, I am associated with skinheads who pretend the Holocaust never occurred, despite fairly clear explanations of what I really believe.
Tom, I’m usually in favor of letting bygones be bygones, but if you want to kick this particular hornet’s nest again, so be it.
I have never “associated you with skinheads who pretend the Holocaust never occurred”. This is completely false, and you know it. I am certainly not alone in discriminating between the idioms “denial” “denialism” and “Holocaust denial”, and while I am sorry that you are incapable of doing so, that’s hardly my fault.
Moreover, I am perfectly content to leave you be when you’re not strawmanning people who aren’t around, or claiming to be a journalist when you’re clearly failing to meet your own definition of journalism and engaging in hallmarks of science denialism (e.g fake experts) in the process.
I’d like to request, for what I hope is the final time, that you leave your petty grudges behind when engaging on third party sites like this one. It drops the signal to noise rate incredibly, and it’s rude to the host. Email me or comment on my blog if you want to make these kinds of accusations against me, or blog about it yourself, but for pete’s sake, just knock it off here.
Quit calling people deniers, then.
It is hate speech. Hate speech is determined by its impact on those who are subjected to the term, not by those who utter it. People have repeatedly told you they find the term offensive. You continue to use it. Maybe someone should tell you that things break when you flail around with a hammer.
“I would like to say we’re at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.” Ellen Goodman, 2007.
In #95, Tom Fuller quotes from this:
http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2011/03/willard-on-meta-journalism-meta-thread.html
My characterization of him as using contrarian tricks should be evidence that I am associating him “with skinheads who pretend the Holocaust never occurred”.
Pure fluff, yet again.
The copycat trick is powerful enough to become invulnerable at chess. See Derron Brown for a perfect illustration:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaODx-alm4k
John Fleck has put together a nice cliff notes version of this discussion.
Since John Fleck’s spambot hates “willard”‘s guts, here it is:
***
> Michael Tobis and “willard” collaborated on an adaptation of Waiting for Godot that seems to have something to do with the discussion, though I’m not sure what.
John Fleck can drop the scare quotes: I am not Michael’s puppet. Unless you want to use them for Andy too.
Waiting for Godot seems more precise to me than Keith’s comparison to psychotherapy. If his analyst acts like I do, Keith should dump him or her or it.
Waiting for Godot also portrays quite well the usual blog hurly burly:
It begins when someone mentions another person, who talks about something. Then this someone says that we should not talk about that. Then we argue about what we should talk about. Then the conversation gets personal. Then we argue about how we should talk. Then we ask ourselves why we are talking about that. Then comes another blog post.
This very blog post [that is, the one by John Fleck] shows that we are at reaching the end of the loop.
So here again, we’re having a conversation about a conversation. And here again, we’ll never have the conversation we seem to wish we’d have. Everything seems to point to the fact that we’ll ever have this conversation. We’re all waiting to have THE conversation.
If we’re expecting to have this conversation, we might be very well be waiting for Godot.
PS: Oh, and speaking of balance – http://www.ginandtacos.com/2011/03/10/journalism/
“My co-author, being possessed of a larger heart and good will, could actually help, but he is rejected. I, who have actually managed projects of this scope successfully in the past, have been pre-disqualified because of lies about what I think and believe.”
Just for the record Tom, some people doing climate science and tools used by climate scientists have accepted help. I do not ask for any recognition or acknowledgment cause I understand that they might be conflicted. I don’t judge their heirarchy of values. For me the dedication to sharing power is fundamental. Funny, I got this from a skeptic friend who once asked “why are you helping XYZ, he said shitty things about me” for me being useful takes precedence over being liked. If folks dont like me, well thats none of my business. peace be upon them.
Willard, the issue is you can’t be a part of any conversation. At least not with me. Me, I could have a conversation with MT. We went to the same college. If he came to SF i would offer to take him out to dinner. Same with McIntyre and watts, Zeke hausfather, Tim Palmer, Peter Webster, Richard Muller, Willis, em smith, tom fuller, Robert Rhodes, Leif Svalgaard ( and his lovely wife) Hans Von Storch. we have conversations. On the blogs, on the phone, by email, over dinner. Humans.
Other entities that appear on the internet are just pixels. fun to play with, fun to try conversational strategies with, but one really isnt serious about them. kinda like phone sex.
you know the drill, say that thing I pay you say. please willard.
An interesting sentence from the Revkin article that Steve Sullivan cited earlier:
> One solution to the tyranny of balance is for writers to cultivate scientists in various realms””chemistry, climatology, oceanography””whose expertise and lack of investment in a particular bias are well established.
Scientist farming should solve our problem.
Source: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.168.4283&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Science farming won’t solve the “problem”
Let’s draw a cartoon of what happens. The main stream media farms it’s unbiased balanced experts. At some point, citizen journalism, (blogs) who have no access to this set of experts decide to cultivate their own crops.
Its a simple matter to then frame what it said on the internet as the “real” truth . More or less if you look at the phenomena of Mcintyre it is largely one of his “news” on the internet was used to criticize the narrowness of the focus of the MSM at which point the MSM doesnt want to miss ‘the story’ so they are forced into telling a more ‘balanced’ story. people read what they want to hear. and one story they love to read is how the MSM distorts the truth.
In other words, attempts at trying to constrain the message are themselves representations that I can turn into a story. “the story you wont hear from the MSM.” There is only one way to control the “sign”
power.
Tom Fuller, in #84, on the 2011-03-10, at 14:27 –
> willard, personalization is considered a primary tactic for journalists and good luck getting them to abandon it. Personalization gets articles read and sells soap. It is misused and overused, but it will continue.
Source: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/2011/03/08/climate-follies/comment-page-3/#comment-51966
Me, in #53, on the 2011-03-09, at 13:43 –
> My impression about personalizing stories is that this is not a practice that will be disappearing soon. In fact, reading this thread should be enough to prove my point.
Source: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/2011/03/08/climate-follies/comment-page-3/#comment-51663
Tom Fuller, in #84, on the 2011-03-10, at 14:27 –
> willard, personalization is considered a primary tactic for journalists and good luck getting them to abandon it. Personalization gets articles read and sells soap. It is misused and overused, but it will continue.
Me, in #53, on the 2011-03-09, at 13:43 –
> My impression about personalizing stories is that this is not a practice that will be disappearing soon. In fact, reading this thread should be enough to prove my point.