alexlockwood.net

Response to Cristine Russell: climate change, now what?

Online now at the Columbia Journalism Review, Cristine Russell has put forward an essay on how we were, are, and should be covering climate change across the media. It’s a great piece, full of excellent examples, and picked up by other respected media commentators.

Cristine is president of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing and a fellow in Harvard’s Kennedy Center. She explores a number of different areas, and is particularly good on the development of themes for coverage over the next year, and how climate reporting is affecting every beat.

I’ve written a long response (which is in full below), but in summary:

1. We are living in unprecedented times
Both for journalism and for our relationship to the environment. The press in the US and UK is going through a step-change which seems pretty painful and disastrous. Commentaries from Jay Rosen and Jeff Jarvis in the US, the Guardian and bloggers in the UK, show that the old press industry will not survive in its present shape. Couple this with the fact that people will spend more time local as we shift to a low-carbon economy. This may be working from home, growing their own vegetables, or staying within the ‘rationed’ driving area.

There is an opportunity for the media to expand their focus from ‘how people live their lives’ to ‘how people live their lives in low-carbon ways‘—putting environment at the heart of the media offer. I do not see a contradiction between providing “information that is good for them to know” and a clear, ethical, transparent choice to become advocates for low-carbon living. Not today, with what we know about climate change. A shift in the ethics of journalism perhaps, but one that remains fair, accurate and unbiased in its “good to know” informational role.

2. The problem of online
Cristine rightly points out that “the era of “equal time” for sceptics who argue that global warming is just a result of natural variation and not human intervention seems to be largely over” with the caveat of “except on talk radio, cable, and local television.” And also, critically, online. This is not a small issue.

Public forums that followed an appalling piece of TV called ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ broadcast on Channel 4 were anecdotally recorded as “supporting the programme’s sceptical stance by about six to one”. This forum ‘result’ has been held up as justification by Channel 4 as reason to screen similar junk-science programmes in the future, in the name of ‘objective’ debate. The question is: how much time to do we have to encourage media freedoms that freely amplify uncertainties that may be helping hold back political action on such an unprecedented issue?

3. Getting over green fatigue
It’s happening. People are fatigued, and yet coverage of the environment is appallingly low. What can those of us who analyse the media contribute to how to cover climate change in the future so that it does not suffer from cyclical phases of fatigue?

4. The Rhetoric Beat
Echoing the thoughts of Brent Cunningham writing in the CJR a few days ago, we need to increase the awareness of the abuses of rhetoric promoted to and also used among journalists.

I’m hugely thankful Cristine has written this piece and prompted me to comment. Any responses from Cristine or the CJR I’ll post here.

The full response is below:

Dear Cristine,

Your recent article ‘Climate Change: Now What?’ has brought out in me both the great optimism and often depressing fear that any sustained engagement with the issue of climate change brings to those of us working in this area. I’m sure you’ve experienced the same at some point reading a new scientific report or inspiring story of community actions.

I am, first of all, thankful for the thoughts, insight and commitment you’ve shown to the subject matter, and for the increased coverage that the CJR has given the issue over the past few months. I am Lecturer in Journalism at a University in the UK, currently researching the media coverage of climate change (most pressingly for a book chapter coming out next year). My work is also focused on this question in relation to media responses to climate change: now what?

I enjoyed your article. More than that, it is fantastically useful for the research I am doing at present. It has also prompted a number of thoughts and responses, some of which have only crystallized because of the opportunity to respond to work addressing the same or similar themes as myself.

What I would like to add are some thoughts that may continue the dialogue over how journalism can better respond to climate change in what does seem to be a new era for coverage.

The How, as well as the What and Why
Back in 2005 I spent an evening chatting with a friend, Sarah Lewis, about her pending interview for the role of Environment Editor on a local UK newspaper, the Brighton Argus. I remember clearly talking through with her the idea that she should tell the paper “don’t write about the environment; put the environment in everything you write.” (She got the job).

On this, your article brilliantly expands on what environment and other beat journalists can and should be looking to explore in the coming year. And I’d emphasize your point about techno-optimism, and would urge journalists (and analysts) to read the G8 declaration on climate change very carefully for just such techno-optimism. The 50% cuts by 2050 are already seen as not enough; and these cuts are dependent on refocusing efforts away from taxes, cap-and-trade and other emissions reductions schemes, and away from existing renewable, onto R&D into new technologies.

However, my main point is that I think we (you, I, journalism) need to consider the How as much as the What or Why; and in that, I felt we need to go further to discuss in which ways the how of reporting climate change and energy issues can (must?) play the major part in contributing to the “thoughtful leadership and coordination” that you rightly see as required in news organisations.

In that, there are four ‘How’ areas that I’d like to put forward as a response to your article. Obviously I’m writing from the UK and know the UK market and geography better but, I would argue, these can at some level also apply to the US and our globalised journalism industry. These are:

1.    How the industry can drive low-carbon living as one of its core journalistic norms
2.    How to deal with the abuses of new media freedoms
3.    How to avoid green fatigue but still get climate in the headlines
4.    How to address the rhetoric (or training for ‘the rhetoric beat’)

How the industry can drive low-carbon living as one of its core journalistic norms
This is perhaps the most contentious, as it is the key structural change.

You emphasize the important public service role that journalists should take: “journalists should not be cheerleaders.” It’s interesting, however, that one of the final quotes you use, from ABC News Correspondent Bill Blakemore, is a clear value-laden statement: journalists should “give the audience information that is a good thing to know” [my emphasis]. I do get the difference, and support the same level of rigour that I am sure you call for in the fairness and integrity of reporting. The question , rather, is this: if the IPCC is right, and we have only 100 months left to act, what is a good thing to know right now?

I don’t think it’s worth spending much more time on the objective/subjective debate. But as you say of Bill Blakemore, “the nature of the climate-change story carries even more of a responsibility and psychological burden than the dozen wars he has covered.”

I have had similar conversations with journalists in the UK. A few weeks ago I interviewed Mark Lynas, author of Six Degrees, recent recipient of the Royal Society Award for environmental writing. We met at his Oxford home which has been subject to severe flooding over the past few years. It is the anecdote with which he opens his book. Beyond this, Mark has been one of the leading proponents for action on climate change. And he is a journalist; a “campaigning journalist”, in his own words. For him, the issue on how we report climate change is clear:

“There is no objective when dealing with something of such critical importance. I’ve had this argument with the BBC. No-one seeks objectivity on issues such as race or genocide; they’re just too big and important. These things are reported within an ethical context, and this ethical context is just as relevant for climate change.”

So we are living in “unprecedented” times, both for journalism and for our relationship to the environment (which is so very often mediated through journalism). It is now an ethical question. And as such, I feel it possible to ask for unprecedented measures to be discussed.

The press in the US and UK is going through a step-change which at times seems pretty painful and disastrous. The commentaries this week from Jay Rosen and Jeff Jarvis among others in the US, and in the Guardian and from respected bloggers in the UK, show that the old press industry will not survive in its present shape. So, how will it change?

How people build and support local economies / local community is critical in how painless the move to a less carbon-intensive future will be. People will spend more time local. This may be working from home, growing their own vegetables, or staying within the ‘rationed’ driving area. A report this morning from the US shows how suburban areas are actually doing ok through the oil price crisis, as people stay at home more. And hopefully and developing their sense of their locale.

There is an opportunity for the media, and particularly newspaper groups, to reinvent themselves with the environment—or more precisely, expanding their focus on how people live their lives to focus on how people live their lives in low-carbon ways—at the heart of their media offer. There has been a slow creep towards lifestyle media over the last fifty years, some good, some bad. But lifestyle media should not necessarily mean a lack of quality journalistic practice. Lifestyle could mean energy consumption as well as eating out; and it could mean increased civic input into local policy as well as listings for city nightlife. I do not see a contradiction between providing “information that is good for them to know” and a clear, ethical, transparent choice to become advocates for low-carbon living. Not today, with what we know about climate change. A shift in the ethics of journalism perhaps, but one that remains fair, accurate and unbiased in its “good to know” informational role.

And this will be good for journalism, and sits comfortably alongside the shift to digital. In the words of Neil Benson, Editorial Director for one of our largest regional paper groups Trinity Mirror, regional papers can survive when they start seeing themselves as “community media franchises”. He explains:

A typical weekly paper might reach 60 per cent of a community; a well-developed group of websites plus a paper will reach 80 per cent. The developing community media companies will play a greater role in local democracy not less.

The emphasis of this statement lies not only on media, but on community.

How to deal with the abuses of new media freedoms
You rightly point out that “the era of “equal time” for sceptics who argue that global warming is just a result of natural variation and not human intervention seems to be largely over” with the caveat of “except on talk radio, cable, and local television.”

And also, critically, online. This is not a small issue, because the influence (both positive and negative) of fully-fledged and ‘citizen’ journalism on the wider public understanding of climate change can be huge. A couple of examples:

1.    The popular sceptic blog Wattsupwiththat.com (written by former TV meteorologist Anthony Watt) had a huge 582,000 page views last month (June 2008). That’s bigger than many of our leading news magazines, which are subject to press regulation and the journalistic reporting norms of fairness and accuracy. And his followers then promulgate these sceptical views around the web.

2.    Andreas Yttersand from Oslo University College, Norway, has just published on the power wielded by Norwegian bloggers over changes made to national climate policy.

3.    The public forums that followed an appalling piece of TV called ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ broadcast on our Channel 4 (a public service broadcaster) were anecdotally recorded (PDF) as “supporting the programme’s sceptical stance by about six to one”. This forum ‘result’ has been held up as justification by Channel 4 as reason to screen the programme, and to screen similar junk-science programmes in the future, in the name of ‘objective’ debate. The power, then, of online to skew the view that climate science ‘is still up for debate’ is deeply troubling.

As described by BBC documentary film maker Adam Curtis, what is happening is that new media freedoms from regulation, rather than contribute to any new democracy, has led to “a rigid, simplified view of the world, which is negotiated by mainstream media in response to the bullying extremities.”

The question for journalism (rather than journalists) is: what limits do we have to debate? What can or should we ask of the regulators, ISPs, or even governments, to help fact-check, at a structural level, the information entering the public sphere? I am a passionate advocate for freedom of expression. My time working with and for both Index on Censorship and OneWorld, and time spent working with journalists in Zambia, South Africa, and Eastern Europe, have provided me insights into worlds where democratic freedoms of free information are not upheld, and the consequences thereof. But journalists work under the peer pressure of journalistic norms, within institutions.

The question is: how much time to do we have to encourage media freedoms that freely amplify uncertainties that may be helping hold back political action on such an unprecedented issue?

How to avoid green fatigue but still get climate in the headlines
There is (almost) a paradox in your report: I totally agree with you that there is a real problem with ‘green fatigue’. And yet as you point out, quoting Nisbet and the Project for Excellence in Journalism, environmental coverage is appallingly low in relation to its importance. Only 1.7%, behind sports and celebrity coverage. I’ve conducted some relatively crude similar research in the UK, and found that coverage of climate change was, in May 2008, 40% down on the same time the year before. And yet still the UK public are suffering from the same fatigue.

This I imagine is to do with the rapid increase in coverage (rather than its total amount) and the way in which green now permeates everything. As it should, in my opinion, but I feel I am wrong on this. “You’ve got to come up with something new.  You don’t revisit. You don’t want to bore the reader, as then they’ll just stop listening,” the Times (UK) Environment Reporter, Lewis Smith, told me in another interview last week. The topic of the forthcoming Guardian Climate Change Summit is also: how to beat green fatigue?

So, while I think your address to the different beat reporters is excellent, what else can those of us who analyse the media contribute to a strategic debate about how to cover climate change in the future so that it does not suffer from cyclical phases of fatigue? I don’t yet have answers to this (or any of these) questions. I would be very much interested in maintaining a dialogue with yourself and others over how to do this.

How to address the rhetoric (or training for ‘the rhetoric beat’)
Lastly (and so you don’t suffer too much fatigue from this letter I will be brief) I feel that, echoing the thoughts of Brent Cunningham writing in the CJR a few days ago, an address to journalists in their rhetorical strategies for reporting climate change is important for how the issue is covered. As an example, you mention Time’s use of the “war” metaphor twice, and you see this as representing a shift away from news to opinion.

I think it is worse than that. The ‘securitization’ of the climate issue, particularly in the US but not solely (it was the tactic used by our Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher when she gave her talk to the UN on climate change back in November 1989) contributes to an alignment of climate change with neoliberal economics, and war economies, that are perhaps what has got us into this mess in the first place. I don’t want to see climate change mitigation and adaptation as ‘war’ efforts: global wars only benefit the military-industrial complexes, and it is a dangerous rhetoric that speaks to us of far more than a slide into opinion.

How can we use this opportunity of a fundamental step-change in the way we lead our lives to encourage a renewed ‘rhetoric beat’ in journalism: both watching the rhetoric of politicians, corporations and government, as well as the rhetoric of journalists themselves.

Anyway, I am sure I have taken up far too much of your time with this.

Just to say I will be returning to your essay when I come to write my book chapter in the next few weeks, and I am sure I will return to it time and again after that.

Your work on this subject is greatly appreciated and respected, and I hope that the detail of my response communicates this appreciation over and above any constructive (I hope!) criticism it may contain.

All best,

Alex Lockwood

Related posts:

1. The Onion, CJR do climate change The Columbia Journalism Review and The Onion have both turned...
2. Networked journalism to cover climate change How can citizen media help improve the mainstream and commercial...
3. Twenty years on: covering climate change I wonder what the long-term impact will be on my...
4. BBC impartiality and climate change Tony at Harmless Sky has been following , for...
5. Climate change: how to balance freedoms Thanks for all the comments so far. The post...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

View blog reactions