- :: Atom & Cosmos
- :: Body & Brain
- :: Earth
- :: Environment
- :: Genes & Cells
- :: Humans
- :: Life
- :: Matter & Energy
- :: Molecules
- :: Science & Society
- :: Other Topics
- :: Science News For Kids
Text Size
For the last three days, I’ve been attending a climate-change conference for journalists at Ohio State University. There were plenty of science sessions and even some visits to labs that were quite cool (as in -30 °F). But one of the more provocative talks focused not on glaciology, sea-surface temperatures, or atmospheric aerosols; it probed social science to try and explain why climate science remains apparently irrelevant to many people.
Matthew Nisbet of American University pointed to analyses of recent opinion-polling data that indicate a large share of Americans (including a disproportionate share of Republicans) are not swayed by the steady stream of data indicating that global warming is underway and that the magnitude of warming is being amplified by human activities.
He cited data from a host of sources, but especially the paper that I cited in my Sept. 22 blog. Among other things, this paper reported finding that the more educated a Republican was, the less likely he or she was to believe climate science.
What’s behind this counterintuitive observation can only be guessed at. Nisbet’s theory: People have too many choices about where they’re going to get their news that they may miss the most honest accounts.
Thirty years ago, he reminds us, three networks ruled the television airwaves. Before and after prime-time sitcoms and drama, people encountered news. And even those who weren’t immensely curious about the politics and economics dominating their communities tuned in if only to get the weather report or sports highlights. Most also glanced at their local daily paper.
In other words, homes across America were pretty uniformly getting at least a taste of news every day, and roughly the same news — from conventional news outlets.
We now live in a very different world. Most homes receive access to hundreds of TV channels via cable or satellite transmissions. Those not interested in news at dinner time or bedtime can instead watch the Simpsons, music videos or westerns. Viewers wanting sports or weather tend to tune into dedicated networks delivering round-the-clock coverage of just that.
And news junkies need no longer settle for twice or thrice daily 15 to 30 minute broadcasts. They can now surf hosts of channels that deliver news or news analyses virtually nonstop. However, Nisbet points out, many of these newsy venues don’t report news so much as ruminate on it, spin news findings and rant.
People who tilt to the left have their choice of broadcast venues that support their views. Those whose political values lean to the right can choose from a mix of stations that reinforce more conservative values. Even libertarians, socialists and “mavericks” of other stripes can find public affairs outlets consistent with their principles.
So if people have preconceived notions of what should — or shouldn’t — be true, they can find one or more networks to reinforce that bias. And there are even more opportunities to cherry pick interpretations of science and other news developments on the Web (where interpretive blogs far outweigh journalistic accounts attempting to exhibit balance).
What about newspapers? Industry losses suggest these news outlets are becoming increasingly irrelevant as people eschew such staid, long-form journalism in favor of shorter and snappier highlights.
Large segments of society can therefore tune out the news — or news that irritates, explains Nisbet. In this environment, he says, there’s no way to ensure that large segments of society learn about particular science developments — or hear them in ways that reflect how researchers initially portrayed their data.
The take-home lesson, says Nisbet, a professor in AU’s School of Communication, is that to reach increasingly reluctant eyes and ears, reporters must “frame climate change” in ways that will make it “personally relevant” to their audience. Perhaps, he argues, findings should be delivered in ways that would fit with the world view of spiritualists, of fundamentalist Christians, of free-market advocates, of economic opportunists or some other demographic slice of the American pie.
Many participants at the Ohio State meeting — both journalists and scientists alike — appeared to accept Nisbet’s first premise: that the world has changed to the point where assumptions can no longer reliably be made about what interpretation of climate science people will be exposed to. What conference goers tended to challenge was Nisbet’s contention that the news media should therefore “frame” climate news in different ways, depending on the audience. And that those frames should be tailored to the attitudinal filters of each audience segment.
A number of other journalists and I found this idea to be uncomfortably manipulative. Even devious, maybe. I’m sure that’s not how Nisbet meant it, but this “framing” approach could certainly lead us down that slippery slope.
Scientists at the meeting responded to the talk in an almost awed horror. Several came up to me asking what hope we had of convincing people that global warming was real if the data they were painstakingly compiling and vetting through peer review would be twisted by spin doctors or simply ignored.
Like I said: The talk was provocative. And it’s something all of us should think about because although the focus of this conference was climate, the same polarizing disconnect between science and news reports is developing in a number of other controversial areas as well. Such as over cloning, genetically modified organisms, animal testing, transgender identification, and the safety or efficacy of alternatives to conventional medicine (such as herbal therapy).
Science is not the end-all. But it makes a sound beginning for informed public policy. If it can be believed. What will scientists and their public voice — journalists — have to do to restore faith in science?
Found in: Climate Change and Science & Society
- Dunlap, R.E. and A.M. McCright. 2008. A Widening Gap: Republican and Democratic Views on Climate Chanage. Environment (September/October). [Go to]
- Science & the Public : GNP’s glaciers: Going, going . . .
- Science & the Public : Insurance payouts point to climate change
- Science & the Public : Bush meat can be a viral feast
- On the Scene : Vying for the title of World's Fastest Cell
- Deleted Scenes : Moony shot
Please alert Science News to any inappropriate posts by clicking the REPORT SPAM link within the post. Comments will be reviewed before posting.
A review of average US temperatures from 1880 shows that the ten warmest years occurred in five different decades, with 1934 the warmest year on record, not 1998. If the IPCC climate models were correct, we would still be warming, but scientists are now talking about 20 years of cooling.
Finally, Republicans are more critical of big government programs while Democrats revere them. It would be interesting to see where Libertarians and Independents rank on believe/dis-believe scale. Given the documented bias of the big three networks, it is not surprising that a greater diversity of news sources gives a greater diversity of opinion.
Republicans expect government to solve problems that the individual cannot, and to minimize the impacts on the individual in the process. The various proposals to mitigate global warming all involve high costs and severe restrictions to individual liberties. Cap and Trade, carbon sequestration and other proposals to limit CO2 emissions will drive our energy costs sky high. A study in New Zealand states that cap and trade there will cost each household NZ$3,000. (WSJ Asia 5/13/08).
Global warming as proposed by the IPCC is constantly revised. The amount of warming has been reduced is each successive report as their model becomes better. Unfortunately models only reflect the assumptions of the programmers, and climate science is still in its infancy. There are new peer reviewed articles on a weekly basis that point to climate drivers other than CO2. The sun's output, cosmic rays, aerosols and other factors are being advanced as important climate modifiers. I would argue that Republicans are paying attention to the uncertainty while Democrats are running on faith (religion?).
All well and good if one is reporting from both sides of the divide. Oh, yeah, sorry, the science is settled. I will go back to the sports channel now. ZZZzzz
Science Isn't What It Used To Be
A. From "The News Climate"
[Link was removed]
- "Whether people choose to peruse news ג€” and where ג€” may explain what role science plays in shaping public opinion on global warming."
- "Science is not the end-all. But it makes a sound beginning for informed public policy. If it can be believed. What will scientists and their public voice — journalists — have to do to restore faith in science?"
B. Science isn't what it used to be
Until the end of 2nd WW Science used to be regarded by "people" with respect, awe and trust. It
was a banner of a route to better and brighter humanity.
But since the mid 20th century science has been ruthlessly overcome by the Technology Culture, with the cowardly cooperation of the organised "scientists" establishment. Instead of being a banner of hope for the "people" it has become a mirror of the "technology-culture brainwashed people".
C. From "Western Culture Wavers At 2008 Junction"
[Link was removed] #entry380527
We are facing now a period of several years of painful exposures and treatments of more and more malignant pnenomena of economic-cultural aspects of our societal organisation.
We need a fresh authoritative scientific organization, freed from the hitherto politically correct webs of "spititual realms" and "technologically-applicable-only" cultures.
An Enlightenment course of societal evolution matrixed on rational scientific grounds may become probable and possible if a fresh authoritative scientific organization is established "by and for the people including scientists", in which scientists operate and make editorial decisions on scientific rather than on political grounds.
It is obvious that our culture must undergo a radical change, in nationally considered and planned direction and manner, with national and global security and welfare considerations. Are we up to it?
Dov Henis
(A DH Comment From The 22nd Century)
[Link was removed]
You must register with Science News to add a comment. To log-in click here. To register as a new user, follow this link.