News media organizations face a daily challenge when it comes to determining the stories that
ultimately reach the public. But are we falling far short when it comes to coverage of critical
environmental issues? Dr. Bruno Takahashi is Associate Professor of Environmental
Journalism and Communications at Michigan State University. He's the research director of the
Knight Center for Environmental Journalism and an expert in media coverage of environmental
affairs and the links between media and policy. Thanks so much for joining us, Dr. Takahashi.
Thank you, Sharon, for the invitation. Happy to be here.
This season alone has seen several
major environmental disasters from hurricanes to wildfires.
What are some of the biggest myths surrounding them right now? And how are those perpetuated?
The coverage of issues such as wildfires, such as hurricanes and other natural hazards,
are oftentimes connected to larger climatic changes. So when we talk about many of these
particular hazards, news organizations tend to make that link almost immediately. It wasn't
the case maybe 10 years ago, but we see it much more often nowadays. Now I'm not saying
that there's no link. But I'm saying that it's very difficult to attribute a specific
event to climate change. So journalists have to be very careful in making those connections. It's
important to put them into context. But saying that one particular wildfire was caused by climate
change, it could be problematic. There are a lot of scientific uncertainties, a lot of unknowns
that we need to take into consideration before being able to make those links. That's one
of the things that certainly journalists have to be careful and not perpetuate those myths.
The other thing that journalists need to keep into consideration is that single studies that are
produced by scientists typically are part of a larger body of research. And journalists tend to
sometimes, in occasions, miss that point. And therefore, a study that might find a relationship
between two factors might not fit within the larger scope of research in a particular area.
Again, going back to the example of hurricanes, there's still a lot of research being done, trying
to examine that connection between hurricanes and climate change. Some evidence suggests that
the level of damage that we're experiencing in the United States due to hurricanes has increased.
Part of that is because populations are growing, wealth is growing, therefore the property that
is damaged and destroyed, it's more costly. Now, sometimes that is used as an example of
climate change exacerbated hurricanes. But there's also evidence that suggests that
the intensity and frequency of those hurricanes have not changed dramatically
in the last several decades. So there's quite a bit of research that needs to be done still,
to be able to make those connections. And we need to try to as journalists,
and people in the media need to be careful in how we make those connections based on
maybe a single study or based on incomplete understanding of our of a research area.
Well, how typically does mainstream media address rumors, myths, inaccuracies?
That's a very important question. Nowadays, it's very difficult for news media to navigate
the current media environment, and we talk about this and current media environment is a highly
polluted, polluted media environment, which means that we no longer have news organizations
telling us what are the important issues happening around the world or in our
communities. But we have a variety of different stakeholders, and voices in this same ecosystem,
whether they are blogs or YouTube channels or other forms of communications, social media,
for example, is a big one. And journalists need to navigate this this ecosystem very carefully.
Because one of the big issues that we see today is that many people do not differentiate
between trusted media sources, news sources, and other forms of communication or information. So
journalists are in this position where they have to somewhat try to reinvent themselves
and reposition themselves in a way that that makes them more visible and more trusted. And we know
right now, the level of trust among the American public is for many organizations, or at least the
mainstream media, is fairly low. So journalists need to be careful in how they present their
information or facts. Take into consideration that there might be other forms of truths out
there and facts that are presented that might run counter to what they are saying. It's a very
delicate balance for journalists to try to make.
Well, without question, though the biggest question surrounding environmental coverage
have to do with the impact of climate change. It's been called the biggest story of our
time and yet studies show that it receives far less coverage than even entertainment stories.
So have pervasive attitudes become entrenched in the media,
and how does that impact our understanding of climate change?
That's a great question, Sharon. Coverage of climate change really started in the late 80s,
when Professor Hansen from NASA testified in front of the US Senate. Since then, the coverage has
gone up and down, up and down, depending on specific events. So for instance,
during hurricane season, in the last few years, we see more coverage because of that connection
that I mentioned earlier. We also see a spike of coverage, peaks of coverage during November and
December, when the Conference of the Parties of the United Nations gathered together to discuss
global plans for to combat climate change. So we can expect when to see quite a bit of coverage
during presidential elections, for example, and we have one coming up in a few weeks. At least in the
last one in 2016, climate change was not part of the of the larger discussion, was not really an
issue in the presidential election agenda. There are fears that this coming election will also miss
climate change, despite again, as a nation being the biggest story of our generation. Part of the
of the reasons why we see climate change missing from the agenda is related a lot to perceptions
with the media, but also perceptions of among the audiences across the country. So if the issue is
not perceived as important by the population, news media might not want to pick up on that topic,
because there might be a perception that other issues are more important. And it is of course,
a feedback loop. So if media do not see that interest among audiences, they’re not gonna
cover it, if audiences do not see the issue being covered in the media, they're not going to think
it's an important issue. The extreme weather events that we're seeing today and the predictions
that we are hearing from scientists suggest that this should be front page news in every newspaper,
news outlet for the next several years. Of course, media tend to favor certain niches over others,
depending on the news values that they ascribe to. Which is, of course, the main reason why the
pandemic is front page news. But we also saw the pandemic dropping from that status with
the Black Lives Matters movement a few months ago. So it's very cyclical, and dependent on
a lot of external factors. And climate change has certainly suffered from that across time.
Well there are two sides to every story. But what are the impacts of
exploring both sides of the debate when it is the environment that is at stake?
That's a great question. And we've seen throughout the throughout the years, again, going back to
the issue of climate change, which I think it's the most polarizing issue there. The scientific
evidence suggests in communication suggests climate change is the most polarizing issue in the
United States. We see that the research looking at content and media content shows that journalists
use this normal balance reporting, which is what we teach our students in our journalism schools,
you got to have at least two sides to the story, at least two sources, if not more. Now,
the issue with that is that in the case of climate change, and many other scientific issues,
the scientific community overwhelmingly presents evidence that suggests that
there is a relationship, there is a consensus. That's what we call a scientific consensus. In
the case of climate change, some studies suggest that the level of consensus among scientists,
and these are climate scientists by the way, it's around 97-98%. So that would suggest that
presenting the other side would be somewhat of a form of false models. And some of the research
shows that earlier coverage of climate change back in the 80s, 90s, up to the early 2000s used
that form of false balance. So that's somebody presenting the scientific consensus, and someone
representing the skeptical position of that side. We've seen the last maybe the last decade or so,
news media moving away from that form of balance, recognizing that he was problematic,
following what we now call consensus balance or consensus reporting, which means that
these skeptic sources are not given the space that they used to be given a few decades ago, a few
years ago. And if they are, if the story demands a skeptical voice, that it's put in context,
that it’s put in a way that it's used in a way that clearly suggests that there is a consensus
in the scientific community about climate change. And we see that happening in other issues as well.
And we can certainly see it in the context of the pandemic, although it's a little bit less certain,
the agreement in the scientific community. But in the case of climate change, it's pretty clear.
Well environmental issues are critical to our economy, our heath, our quality of life. What
is happening inside newsrooms, that impacts news coverage of sensitive issues like these?
As you well know, news media in the United States and across many countries around the world,
are in a state of crisis, mostly because of an inadequate business model. So news organizations
are in a position where they have to cover issues that really sell. And this is not new.
But we see that at least at the local level, newspapers are disappearing every single day, they
are in their way to extinction. And that's highly problematic for communities for local reporting.
And we also see mainstream media organizations being impacted financially, because of the rise
of other forms of communication, and shifting attitudes towards news, as I mentioned earlier,
distrust towards news sources. And that certainly has an effect on revenue in the form of
subscriptions and in the form of advertising. So what happened in the late 90s, and more recently,
in this century, is that many of these news organizations had to cut certain
areas in their newsrooms. And for the most part, the specialized beats like environment, science,
health, were among the first to go. So we went from having specialized reporters, environmental
or science reporters within newsrooms, in most news organizations to do having basically none.
So there's a lot more reliance on freelancers today, which could be problematic in the sense
that many of the other freelancers might not have the same resources that a staff reporter
might have. And the same happens with in terms of training of those journalists. And many of these
freelancers have to report not only in science and environment, but they're reporting in a variety
of different issues. And the evidence suggests that reporting on a topic frequently increases
the quality of the reporting, improves the quality of the reporting. So it's important to have those
dedicated journalists with the newsrooms, but again, as I mentioned, the financial situation
of many meetings, organizations, does not allow them to have those journalists in their staff.
So what do you suggest audiences, viewers, readers look out for in the news coverage
that they're consuming with regards to the environment?
Unfortunately, when we look at the content across news organizations, particularly mainstream media,
which are still the main source of information for a lot of people, particularly television,
here in the US, we see that issues like climate change and other environmental issues,
whether it's local pollution or local water pollution, do not get sufficient coverage.
There were some reports out there suggesting that the total amount of coverage of some
of these issues account for just a few minutes per year, which is very little.
Now, if that is the case, again, people are not going to recognize many of these environmental
issues as important to their own health or their own well-being. So these news organizations
need to somewhat try to incorporate environmental stories across all of their reporting. Most of the
climate change reporting that we're seeing now is trying to convey the urgency of the issue
in different aspects of our daily lives, whether it's sports, and you're in Canada. So I remember a
few years ago, some stories coming out from Canada where there was a mild winter and lakes were
freezing. Therefore, ice hockey was an issue, people, kids would not be able to play ice hockey
because there was not enough ice. So those kinds of stories certainly attract a lot of attention.
The same happens when you have celebrities for example, talking about the environment,
that certainly attracts quite a bit quite a bit of attention. But at the same time, there are
challenges in the reporting of complex science based issues like climate change if you're using
a frame, such as an entertainment frame, but it's a way to get people to engage with the issue.
Now, what people should do or should try to do is because they are not finding that content in them
in the mainstream media that forces them to be more selective and have to
seek out specialized reporting. So there are plenty now of environmental news outlets out
there, specializing on these topics, doing great reporting, high quality reporting,
but they are more niche publications or niche outlets, therefore, individuals have
to go out of their way to try to find those sources, making it really difficult to really
make sense of what's going on in the world. Again, every single one of us because of all our
social media use, the use of our cell phones where algorithms really dictate what we get
in our newsfeed makes it really complex for people to get, again, both sides of the story,
or multiple perspectives on the same issue. So what happens is people engaging in what we
call selective exposure, right? So we see people seeking out news sources that already fit with an
individual's preconceived notions and beliefs of an issue, which reinforces again, that
idea of polarization that we're seeing here in the US, so you only hear what confirms your beliefs,
and that that is certainly problematic. Or we engage in motivated reasoning, or we engage in
psychological processes that prevent us from allowing other forms of information,
other positions, to be part of our understanding of an issue, we will reject positions that are
opposite to ours. And that's part of the tribalism that we're seeing here in the US,
fueled by the parties and politics that we see day to day. So there's no single solution
to this problem. The complexity of the problem will not be solved by more media literacy.
It will not be solved by somewhat regulating social media, although those things will help.
There is no silver bullet for this problem. It's a highly problematic issue for democracy,
not only here in the US but across the world.
Well, the media undoubtedly has an enormous responsibility given its impact on the policies
we establish and the daily choices that each of us make. Dr. Takahashi,
thank you so much for sharing your expertise with Newspoint today, very enlightening.
It's my pleasure Sharon. Thank you for having me.