Feature Scientists Critique Media Reports on Climate By BUD WARD


There’s a new cop on the beat when it comes to critiquing media news reports and opinion columns on climate change science. But it’s unlikely to come across as just another press-bashing exercise by advocates for or against what generally is cast as the “mainstream” science on the issue. In fact, the new climate report- ing “watchdog” group, months in development and still early in its evolution, is made up of more than 100 Ph.D. scientists, among them a fair sampling widely recognized and respected in climate science circles. The group voices its critiques, both posi- tive and more often critical, by way of its www.climatefeed- back.org web site, founded by research scientist Emmanuel Vincent, Ph.D. with the University of Califor- nia-Merced. With dozens of in- dividual media cri- tiques now posted online, Vincent and the other scientists have fo- cused on news and opinion pieces in high- visibility national news outlets: The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Wash- ington Post, CNN, The Guardian, and online sites such as Mash- able, Forbes and Vox. Vincent says the site has averaged about two critiques a month, an output he hopes to soon double. In an interview, Vincent said the effort is focusing primarily on major news outlets likely to have the most influence. He says positive and critical reviews have been about evenly split, and he feels it important to both flag well-done pieces and also those “read- ers should be skeptical about.” Over time, he hopes to increase pub- lic confidence in those outlets most consistently earning favorable reviews.


Initial takeaways


Credentialed media outlets and their reporters may take some comfort in what Vincent identified as “early lessons” from the site’s work so far: “Most of the inaccurate stories are not by professional journalists, but by contributors who do not have the same profes- sional commitment to accuracy.” Particularly disturbing, Vincent said, are the mistaken claims — ostensibly based on science — that repeat the same flawed ar- guments “over and over.” To Vincent, those illustrate “not just a mistake, but a voluntary mistake” about which general audiences


should be especially skeptical. An online section describing the site’s review process (http://climatefeedback.org/process/#tit4) outlines how articles and columns are scored for accuracy, logic and reasoning, fairness, ob- jectivity and precision. The methodology involves use of the Hy- pothesis notation program (https://hypothes.is/) and includes a “credibility rating” ranging from N/A (not applicable, perhaps be- cause the piece deals with politics or policy and not science) to -2 (very low score, major inaccuracies and/or omissions of key infor- mation) through +2 (very high score, no in- accuracies).


A graphic from a new climate reporting watchdog group that is ranking news and opinion pieces in high- profile national news outlets, like this report by Justin Gillis in The New York Times.


Photo/Graphic: ClimateFeedBack.org


In their online commentaries, the Cli- mate Feedback contrib- utors pull no punches. Examples of some crit- ical remarks: “very mis- leading and biased article,” “a rehash of several points that have been refuted many times over,” “quite poor journalism, if the term even applies,” “peddles the usual false state-


ments masquerading as opinion that we have been seeing for years, and would not be published by a reputable publisher.” Some pieces earned the site’s kudos, with commentaries such as: “fairly reports on one of the findings of one article that has recently been published in the scientific journal Nature,” “a well written and balanced article that draws on a range of scientific opinion from well-established climate scientists, hurricane specialists and forecasters,” “It’s tricky to evaluate the contribu- tion of climate change to a particular weather event, but generally speaking, the author provides an accurate summary of the challenges of this research, and the range of scientific thinking about it.” Vincent says he sees the project as being mutually beneficial to the journalistic and academic worlds and climate science gener- ally. “I hope it will be easy for readers to distinguish between real science journalism and opinions of amateur contributors [lacking that] professional commitment to accuracy [and forsaking] ethical journalistic standards.”


Bud Ward is a co-founder of SEJ, and editor of Yale Climate Connections (http://yaleclimateconnections.org). A fuller report on the Climate Feedback project can be found on Ward’s site at j.mp/mediacritics, along with a radio segment not yet aired at press time.


8 SEJournal Summer 2016


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28