La cobertura mediática del cambio climático ha tenido efectos en la opinión pública sobre el cambio climático , [1] ya que media la opinión científica sobre el cambio climático de que la temperatura global ha aumentado en las últimas décadas y que la tendencia se debe principalmente a las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero inducidas por el hombre. gases. Casi todos los organismos científicos de nivel nacional o internacional están de acuerdo con este punto de vista , [2] [3] aunque algunas organizaciones ocupan posiciones no comprometidas .
La investigación sobre comunicación sobre el cambio climático estudia con frecuencia la eficacia de esos medios. Algunos investigadores y periodistas creen que la cobertura mediática de temas políticos es adecuada y justa, mientras que algunos sienten que está sesgada. [4] [5] [6] [7] Sin embargo, la mayoría de los estudios sobre la cobertura mediática del tema no son recientes ni se refieren a la cobertura de cuestiones ambientales . Además, rara vez se preocupan específicamente por la cuestión del sesgo . [8] [9]
A pesar de las tendencias recientes en una mayor cobertura sobre el cambio climático, la cobertura de los medios no es constante y los investigadores se preguntan si se mantendrá el aumento actual de atención.
Historia
La atención de los medios es especialmente alta en los países dependientes del carbono con compromisos bajo el Protocolo de Kioto . La forma en que los medios informan sobre el cambio climático en los países de habla inglesa, especialmente en los Estados Unidos, ha sido ampliamente estudiada, mientras que los estudios sobre la información en otros países han sido menos amplios. [10] [11] Varios estudios han demostrado que, particularmente en los Estados Unidos y en la prensa sensacionalista del Reino Unido , los medios de comunicación subestimaron significativamente la fuerza del consenso científico sobre el cambio climático establecido en los informes de evaluación del IPCC en 1995 y en 2001 .
Un pico en la cobertura de los medios ocurrió a principios de 2007, impulsado por el Cuarto Informe de Evaluación del IPCC y el documental An Inconvenient Truth de Al Gore . [12] Un pico posterior a finales de 2009, que fue un 50% más alto, [13] puede haber sido impulsado por una combinación de la controversia por correo electrónico de la Unidad de Investigación Climática de noviembre de 2009 y la Conferencia de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Cambio Climático de diciembre de 2009 . [12] [14]
El equipo del Observatorio de Medios y Cambio Climático de la Universidad de Colorado en Boulder descubrió que 2017 “vio la atención de los medios sobre el cambio climático y el flujo y reflujo del calentamiento global” y junio vio la máxima cobertura mediática mundial sobre ambos temas. Este aumento es “en gran parte atribuida a noticias en torno a Estados Unidos (EE.UU.) el retiro del presidente Donald J. Trump de la (ONU) 2015 de las Naciones Unidas Acuerdo Climático de París , la atención de los medios de continuar pagado al emergente aislamiento de Estados Unidos después a través de la cumbre del G7 unas semanas mas tarde." [15]
La cobertura mediática del cambio climático durante la Administración Trump siguió siendo prominente ya que la mayoría de los medios de comunicación pusieron un gran énfasis en las historias relacionadas con Trump en lugar de en los eventos relacionados con el clima. [16] Este cambio en el enfoque de los medios se conoce como "Trump Dump" y se demostró que alcanza su punto máximo en los momentos en que el presidente era más activo en Twitter . Solo en el año 2017, la palabra "Trump" se mencionó 19.187 veces en historias cubiertas por cinco de las cuentas de prensa más importantes del país, siendo "clima" la segunda palabra más frecuente. [dieciséis]
En un artículo de 2020, Mark Kaufman de Mashable señaló que el artículo de Wikipedia en inglés sobre el cambio climático tiene "cientos de citas creíbles" que "contrarrestan el estereotipo de que las páginas de Wikipedia publicadas y editadas en colaboración son intrínsecamente poco fiables". [17]
Distorsiones comunes
Factual
Bord y col. afirman que una parte sustancial del público de los Estados Unidos tiene una comprensión errónea del calentamiento global, considerándolo vinculado a la "contaminación" general y causalmente relacionado de alguna manera con el agotamiento del ozono atmosférico . [18] Los científicos y los estudiosos de los medios de comunicación que expresan sus frustraciones con los informes científicos inadecuados [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] argumentan que puede conducir a al menos tres distorsiones básicas. Primero, los periodistas distorsionan la realidad al cometer errores científicos. En segundo lugar, distorsionan al teclear historias de interés humano en lugar de contenido científico. Y tercero, los periodistas distorsionan por una rígida adhesión al constructo de cobertura equilibrada. Bord, O'Connor y Fisher (2000) [25] argumentan que la ciudadanía responsable necesita un conocimiento concreto de las causas y que hasta que, por ejemplo, el público comprenda las causas del cambio climático, no se puede esperar que tome medidas voluntarias para mitigar sus efectos. .
Narrativa
Según Shoemaker y Reese, [26] la controversia es una de las principales variables que afectan la elección de la historia entre los editores de noticias, junto con el interés humano, la prominencia, la actualidad, la celebridad y la proximidad. La cobertura del cambio climático ha sido acusada de ser víctima de la norma periodística de "personalización". WL Bennet define este rasgo como: "la tendencia a restar importancia al gran panorama social, económico o político en favor de los juicios, las tragedias y los triunfos humanos" [27]. La cultura del periodismo político ha utilizado durante mucho tiempo la noción de cobertura equilibrada para cubrir la controversia. En esta construcción, está permitido emitir una opinión muy partidista , siempre que esta opinión vaya acompañada de una opinión contraria. Pero recientemente, científicos y académicos han cuestionado la legitimidad de este valor central periodístico con respecto a asuntos de gran importancia sobre los cuales la abrumadora mayoría de la comunidad científica ha llegado a un consenso bien fundamentado.
Sin embargo, existe evidencia de que esto es exactamente lo que están haciendo los medios de comunicación. En una encuesta de 636 artículos de cuatro de los principales periódicos de Estados Unidos entre 1988 y 2002, dos académicos [28] encontraron que la mayoría de los artículos dedicaban tanto tiempo al pequeño grupo de escépticos del cambio climático como a la opinión del consenso científico. Dado el consenso real entre los climatólogos sobre el calentamiento global , muchos científicos encuentran que el deseo de los medios de presentar el tema como una controversia científica es una gran distorsión. Como dijo Stephen Schneider : [22]
"Un consenso general y bien establecido puede ser 'equilibrado' con las opiniones opuestas de unos pocos extremistas, y para los desinformados, cada posición parece igualmente creíble".
El periodismo científico se ocupa de recopilar y evaluar varios tipos de evidencia relevante y verificar rigurosamente las fuentes y los hechos. Boyce Rensberger, [29] director del Centro Knight de Periodismo Científico del Instituto Tecnológico de Massachusetts (MIT), dijo que “una cobertura equilibrada de la ciencia no significa dar la misma importancia a ambos lados de un argumento. Significa distribuir el peso de acuerdo con el balance de la evidencia ".
Las afirmaciones de los científicos también se ven distorsionadas por los medios de comunicación por una tendencia a buscar puntos de vista extremos, lo que puede resultar en una descripción de los riesgos mucho más allá de las afirmaciones que realmente hacen los científicos. [30] Los periodistas tienden a enfatizar demasiado los resultados más extremos de una variedad de posibilidades reportadas en artículos científicos. Un estudio que rastreó informes de prensa sobre un artículo sobre cambio climático en la revista Nature encontró que "los resultados y las conclusiones del estudio se tergiversaron ampliamente, especialmente en los medios de comunicación, para hacer que las consecuencias parezcan más catastróficas y la escala de tiempo más corta". [31]
Un estudio de 2020 en PNAS encontró que los periódicos tendían a dar una mayor cobertura de los comunicados de prensa que se oponían a la acción sobre el cambio climático que los que apoyaban la acción. El estudio lo atribuye a un falso equilibrio . [32]
Alarmismo
El alarmismo está usando un lenguaje inflado, que incluye un tono urgente e imágenes de fatalidad. En un informe elaborado para el Instituto de Investigación de Políticas Públicas, Gill Ereaut y Nat Segnit sugirieron que el lenguaje alarmista se usa con frecuencia en relación con asuntos ambientales en periódicos, revistas populares y en la literatura de campaña publicada por el gobierno y grupos ambientales. [33] Se afirma que cuando se aplica al cambio climático, el lenguaje alarmista puede crear un mayor sentido de urgencia. [34]
El término alarmista puede ser utilizado como peyorativo por los críticos de la ciencia climática convencional para describir a quienes lo respaldan. El meteorólogo del MIT, Kerry Emanuel, escribió que etiquetar a alguien como "alarmista" es "una difamación particularmente infantil teniendo en cuenta lo que está en juego". Continuó diciendo que el uso de esta "terminología inflamatoria tiene un sabor claramente orwelliano ". [35]
Se ha argumentado que el uso de técnicas sensacionales y alarmantes a menudo evoca "negación, parálisis o apatía" en lugar de motivar a las personas a actuar [36] y no motiva a las personas a comprometerse con el tema del cambio climático. [37] En el contexto de los refugiados climáticos —el potencial del cambio climático para desplazar a las personas— se ha informado que los contratistas militares privados y los grupos de expertos utilizan con frecuencia una "hipérbole alarmista" . [38]
Algunos informes de los medios de comunicación han utilizado tácticas alarmistas para desafiar la ciencia relacionada con el calentamiento global comparándola con un supuesto episodio de enfriamiento global . En la década de 1970, el enfriamiento global, una afirmación con apoyo científico limitado (incluso durante el apogeo de un frenesí mediático por el enfriamiento global , "la posibilidad de calentamiento antropogénico dominó la literatura revisada por pares" [39] ) fue ampliamente reportada en la prensa. Varios artículos de los medios han afirmado que, dado que se demostró que la teoría del enfriamiento global, incluso en el momento, pobremente respaldada, era falsa, la teoría del calentamiento global bien respaldada también puede descartarse. Por ejemplo, un artículo de Kapista y Bashkirtsev en The Hindu escribió: "¿Quién recuerda hoy, preguntan, que en la década de 1970, cuando las temperaturas globales comenzaron a descender, muchos advirtieron que nos enfrentamos a una nueva era de hielo? Un editorial de la revista The Time el 24 de junio de 1974, citó a científicos preocupados expresando su alarma sobre la atmósfera `` cada vez más fría durante las últimas tres décadas '', `` la persistencia inesperada y el grosor del hielo en las aguas alrededor de Islandia '' y otros presagios de una edad de hielo que podría resultar "catastrófico". Se culpó al hombre por el enfriamiento global como hoy se le culpa por el calentamiento global "., [40] y el Irish Independent publicó un artículo en el que afirmaba que" la alarma generalizada sobre el calentamiento global es sólo el último susto sobre el medio ambiente que se nos ha presentado desde el Década de 1960. Repasemos algunos de ellos. Hace casi exactamente 30 años, el mundo estaba en otro pánico por el cambio climático. Sin embargo, no era la idea del calentamiento global lo que nos preocupaba. Era el miedo a su opuesto, el enfriamiento global. Los que dicen maldades se equivocaron en el pasado y es muy posible que también se equivoquen esta vez ". [41] Existen muchos otros ejemplos. [42] [43] [44]
Another example of climate alarmism that regularly makes headlines is the threat of crop failure and widespread famine caused by climate change. These claims are regularly reported in the press even as they are contradicted by most available scientific evidence. For example, an article in Rolling Stone titled “Climate Crisis: 11 Foods Already Being Impacted by Climate Change” raise alarm in the readers by claiming that climate change will soon cause many crops to fail, causing starvation and malnutrition across the globe. [45] One article from the Cornell Allience for Science claims that there are many farmers and ranches in southern Africa that a desperate for new technologies to combat failing crops. [46] This article states that climate change is “driving millions into hunger.” [46] These claims can be disputed by data from the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) that crop production in Africa could “reach multi-year highs” [47] as many food crops are being produced substantially and steadily across the continent.
Medios, política y discurso público
As McCombs et al.’s 1972 study of the political function of mass media showed, media coverage of an issue can “play an important part in shaping political reality”.[48] Research into media coverage of climate change has demonstrated the significant role of the media in determining climate policy formation.[49] The media has considerable bearing on public opinion, and the way in which issues are reported, or framed, establishes a particular discourse.[50]
In more general terms, media coverage of climate change in the USA is related to the controversy about media ownership and fairness. While most media scholars uphold the view that the media in the USA is free and unbiased, a minority disagrees. Historian Michael Parenti,[51] for instance, alleges that the American media serves corporate interests by "inventing reality."
Media-policy interface
The relationship between media and politics is reflexive. As Feindt & Oels state, “[media] discourse has material and power effects as well as being the effect of material practices and power relations”.[52] Public support of climate change research ultimately decides whether or not funding for the research is made available to scientists and institutions.
As highlighted above, media coverage in the United States during the Bush Administration often emphasized and exaggerated scientific uncertainty over climate change, reflecting the interests of the political elite.[53] Hall et al. suggest that government and corporate officials enjoy privileged access to the media, so their line quickly becomes the ‘primary definer’ of an issue.[54] Furthermore, media sources and their institutions very often have political leanings which determine their reporting on climate change, mirroring the views of a particular party.[55] However, media also has the capacity to challenge political norms and expose corrupt behaviour,[56] as demonstrated in 2007 when The Guardian revealed that American Enterprise Institute received $10,000 from petrochemical giant Exxon Mobil to publish articles undermining the IPCC’s 4th assessment report.
Ever-strengthening scientific consensus on climate change means that skepticism is becoming less prevalent in the media (although the email scandal in the build up to Copenhagen reinvigorated climate skepticism in the media[57]).
Discourses of action
Commentators have argued that the climate change discourses constructed in the media have not been conducive to generating the political will for swift action. The polar bear has become a powerful discursive symbol in the fight against climate change. However, such images may create a perception of climate change impacts as geographically distant,[58] and MacNaghten argues that climate change needs to be framed as an issue 'closer to home'.[59] On the other hand, Beck suggests that a major benefit of global media is that it brings distant issues within our consciousness.[60]
Furthermore, media coverage of climate change (particularly in tabloid journalism but also more generally), is concentrated around extreme weather events and projections of catastrophe, creating “a language of imminent terror”[61] which some commentators argue has instilled policy-paralysis and inhibited response. Moser et al. suggest using solution-orientated frames will help inspire action to solve climate change.[62] The predominance of catastrophe frames over solution frames[63] may help explain the apparent value-action gap with climate change; the current discursive setting has generated concern over climate change but not inspired action.
Breaking the prevailing notions in society requires discourse that is traditionally appropriate and approachable to common people. For example, Bill McKibben, an environmental activist, provides one approach to inspiring action: a war-like mobilization, where climate change is the enemy.[64] This approach would resonate with working Americans who normally find themselves occupied with other news headlines. Dispelling the capitalist commodification of the environment also requires different rhetoric that breaks certain ingrained notions concerning the human relationship with the environment. This could include incorporating traditional Indigenous knowledge that prioritizes human existence with the environment as a mutualistic and protective one.
Additionally, international movements in developing countries in the Global South are usually excluded in developed nations that assert hegemony over the economies of developing nations. This especially applies to the people of Latin America, that are battling multinational oil and mineral corporations that seek to cooperate with the ruling class and exploit fragile ecosystems, rather than provide real solutions to working people that mutually benefit the environment. This is apparent in Ecuador, where former President Rafael Correa, a left-leaning populist, incited “economic growth” as a reason to sell portions of the Amazon rainforest to oil companies.[65] These popular movements usually are neglected by the United States due to corporate relationships within the political sphere of influence.
Compared to what experts know about traditional media's and tabloid journalism's impacts on the formation of public perceptions of climate change and willingness to act, there is comparatively little knowledge of the impacts of social media, including message platforms like Twitter, on public attitudes toward climate change.[66]
In recent years, there has been an increase in the influence and role that social media plays in conveying opinions and knowledge through information sharing. There are several emerging studies that explore the connection between social media and the public’s awareness of climate change. Anderson [67] found that there is evidence that social media can raise awareness of climate change issues, but warns that it can also lead to opinion-dominated ideologies and reinforcement. Another study [68] examined datasets from Twitter to assess the ideas and attitudes that users of the application held toward climate change. Williams et al. [68] found that users tend to be active in groups that share the same opinions, often at the extremes of the spectrum, resulting in less polarized opinions between the groups. These studies[67][68] show that social media can have both a negative and positive impact on the information sharing of issues related to climate change.
Coverage of youth
Published in the journal Childhood, the article "Children's protest in relation to the climate emergency: A qualitative study on a new form of resistance promoting political and social change"[69] considers how children have evolved into prominent actors to create a global impact on awareness of climate change. It highlights the work of children like Greta Thunberg[70] and the significance of their resistance to the passivity of world leaders regarding climate change. It also discusses how individual resistance can directly be linked to collective resistance and that this then creates a more powerful impact, empowering young people to act more responsibly and take authority over the future. The article offers a holistic view of the impact of youth[69] to raise awareness whilst also inspiring action, and using social media platforms such as TikTok, YouTube, Facebook and Instagram to share the youth message.
Cobertura por país
Australia
Australia has recently experienced some of the most intense bushfire seasons in its immediate history. This phenomenon has sparked extensive media coverage both nationally and internationally. Much of the media coverage of the 2019 and 2020 Australian bushfire seasons has discussed the different factors that lead to and increase the chances of extreme fire seasons.[71] A climate scientist, Nerilie Abram, at Australian National University explained in an article for Scientific American, that the four major conditions need to exist for wildfire and those include “available fuel, dryness of that fuel, weather conditions that aid the rapid spread of fire and an ignition.[72] She then explained that climate change aids the spread and frequency of Australian fires because of the effect it has on dryness of fuels and fire weather patterns.[72] Although as there has been increased media attention to climate change after these extreme fire seasons, Australian news outlets have been reported to present misleading claims and information.[73] One article from The Australian in 2009 claimed that climate change and global warming were fraudulent claims pushed by so-called “warmaholics”.[74] Many other examples of claims that dismiss climate change have been posted by media outlets in Australia throughout the years following as well.[75][76][77] As the world entered into 2020, global media media coverage of climate change issues decreased and COVID-19 coverage increased. This was also experienced by Australia with a 34% decrease in climate change articles published from March of 2020.[78]
Canada
During the Harper government (2006-2015), Canadian media, mostly notably the CBC, made little effort to balance the claims of global warming deniers with voices from science.[79] The Canadian coverage appeared to be driven more by national and international political events rather than the changes to carbon emissions or various other ecological factors.[79] The discourse was dominated by matters of government responsibility, policy-making, policy measures for mitigation, and ways to mitigate climate change; with the issue coverage by mass media outlets continuing to act as an important means of communicating environmental concerns to the general public, rather than introducing new ideas about the topic itself.[79]
Within various provincial and language media outlets, there are varying levels of articulation regarding scientific consensus and the focus on ecological dimensions of climate change .[79] Within Quebec, specifically, these outlets are more likely to position climate change as an international issue, and to link climate change to social justice concerns in order to depict Quebec as a pro-environmental society [79]
Across various nations, including Canada, there has been an increased effort in the use of celebrities in climate change coverage, which is able to gain audience attention, but in turn, it reinforces individualized rather than structural interpretations of climate change responsibility and solutions .[79]
Sweden
Japan
In Japan, a study of newspaper coverage of climate change from January 1998 to July 2007 found coverage increased dramatically from January 2007.[80]
India
A 2010 study of four major, national circulation English-language newspapers in India examined "the frames through which climate change is represented in India", and found that "The results strongly contrast with previous studies from developed countries; by framing climate change along a 'risk-responsibility divide', the Indian national press set up a strongly nationalistic position on climate change that divides the issue along both developmental and postcolonial lines."[81]
On the other hand, a qualitative analysis of some mainstream Indian newspapers (particularly opinion and editorial pieces) during the release of the IPCC 4th Assessment Report and during the Nobel Peace Prize win by Al Gore and the IPCC found that Indian media strongly pursue scientific certainty in their coverage of climate change. This is in contrast to the skepticism displayed by American newspapers at the time. Indian media highlights energy challenges, social progress, public accountability and looming disaster.[82]
New Zealand
A six-month study in 1988 on climate change reporting in the media found that 80% of stories were no worse than slightly inaccurate. However, one story in six contained significant misreporting.[83] Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth in conjunction with the Stern Review generated an increase in media interest in 2006.
The popular media in New Zealand often give equal weight to those supporting anthropogenic climate change and those who deny it. This stance is out of step with the findings of the scientific community where the vast majority support the climate change scenarios. A survey carried out in 2007 on climate change gave the following responses:[84]
Not really a problem 8% A problem for the future 13% A problem now 42% An urgent and immediate problem 35% Don't know 2%
Turkey
According to journalist Pelin Cengiz mainstream media tends to cover newly opened coal-fired power stations in Turkey as increasing employment rather than climate change, and almost all owners have financial interests in fossil fuels.[85]
United Kingdom
The Guardian newspaper is internationally respected for its coverage of climate change.[85]
United States
One of the first critical studies of media coverage of climate change in the United States appeared in 1999. The author summarized her research:[7]
Following a review of the decisive role of the media in American politics and of a few earlier studies of media bias, this paper examines media coverage of the greenhouse effect. It does so by comparing two pictures. The first picture emerges from reading all 100 greenhouse-related articles published over a five-month period (May–September 1997) in The Christian Science Monitor, New York Times, The San Francisco Chronicle, and The Washington Post. The second picture emerges from the mainstream scientific literature. This comparison shows that media coverage of environmental issues suffers from both shallowness and pro-corporate bias.
According to Peter J. Jacques et al., the mainstream news media of the United States is an example of the effectiveness of environmental skepticism as a tactic.[86] A 2005 study reviewed and analyzed the US mass-media coverage of the environmental issue of climate change from 1988 to 2004. The authors confirm that within the journalism industry there is great emphasis on eliminating the presence of media bias. In their study they found that — due to this practice of journalistic objectivity — "Over a 15-year period, a majority (52.7%) of prestige-press articles featured balanced accounts that gave 'roughly equal attention' to the views that humans were contributing to global warming and that exclusively natural fluctuations could explain the earth's temperature increase." As a result, they observed that it is easier for people to conclude that the issue of global warming and the accompanying scientific evidence is still hotly debated.[87]
A study of US newspapers and television news from 1995 to 2006 examined "how and why US media have represented conflict and contentions, despite an emergent consensus view regarding anthropogenic climate science." The IPCC Assessment Reports in 1995 and in 2001 established an increasingly strong scientific consensus, yet the media continued to present the science as contentious. The study noted the influence of Michael Crichton's 2004 novel State of Fear, which "empowered movements across scale, from individual perceptions to the perspectives of US federal powerbrokers regarding human contribution to climate change."[88]
A 2010 study concluded that "Mass media in the U.S. continue to suggest that scientific consensus estimates of global climate disruption, such as those from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), are 'exaggerated' and overly pessimistic. By contrast, work on the Asymmetry of Scientific Challenge (ASC) suggests that such consensus assessments are likely to understate climate disruptions [...] new scientific findings were more than twenty times as likely to support the ASC perspective than the usual framing of the issue in the U.S. mass media. The findings indicate that supposed challenges to the scientific consensus on global warming need to be subjected to greater scrutiny, as well as showing that, if reporters wish to discuss "both sides" of the climate issue, the scientifically legitimate 'other side' is that, if anything, global climate disruption may prove to be significantly worse than has been suggested in scientific consensus estimates to date."[89]
The most watched news network in the United States, Fox News, most of the time promotes climate misinformation and employs tactics that distract from the urgency of global climate change, according to a 2019 study by Public Citizen. According to the study, 86% of Fox News segments that discussed the topic were "dismissive of the climate crisis, cast its consequences in doubt or employed fear mongering when discussing climate solutions." These segments presented global climate change as a political construct, rarely, if ever, discussing the threat posed by climate change or the vast body of scientific evidence for its existence. Consistent with such politicized framing, three messages were most commonly advanced in these segments: global climate change is part of a "big government" agenda of the Democratic Party (34% of segments); an effective response to the climate crisis would destroy the economy and hurtle us back to the Stone Age (26% of segments); and, concern about the climate crisis is “alarmists”, “hysterical,” the shrill voice of a "doomsday climate cult," or the like (12% of segments). Such segments often featured "experts" who are not climate scientists at all or are personally connected to vested interests, such as the energy industry and its network of lobbyists and think tanks, for example, the Heartland Institute, funded by the Exxon Mobil company and the Koch foundation. The remaining segments (14%) were neutral on the subject or presented information without editorializing.[90]
It has been suggested that the association of climate change with the Arctic in popular media may undermine effective communication of the scientific realities of anthropogenic climate change. The close association of images of Arctic glaciers, ice, and fauna with climate change might harbor cultural connotations that contradict the fragility of the region. For example, in cultural-historical narratives, the Arctic was depicted as an unconquerable, foreboding environment for explorers; in climate change discourse, the same environment is sought to be understood as fragile and easily affected by humanity.[91]
Gallup's annual update on Americans' attitudes toward the environment shows a public that over the last two years (2008-2010) has become less worried about the threat of global warming, less convinced that its effects are already happening, and more likely to believe that scientist themselves are uncertain about its occurrence. In response to one key question, 48% of Americans now believe that the seriousness of global warming is generally exaggerated, up from 41% in 2009 and 31% in 1997, when Gallup first asked the question.[92]
Data from the Media Matters for America organization has shown that, despite 2015 being “a year marked by more landmark actions to address climate change than ever before,” the combined climate coverage on the top broadcast networks was down by 5% from 2014.[93][94]
President Donald Trump denies the threat of global warming publicly. As a result of the Trump Presidency, media coverage on climate change was expected to decline during his term as president.[95][needs update]
Globally, media coverage of global warming and climate change decreased in 2020.[78] In the United States, however, newspaper coverage of climate change increased 29% between March 2020 and April 2020, these numbers are still 22% down from coverage in January 2020.[78] This spike in April 2020 can be attributed to the increased coverage of the “Covering Climate Now'' campaign and the US holiday of “Earth Day”. The overall decline in climate change coverage in the year 2020 is related to the increased coverage and interconnectedness of COVID-19 and President Trump, without mention of climate change, that began in January 2020. [96]
Ireland
Ireland has quite a low coverage of climate change in media. a survey created shows how the Irish Times had only 0.84% of news coverage for climate change in the space of 13 years. This percentage is incredibly low compared to the rest of Europe, for example- Coverage of climate change in Ireland 10.6 stories, while the rest of Europe lies within 58.4 stories[97]
Ver también
- The Age of Stupid
- Climate change denial
- Climate Change Denial Disorder, satirical parody film about a fictional disease
- Climate change in popular culture
- Climate crisis (about usage of the term)
- Climate emergency declaration (includes usage of the term "climate emergency")
- Environmental communication
- Environmental skepticism
- Global warming controversy
- Merchants of Doubt
- Requiem for a Species
Referencias
- ^ Antilla, L. (2010). "Self-censorship and science: A geographical review of media coverage of climate tipping points". Public Understanding of Science. 19 (2): 240–256. doi:10.1177/0963662508094099. S2CID 143093512.
- ^ Julie Brigham-Grette; et al. (September 2006). "Petroleum Geologists' Award to Novelist Crichton Is Inappropriate" (PDF). Eos. 87 (36).
The AAPG stands alone among scientific societies in its denial of human-induced effects on global warming.
- ^ DiMento, Joseph F. C.; Doughman, Pamela M. (2007). Climate Change: What It Means for Us, Our Children, and Our Grandchildren. MIT Press. p. 68. ISBN 978-0-262-54193-0.
- ^ Newman, Todd P.; Nisbet, Erik C.; Nisbet, Matthew C. (26 September 2018). "Climate change, cultural cognition, and media effects: Worldviews drive news selectivity, biased processing, and polarized attitudes". Public Understanding of Science. 27 (8): 985–1002. doi:10.1177/0963662518801170. PMID 30253695. S2CID 52824926.
- ^ Lichter, S.R.; Rothman (1984). "The media and national defense". National Security Policy: 265–282.
- ^ Bozell, L.B.; Baker, B.H. (1990). "Thats the way it is(n't)". Alexandria, VA.
- ^ a b Nissani, Moti (Sep 1999). "Media Coverage of the Greenhouse Effect". Population and Environment. 21 (1): 27–43. doi:10.1007/BF02436119. S2CID 144096201.
- ^ Bell, A (1994). "Media (mis)communication on the science of Climate change". Public Understanding of Science: 3, 259–275.
- ^ Trumbo, C. (1996). "Constructing climate change: Claims and frames in US news coverage of an environmental issue". Public Understanding of Science. 5 (3): 269–283. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.891.3467. doi:10.1088/0963-6625/5/3/006. S2CID 147326292.
- ^ Lyytimäki, J., Tapio, P. (2009). "Climate change as reported in the press of Finland: From screaming headlines to penetrating background noise". International Journal of Environmental Studies. 66 (6): 723–735. doi:10.1080/00207230903448490. S2CID 93991183.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
- ^ Schmidt, Andreas; Ivanova, Ana; Schäfer, Mike S. (2013). "Media attention for climate change around the world: A comparative analysis of newspaper coverage in 27 countries". Global Environmental Change. 23 (5): 1233–1248. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.020.
- ^ a b Boykoff, M. (2010). "Indian media representations of climate change in a threatened journalistic ecosystem" (PDF). Climatic Change. 99 (1): 17–25. Bibcode:2010ClCh...99...17B. doi:10.1007/s10584-010-9807-8. S2CID 154624611.
- ^ "2004–2010 World Newspaper Coverage of Climate Change or Global Warming". Center for Science and Technology Policy Research. University of Colorado at Boulder.
- ^ STUDY: How Broadcast Networks Covered Climate Change In 2015 March 7, 2016 Media Matters for America
- ^ Boykoff, M.; Andrews, K.; Daly, M.; Katzung, J.; Luedecke, G.; Maldonado, C.; Nacu-Schmidt, A. "A Review of Media Coverage of Climate Change and Global Warming in 2017". Media and Climate Change Observatory, Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado.
- ^ a b "MeCCO Monthly Summaries :: Media and Climate Chage Observatory". sciencepolicy.colorado.edu. Retrieved 2021-04-21.
- ^ Kaufman, Mark (2020). "The guardians of Wikipedia's climate change page". Mashable. Retrieved 2021-04-22.
- ^ Bord et al. 1998
- ^ Boykoff, M.T.; Boykoff, J.M. (2004). "Balance as bias: Global warming and the US prestige press". Global Environmental Change. 14 (2): 125–136. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2003.10.001.
- ^ Moore, B; Singletary, M. (1985). "Scientific sources' perceptions of network news accuracy". Journalism Quarterly. 62 (4): 816–823. doi:10.1177/107769908506200415. S2CID 144093163.
- ^ Nelkin, D (1995). "Selling science: How the press covers science and technology". New York: W.H. Freeman.
- ^ a b Schneider, S. "Mediarology: The role of citizens, journalists, and scientists in debunking climate change myths". Retrieved 2011-04-03.
- ^ Singer, E., & Endreny, P. M. (1993). Reporting on risk: How the mass media portray accidents, diseases, disasters and other hazards. New York: Russell Sage.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
- ^ Tankard, J. W.; Ryan, M. (1974). "News source perceptions of accuracy in science coverage". Journalism Quarterly. 51 (2): 219–225. doi:10.1177/107769907405100204. S2CID 145113868.
- ^ Bord, R.J.; O'Connor; Fisher (1998). "Public perceptions of global warming: United States and international perspectives". Climate Research. 11 (1): 75–84. Bibcode:1998ClRes..11...75B. doi:10.3354/cr011075.
- ^ Shoemaker, P. J., & Reese, S. D. (1996). Mediating the message: Theories of influence on mass media content. New York: Longman. p. 261.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
- ^ W.L Bennet, "News: The Politics of Illusion" 5th edition, (2002). Longman, New York. p.45
- ^ Boykoff, M.T.; Boykoff, J.M. (2004). "Balance as bias: Global warming and the US prestige press". Global Environmental Change. 14 (2): 125–136. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2003.10.001.
- ^ Rensberger, B (2002). "Reporting Science Means Looking for Cautionary Signals". Nieman Reports: 12–14.
- ^ Boykoff, Maxwell T. (2009). "We Speak for the Trees: Media Reporting on the Environment". Annual Review of Environment and Resources. 34 (1): 431–457. doi:10.1146/annurev.environ.051308.084254.
- ^ Ladle, R. J.; Jepson, P.; Whittaker, R. J. (2005). "Scientists and the media: the struggle for legitimacy in climate change and conservation science". Interdisciplinary Science Reviews. 30 (3): 231–240. doi:10.1179/030801805X42036. S2CID 11994908.
- ^ Wetts, Rachel (2020-07-23). "In climate news, statements from large businesses and opponents of climate action receive heightened visibility". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 117 (32): 19054–19060. doi:10.1073/pnas.1921526117. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 7431090. PMID 32719122.
- ^ Ereaut, Gill; Segrit, Nat (2006). "Warm Words: How are we Telling the Climate Story and can we Tell it Better?" (PDF). London: Institute for Public Policy Research. Cite journal requires
|journal=
(help)[permanent dead link] - ^ "There are genuine climate alarmists, but they're not in the same league as deniers | Dana Nuccitelli". the Guardian. July 9, 2018.
- ^ "Climategate": A Different Perspective Archived 2018-11-18 at the Wayback Machine, by Kerry Emanuel, National Association of Scholars, July 19, 2010
- ^ Lisa Dilling; Susanne C. Moser (2007). "Introduction". Creating a climate for change: communicating climate change and facilitating social change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. pp. 1–27. ISBN 978-0-521-86923-2.
- ^ O'Neill, S.; Nicholson-Cole, S. (2009). ""Fear Won't Do It": Promoting Positive Engagement with Climate Change Through Visual and Iconic Representations". Science Communication. 30 (3): 355–379. doi:10.1177/1075547008329201.
- ^ Hartmann, Betsy (2010). "Rethinking climate refugees and climate conflict: Rhetoric, reality and the politics of policy discourse". Journal of International Development. 22 (2): 233–246. doi:10.1002/jid.1676. ISSN 0954-1748.
- ^ Peterson, Thomas; Connolley, William & Fleck, John (September 2008). "The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus" (PDF). Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. 89 (9): 1325–1337. Bibcode:2008BAMS...89.1325P. doi:10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2012-01-14.
- ^ Kapitsa, Andrei, and Vladimir Bashkirtsev, "Challenging the basis of Kyoto Protocol", The Hindu, 10 July 2008,
- ^ Irish Independent, "Don't believe doomsayers that insist the world's end is nigh", 16 March 2007, p. 1.
- ^ Schmidt, David, "It's curtains for global warming", Jerusalem Post, 28 June 2002, p. 16B. "If there is one thing more remarkable than the level of alarm inspired by global warming, it is the thin empirical foundations upon which the forecast rests. Throughout the 1970s, the scientific consensus held that the world was entering a period of global cooling, with results equally catastrophic to those now predicted for global warming."
- ^ Wilson, Francis, "The rise of the extreme killers", Sunday Times, 19 April 2009, p. 32. "Throughout history, there have been false alarms: "shadow of the bomb", "nuclear winter", "ice age cometh" and so on. So it's no surprise that today many people are skeptical about climate change. The difference is that we have hard evidence that increasing temperatures will lead to a significant risk of dangerous repercussions."
- ^ National Post, "The sky was supposed to fall: The '70s saw the rise of environmental Chicken Littles of every shape as a technique for motivating public action", 5 April 2000, p. B1. "One of the strange tendencies of modern life, however, has been the institutionalization of scaremongering, the willingness of the mass media and government to lend plausibility to wild surmises about the future. The crucial decade for this odd development was the 1970s. Schneider's book excited a frenzy of glacier hysteria. The most-quoted ice-age alarmist of the 1970s became, in a neat public-relations pivot, one of the most quoted global-warming alarmists of the 1990s."
- ^ Murphy, Andrea Marks,Hannah; Marks, Andrea; Murphy, Hannah (2021-04-19). "11 Foods That Are Already Being Impacted by the Climate Crisis". Rolling Stone. Retrieved 2021-04-21.
- ^ a b "African farmers yearn for biotechnology in the face of climate change". Alliance for Science. Retrieved 2021-04-21.
- ^ Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (8 April 2021). "FAO Cereal Supply and Demand Brief. World Food Situation". FAO. Retrieved 2021-04-21.
- ^ McCombs, M; Shaw, D. (1972). "The Agenda Setting Function of Mass Media". Public Opinion Quarterly. 36 (2): 176–187. doi:10.1086/267990.
- ^ Boykoff, M (2007). "Flogging a Dead Norm? Newspaper Coverage of Anthropogenic Climate Change in the United States and United Kingdom from 2003-2006". Area. 39 (2): 000–000, 200. doi:10.1111/j.1475-4762.2007.00769.x.
- ^ Hajer, M; Versteeg, W (2005). "A Decade of Discourse Analysis of Environmental Politics: Achievements, Challenges, Perspectives". Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning. 7 (3): 175–184. doi:10.1080/15239080500339646. S2CID 145317648.
- ^ Parenti, Michael (1993). Inventing Reality: The Politics of News Media. New York City: St. Martin's Press.
- ^ Feindt, P; Oels, A (2005). "Does Discourse Matter? Discourse Analysis in Environmental Policy Making". Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning. 7 (3): 161–173. doi:10.1080/15239080500339638. S2CID 143314592.
- ^ Boykoff, M (2007). "Flogging a Dead Norm? Newspaper Coverage of Anthropogenic Climate Change in the United States and United Kingdom from 2003-2006". Area. 39 (2): 000–000, 200. doi:10.1111/j.1475-4762.2007.00769.x.
- ^ Hall, S; et al. (1978). Policing the Crisis - Mugging, the State, and Law and Order. New York: Holmes and Meier. p. 438.
- ^ Carvalho, A; Burgess, J (December 2005). "Cultural Circuits of Climate Change in UK Broadsheet Newspapers". Risk Analysis. 25 (6): 1457–1469. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.171.178. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00692.x. PMID 16506975. S2CID 2079283.
- ^ Anderson, A (2009). "Media, Politics and Climate Change: Towards a New Research Agenda". Sociology Compass[clarification needed]. 3 (2): 166–182. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9020.2008.00188.x.
- ^ Monibot, George (29 April 2009). "The media laps up fake controversy over climate change". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 2011-11-05.
- ^ Lorenzoni, I; Pidgeon (2006). "Public Views on Climate Change: European and USA Perspectives". Climatic Change. 77 (1): 73–95. Bibcode:2006ClCh...77...73L. doi:10.1007/s10584-006-9072-z. S2CID 53866794.
- ^ MacNaghten, P (2003). "Embodying the Environment in Everyday Life Practices" (PDF). The Sociological Review. 77 (1).
- ^ Beck, U (1992). Risk Society - Towards a New Modernity. Frankfurt: Sage. ISBN 978-0-8039-8345-8.
- ^ Hulme, M (2009). Why We Disagree About Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. p. 432. ISBN 978-0-521-72732-7.
- ^ Moser & Dilling, M., and L. (2007). Creating a Climate for Change. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-86923-2.
- ^ Boykoff, M; Boykoff, J (November 2007). "Climate Change and Journalistic Norms: A case study of US mass-media coverage". Geoforum. 38 (6): 1190–1204. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2007.01.008.
- ^ McKibben, Bill. "We Need to Literally Declare War on Climate Change". The New Republic. The New Republic. Retrieved 1 March 2018.
- ^ Kaiman, Jonathan (2013-03-26). "Ecuador auctions off Amazon to Chinese oil firms". the Guardian. Retrieved 2018-03-02.
- ^ Auer M.; et al. (2014). "The Potential of Microblogs for the Study of Public Perceptions of Climate Change". WIREs Climate Change. 5 (3): 291–296. doi:10.1002/wcc.273.
- ^ a b Anderson, Ashley A. (2017-03-29). "Effects of Social Media Use on Climate Change Opinion, Knowledge, and Behavior". Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.369. ISBN 9780190228620. Retrieved 2021-04-21.
- ^ a b c Williams, Hywel T.P.; McMurray, James R.; Kurz, Tim; Hugo Lambert, F. (2015-05-01). "Network analysis reveals open forums and echo chambers in social media discussions of climate change". Global Environmental Change. 32: 126–138. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.03.006. ISSN 0959-3780.
- ^ a b Holmberg, Arita; Alvinius, Aida (2019-10-10). "Children's protest in relation to the climate emergency: A qualitative study on a new form of resistance promoting political and social change". Childhood. 27: 78–92. doi:10.1177/0907568219879970. ISSN 0907-5682.
- ^ "Greta Thunberg", Wikipedia, 2020-01-01, retrieved 2020-01-02
- ^ "Media reaction: Australia's bushfires and climate change". Carbon Brief. 2020-01-07. Retrieved 2021-04-22.
- ^ a b Abram, Nerilie. "Australia's Angry Summer: This Is What Climate Change Looks Like". Scientific American Blog Network. Retrieved 2021-04-22.
- ^ "The Australian says it accepts climate science, so why does it give a platform to 'outright falsehoods'?". the Guardian. 2020-01-14. Retrieved 2021-04-22.
- ^ "The warmaholics' fantasy | The Australian". 2009-01-16. Archived from the original on 2009-01-16. Retrieved 2021-04-22.
- ^ Bacon, Wendy (2013-10-30). "Sceptical climate part 2: climate science in Australian newspapers". Cite journal requires
|journal=
(help) - ^ "The Australian Brings You The Climate Science Denial News From Five Years Ago – Graham Readfearn". Retrieved 2021-04-22.
- ^ Chapman, Simon. "The Australian's campaign against wind farms continues but the research doesn't stack up". The Conversation. Retrieved 2021-04-22.
- ^ a b c Nacu-Schmidt, Ami; Pearman, Olivia; Boykoff, Max; Katzung, Jennifer. "Media and Climate Change Observatory Monthly Summary: This historic decline in emissions is happening for all the wrong reasons - Issue 40, April 2020". scholar.colorado.edu. Retrieved 2021-05-15.
- ^ a b c d e f Stoddart, Mark C. J; Haluza-Delay, Randolph; Tindall, David B (2015). "Canadian News Media Coverage of Climate Change: Historical Trajectories, Dominant Frames, and International Comparisons". Society & Natural Resources. 29 (2): 218–232. doi:10.1080/08941920.2015.1054569. S2CID 154437604.
- ^ Sampei, Y., Aoyagi-Usui, M. (2009). "Mass-media coverage, its influence on public awareness of climate-change issues, and implications for Japan's national campaign to reduce greenhouse gas emissions". Global Environmental Change. 19 (2): 203–212. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.10.005.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
- ^ Billett, Simon (2010). "Dividing climate change: global warming in the Indian mass media". Climatic Change. 99 (1–2): 1–16. Bibcode:2010ClCh...99....1B. doi:10.1007/s10584-009-9605-3. S2CID 18426714.
- ^ Mittal, Radhika (2012). "Climate Change Coverage in Indian Print Media: A Discourse Analysis". The International Journal of Climate Change: Impacts and Responses. 3 (2): 219–230. doi:10.18848/1835-7156/CGP/v03i02/37105. hdl:1959.14/181298.
- ^ Bell, Allan (1994). "Media (mis)communication on the science of climate change". Public Understanding of Science. 3 (3): 259–275. doi:10.1088/0963-6625/3/3/002. S2CID 145567023.
- ^ ShapeNZ research report. 13 April 2007, New Zealanders' views on climate change and related policy options
- ^ a b "CONTEMPORARY TURKEY: AN ECOLOGICAL ACCOUNT" (PDF).
- ^ Environmental skepticism is "a tactic of an elite-driven counter-movement designed to combat environmentalism, and ... the successful use of this tactic has contributed to the weakening of US commitment to environmental protection." — Jacques, P.J.; Dunlap, R.E.; Freeman, M. (June 2008). "The organization of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental skepticism". Environmental Politics. 17 (3): 349–385. doi:10.1080/09644010802055576. S2CID 144975102.
- ^ Boykoff, M. T.; Boykoff, J. M. (2007). "Climate change and journalistic norms: A case-study of US mass-media coverage" (PDF). Geoforum. 28 (6): 1190–1204. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2007.01.008. Retrieved 2009-10-15.
- ^ Boykoff, M.T. (2007). "From convergence to contention: United States mass media representations of anthropogenic climate change science". Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers. 32 (4): 477–489. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.132.9906. doi:10.1111/j.1475-5661.2007.00270.x.
- ^ Freudenburg, W.R., Muselli, V. (2010). "Global warming estimates, media expectations, and the asymmetry of scientific challenge". Global Environmental Change. 20 (3): 483–491. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.04.003.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
- ^ Public Citizen, 13 Aug. 2019, "Foxic: Fox News Network’s Dangerous Climate Denial 2019: Fox’s Continues to Pollute the Airwaves with Misinformation, Give Platform to Deniers"
- ^ Stenport, Anna Westerstahl, Vachula, Richard S (2017). "Polar bears and ice: cultural connotations of Arctic environments that contradict the science of climate change". Media, Culture & Society. 39 (2): 282–295. doi:10.1177/0163443716655985. S2CID 148499560.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
- ^ Newport, Frank (11 March 2010). "Americans'Global Warming Concerns Continue to Drop: Multiple indicators show less concern, more feelings that global warming is exaggerated". Gallup Poll News Service.
- ^ "How Broadcast Networks Covered Climate Change in 2015". Scribd. Media Matters for America.
- ^ "Study: How Broadcast Networks Covered Climate Change In 2015". Media Matters for America. 2016-02-29. Retrieved 2016-12-03.
- ^ Park, David J. (March 2018). "United States news media and climate change in the era of US President Trump". Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management. 14 (2): 202–204. doi:10.1002/ieam.2011. ISSN 1551-3793. PMID 29193745.
- ^ "Climate change news coverage has declined. The audience has not". Digital Content Next. 2020-09-23. Retrieved 2021-04-21.
- ^ Robbins, David (November 26, 2015). "Why the media doesn't care about climate change. News likes unambiguous, discrete events, straight-forward, one-off happenings rather than long-term social trends". The Irish Times. Retrieved 2019-10-16.
Otras lecturas
- Pooley, Eric (June 8, 2010). The Climate War: True Believers, Power Brokers, and the Fight to Save the Earth. Hachette Books. ISBN 978-1-4013-2326-4.
- Michael Specter (2009). Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet, and Threatens Our Lives. Penguin Press HC, The. ISBN 978-1-59420-230-8
- Mike Hulme (2009). Why we disagree about climate change: understanding controversy, inaction and opportunity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-72732-7.
- Tammy Boyce; Lewis, Justin, eds. (2009). Climate Change and the Media (Global Crises and the Media). Peter Lang Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4331-0460-2.
- Uusi-Rauva, C., Tienari, J. (2010). "On the relative nature of adequate measures: Media representations of the EU energy and climate package". Global Environmental Change. 20 (3): 492–501. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.03.001.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
- Anderson, Alison (March 2009). "Media, Politics and Climate Change: Towards a New Research Agenda". Sociology Compass. 3 (2): 166–182. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9020.2008.00188.x.
- Who Speaks for the Climate?: Making Sense of Media Reporting on Climate Change by Maxwell T. Boykoff, Cambridge University Press; 1 edition (September 30, 2011) ISBN 978-0-521-13305-0