Paging Earth is a climate communications blog dedicated to demystifying, depolarizing, and educating the public about climate change activism and climate science.
Although people learn about climate change in a variety of ways, the mainstream media is especially important. However, this vital role is also a precarious one.
Media outlets communicate breaking news and novel climate science. But the rhetoric used and the limited reach of these sources are villainized by opinion leaders with polarized views. This generates a general distrust of the news from the public. Only an environmental culture shift — on both sides of the political aisle and around the globe — can help environmentalism transcend polarization through education.
Current media coverage: Polarized and insular
Fox. CNN. The New York Times. Your opinion of these American media outlets is likely shaped by where you lie on the political spectrum. News sources, social media, and other forms of media have become polarized in the eyes of the public because they are largely viewed or read by people who believe the same things.
Commentary and coverage from these outlets have become increasingly polarized and insular because of rhetoric used to frame issues — in fact, U.S. news media is among the most polarized in the world. For instance, the language used to describe the most popular headlines in September of 2018 varied extensively in how they framed the biggest stories.
Although “Trump” was the most-used word in headlines across outlets, liberal TV outlets utilized other key words that drew attention to Trump, including “Mueller” and “Cohen.” Conservative outlets, on the other hand, skirted these events by using more general language, like “report” or “woman.”
A viewer navigating from MSNBC to Fox would have seen very different topics and narratives highlighted as the top news of the day. Headlines circling in liberal chambers end up telling almost a completely different story from their conservative counterparts. Fact and opinion become conflated as various headlines circle liberal and conservative chambers.
Concrete media biases
This infusion of opinion into the news has wormed itself into a range of sources worldwide. This media bias chart by Ad Fontes Media (who updates the chart monthly) displays the extent to which partisanship can skew reporting.
In this bell curve of bias, some sources slant themselves so far to the left or right that their news laces fact-based reporting with their own opinions.
The result is an enormous echo chamber, one that exists not only online but carries itself into real world politics, conversations, and our entire country’s culture.
The shifting place of the press in society
Yet simultaneously, this narration of current events from media outlets is essential — so much so that the freedom of the press is thankfully protected by the First Amendment.
Typical social media users are great at spreading news on social media through retweets, reposting, and resharing; that’s how we get the trending news pages on Twitter. Citizen reporting through independent blogs and sources add to this proliferation of information. But the fact checking, source-finding, and writing that long-standing mainstream sources do is irreplaceable.
There are several pillars of reporting that journalists follow to ensure that coverage is accurate and ethical. In addition, household names of reporting have networks of sources that the average person doesn’t — I definitely wouldn’t be able to get a comment from as wide of a range of climate experts as the LA Times did here, for instance.
But the media bias chart shows clearly that the press can sometimes be less-than objective. In a world where virality is money — and where some say print papers are a dying breed — sensationalism is tempting and all too easy.
This could feed into why more TV news outlets are lower down on the chart while written sources are generally placed higher. Outlets are selling an interesting, viral, often one-sided story more than simply broadcasting neutral information.
In a world where virality is money — and where some say print papers are a dying breed — sensationalism is tempting and all too easy.
The meaning of “objectivity” has also unfortunately shifted over time. According to the American Press Institute, journalists have retained a neutral tone in reporting over time, thanks to a methodology of objectivity. However, journalists are still able to press their opinions into neutral pieces by cherry-picking information, either purposefully or accidentally, from reliable sources, serving to amplify their hidden perspectives and perpetuate institutional biases.
At the same time, more people than ever consume news from outside of mainstream sources; more Americans today get their news from social media than from newspapers, according to the Pew Research Center.
News outlets are being influenced by the changing times when they exaggerate their headlines. If infusing opinions is what generates clicks and views, the media is evolving in a culture of virality to stay afloat.
But that is a bad thing. Our society hasn’t gotten any better at self-innoculating against internet virality, especially when it comes to the news, as Hollie Albin describes in a previous Paging Earth post. A ThoughtCo article compares sensationalized news to junk food: “Sensational stories are the junk food of our news diet…You know it’s bad for you but it’s delicious.”
In a world of polarized echo chambers, how can people find neutral sources?
Our news consumption habits are largely unhealthy. We indulge in sensationalized stories, unreliable news sources and social media to learn about the world, but there are resources to help us clean up our act.
To find legitimate sources, use the media bias chart. The sources at the top of the curve employ even-handed sourcing and reporting, and with constant updates to the chart we as readers can be sure that the information we’re getting is as objective and factually accurate as possible.
While these mainstream sources are great for our day-to-day news diets, for more specific and up-to-date information on certain kinds of news — say environmental news — going to specialized sources is your best bet.
Several sources high on the media bias chart have specialized climate or environmental sections that do a great job at reporting on climate politics and science — for instance the Economist or the New York Times.
Reading publications dedicated to covering the environment is an even better bet, as their takes are largely nonpartisan and come straight from researchers, policymakers and scientists. Environmental Health News is a personal favorite of mine, as is National Geographic.
Don’t be afraid to also do your own research. It’s helpful in building your digital literacy, and by scouring the internet independently you may stumble on a particular source or journalist that really speaks to you. Checking out the Society of Environmental Journalists is a great place to start.
What’s the long term solution?
All of these fixes, however, are unfortunately limited in their reach. Altering the habits of individuals one by one is great. But a national and global effort to improve digital literacy and environmental education is paramount to clean up our unhealthy news diets and spread accurate, healthy information — especially about the climate.
In an ideal world, our governments will recognize the malicious impacts of widespread digital misinformation and implement digital literacy courses as a part of every child’s K-12 education. Learning about where to find accurate sources is a life skill, and is one that our education system should teach.
The power of the media is awesome — whole social movements in our era have been driven by social media and mainstream outlets. News is spread in more effective and engaging ways than ever before, connecting us no matter what continent we’re on. Once we are able to establish a world with a digitally literate population, we will truly be able to levy the power of the internet and the media for good.
