July 2, 2009
Category:
If you are on Facebook, you have probably grown annoyed by the many causes and appeals that show up in your Notifications on a daily, if not, hourly basis. Like any new information technology, Facebook has generated a fair share of hype over its potential to "revolutionize" citizen participation and to ignite support for social causes. But like previous information technologies--ranging from the radio to the Internet--this initial hype is now starting to be replaced by a sense of realism about what Facebook "click through activism" can and cannot do.
Obviously, there's little doubt that online activism has had a major impact in politics and social campaigns, yet these online channels often simply reinforce or amplify "real world" connections and contacts. Appeals that are exclusively Internet-based, without complements from traditional media or real-word contexts, are unlikely to generate meaningful participation and citizen activity. Obama's presidential campaign, for example, generated accolades for their innovative use of social media and online tools, but as many of the campaign organizers have since said, it was the on-the-ground organizing that really made a difference, with the social media campaign a way to bolster these traditional strategies. Social media was revolutionary as a fundraising tool, but it was on-the-ground organizing that mobilized volunteers and voter turn-out.
With one provocative twist, the Obama case resonates with the key findings that my colleague Dietram Scheufele and I turned up in a series of studies published earlier this decade. In our analysis of nationally-representative survey data, in comparison to traditional newspaper reading and "real world" political discussion, online media use had limited impacts on learning and on actual political participation. Perhaps worse, despite limited gains in knowledge and actual participation, heavier online media users were more likely to believe that they were making a difference in politics. As we concluded, this "false sense of participation" among heavier online users may actually distract them from outlets for real-world interaction and participation where they could make a difference.
In today's Washington Post, an article explores this very tendency among heavier Facebook users. When you go beyond the hype--as several experts comment in the article--you find that instead of a revolution, Facebook should be considered just another tool for complementing real world organizing and traditional media channels:
"Click-through activism" is the term used by Chris Csikszentmihályi, the co-director of MIT's Center for Future Civic Media to describe the participants who might excitedly flit into an online group and then flutter away to something else. In some ways, he says, the ease of the medium "reminds me of dispensations the Catholic Church used to give." Worst-case scenario: If people feel they are doing good just by joining something -- or clicking on one of those become a fan of Audi and the company will offset your carbon emissions campaigns, "to what extent are you removing just enough pressure that they're not going to carry on the spark" in real life?
The potential distraction of click-through activism has a lot of relevance for thinking about public engagement on science issues such as climate change. As we wrote in the recent article at Nature Biotechnology (PDF, news release), there is great potential in science-related blogging but beyond the hype, the limitations of blogs need to be kept in mind, the greatest limitation being their strongly self-selected audience. There should also be concern about the amount of time that bloggers and their commenters spend self-referencing (and sometimes bickering) with each other on issues such as climate change and if this activity could be better channeled in other ways. Beyond this time displacement element, in other cases, such as the George Will Affair, this online mobilization can backfire.
Moreover, as my co-author John Kotcher and I concluded in a recent paper published at the journal Science Communication, any efforts such as the We campaign's online initiative to mobilize opinion leaders around climate change should be a complement to a heavy focus on real world recruitment, training, and connections.
Posted by Matthew C. Nisbet at 9:01 AM • 0 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
July 1, 2009
Category:
Many of you probably tuned in over the last week to the Confederations Cup tournament as the US national team pulled off a stunning semi-final victory over world #1 Spain and then followed with a close loss in the final to world power Brazil. In trademark ugly American fashion, Steve Colbert suggests that now that we (the US) are good in the sport, it's time to pay attention to soccer. Enjoy.
Posted by Matthew C. Nisbet at 3:38 PM • 1 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
June 30, 2009
Category: Global Warming • Science communication research
In the latest issue of the journal Public Understanding of Science, Lorraine Whitmarsh from the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research in the UK, publishes a study that finds that the terms "climate change" versus "global warming" matter to public perceptions. In a mail survey of a representative sample of 590 residents from the Portsmouth, UK region, Whitmarsh gave half the participants a questionnaire asking them to evaluate the risks and impacts of "climate change" and the other half of the sample a questionnaire asking them to evaluate the risks and impacts of "global warming."
From the article, here's a summary of the findings:
The term "global warming" is more often associated with:
● heat-related impacts--in particular, temperature increase and melting icebergs and glaciers;
● human causes--including pollution, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, CFCs, fossil
fuel consumption, cars/traffic fumes, and overuse or misuse of earth's resources;
● ozone depletion and increased ultraviolet (UV) light penetration of the atmosphere;
● trapping of heat or gases within the atmosphere and the "greenhouse effect."
The term "climate change" is more readily associated with:
● a range of impacts on climate and the weather, including hotter summers, wetter winters,
increased rainfall and drought, and impacts on agriculture/food supply;
● impacts that have already been observed;
● natural causes.
Later in their conclusion, they provide this additional summary of their findings:
"Global warming" is more often believed to have human causes and tends to be associated with ozone depletion, the greenhouse effect and heat-related impacts, such as temperature increase and melting icebergs and glaciers. The term "climate change" is more readily associated with natural causes and a range of impacts. Furthermore, the term "global warming" evokes significantly more concern, and is rated as "very important" by more respondents, than the term "climate change." Finally, more people consider individual or public action to be an effective means of tackling "global warming than do so for "climate change"; while a higher proportion believe planting trees could mitigate "climate change" than it could mitigate "global warming."
The study provides evidence for what many people have surmised: That labels do matter to the climate change debate. The local population of Portsmouth sampled in this study is obviously not representative of the national audiences in the UK and the US, but my strong hypothesis would be that a similarly designed study in the US is likely to turn up similar key perceptual differences. Indeed, as part of his audience research earlier this decade, conservative strategist Frank Luntz recommended that switching terms from "global warming" to "climate change" would be an effective way for climate skeptics to downplay the urgency of the issue.
The thorny question is what to do about this perceptual reality? For one, the more scientifically accurate term is climate change, so from an ethical standpoint, it would be wise for science institutions and scientists to stick with this label, despite the less impactful nature of the phrase. On the other hand, if you are a political strategist working to mobilize concern on climate change, switching to the phrase "global warming" might be to your advantage.
Still, we are likely to be stuck with each of these interchangeable and imperfect labels moving forward. Coming up with a third phrase such as the "climate crisis" or " dangerous climate disruption" is unlikely to earn widespread adoption and may strike key audiences as an attempt at political marketing, undercutting credibility and public trust. Moreover, we have little to no data on the effectiveness of these alternative terms. Indeed, a term such as the "climate crisis," or even the emphasis on "dangerous disruption" might spark immediate resistance among some key swing audience segments, who may dismiss the terms as alarmist.
Posted by Matthew C. Nisbet at 12:11 PM • 10 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
June 29, 2009
Category: Science journalism
Timed with the World Federation of Science Journalists meeting in London, Nature magazine has put together a selection of recent articles focusing on journalism and science communication. The selection includes our recent article at Nature Biotechnology (PDF, news release).
Posted by Matthew C. Nisbet at 2:19 PM • 0 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
Category: Sexual Violence
[Contributed by guest blogger, Katherine Broendel]
The last time I posted, I wrote about the effects pornography and violent pornography may have on viewers' perspectives of women and sexual violence. Rather than stating an opinion, I provided a brief review of some of the studies I read as preliminary research for my thesis. On a related note, I want to explore the topic of sexually violent video games, or, rape simulation video games.
A couple weeks ago, an AAUW colleague and fellow AU grad student, Mandy Toomey, wrote an interesting blog post about rape simulation video games. I have not read much about entertainment media's effects - if any - on women and sexual violence, but it seems like it would be a fascinating and relevant study. I'd like to link to her post here and open the comments for thoughtful and informed opinions because I'm curious to see what people know and think about the issue. If anyone knows of any good studies or research where we could all read more about sexually violent depictions in video games, music, etc., please feel free to share your citations.
As video games remain incredibly popular, I do think it's important to understand what effects they may or may not have on participating audiences.
Posted by Matthew C. Nisbet at 12:03 AM • 9 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
June 25, 2009
Category: Science communication research
I am in beautiful Madison, Wisconsin today to give this lecture at 7pm on campus. The talk is free and open to the public.
Posted by Matthew C. Nisbet at 8:51 AM • 1 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
June 22, 2009
Category: Future of Journalism • Science journalism
In the lead editorial at Science last week, Harvard University's Cristine Russell discusses the many emerging possibilities in science journalism. It's a mistake to frame current events as a "crisis," correctly explains Russell, but rather to look at trends as an opportunity to diversify, innovate, and experiment with new models and formats, expanding the network of science journalists into a truly global community, retraining journalists to produce content for new platforms and to cover related dimensions of policy and ethics, while broadening and diversifying audiences.
For journalists from Boston to Beijing, the rapidly changing world of communication technology also offers myriad multimedia options for crossing borders by accessing the latest science, interviewing experts, mining research, and reaching the public in innovative ways. While these new tools--blogs, podcasts, Skype, Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter--offer creative outlets, mindless chatter can gobble up precious time. Countless new Web sites provide a dizzying array of science information, misinformation, and commentary that can be hard to sort through. These sites also run the risk of preaching to the converted and subdividing the audience in ways that may narrow the science knowledge base and reinforce uninformed opinion.
In the face of this changing media landscape, journalism and science organizations need to explore better ways to train reporters, scientists, and other communicators around the world in the substance and process of science writing. In doing so, it is crucial that the old-fashioned virtues of good journalism--accurate information, multiple sources, context over controversy, and editorial independence--not be lost in the enthusiasm for communicating content in novel ways.
Posted by Matthew C. Nisbet at 9:10 AM • 1 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
June 19, 2009
Category:
Framing food problems as a matter of public accountability and sinister corporate control.
As I wrote earlier this week, the new documentary Food Inc. has the potential to significantly boost the public profile of a range of food-related problems, connecting them together under the perceptual umbrella of public accountability and corporate malfeasance.
In achieving this goal, it appears that Food Inc. has cleared the first hurdle, garnering strong reviews from the film critics who tend to drive the media narrative about a film including those at the NY Times, New York magazine, the Washington Post, and Rolling Stone. These reviews, of course, are already appearing in ads for the film.
At the NY Times, Mahnola Dargis references her popcorn in the lede and then declares the film:
...one of the scariest movies of the year, "Food, Inc.," an informative, often infuriating activist documentary about the big business of feeding or, more to the political point, force-feeding, Americans all the junk that multinational corporate money can buy. You'll shudder, shake and just possibly lose your genetically modified lunch.
At New York magazine, David Edelstein goes even further, echoing the film's heavy emphasis on the public accountability frame and portrayal of "bad guy" multi-national corporations as an existential threat to our personal freedom, health, and well-being:
After an hour and a half of sighing, wincing, and clucking over the manifold outrages portrayed in Robert Kenner's Food, Inc., I gave up the thought of "reviewing" the documentary and decided, instead, to exhort you: See it. Bring your kids if you have them. Bring someone else's kids if you don't...It's the documentary equivalent of The Matrix: It shows us how we're living in a simulacrum, fed by machines run by larger machines with names like Monsanto, Perdue, Tyson, and the handful of other corporations that make everything.
At Rolling Stone Peter Travers has a similar take as his colleagues:
Eating can be one dangerous business. Don't take another bite till you see Robert Kenner's Food, Inc., an essential, indelible documentary that is scarier than anything in the last five Saw horror shows.
However, at the Washington Post, Ann Hornaday notes a key question. In favorably comparing the film to Upton Sinclair and An Inconvenient Truth, Hornaday endorses it to readers but observes correctly:
The trick will be getting "Food, Inc.'s" message beyond its natural constituency of the already-converted to the millions of shoppers whose choices in the marketplace, the film argues, represent a tsunami of untapped power.
Inconvenient Truth received similar favorable advanced billing from critics, scored big at the box office, shaped news coverage of the climate change debate, and eventually earned an Academy Award and Nobel prize for Al Gore. Yet survey evidence suggests that not unpredictably, viewers of the film were heavily one-sided liberal, democrat, favorable in their opinion of Gore, and already concerned about climate change.
Food Inc. will no doubt continue the momentum generated by books such as Fast Food Nation and Omnivore's Dilemma, mobilizing a base of concerned citizens and prompting actions from some policymakers. It's a potential catalyst for a larger movement, the next few weeks of the film's run will provide greater insight on its impact.
One thing going against a possible breakout is the massive amount of competition from other issues for media and public attention, most notably the economy, health care, and a range of foreign policy issues. Even climate change is currently hard pressed to break into the top tier of public agenda issues, suggesting that it might be difficult for food-related problems to warp into celebrity status as a problem of widespread public attention.
Posted by Matthew C. Nisbet at 9:11 AM • 3 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
June 17, 2009
Category: Science journalism
Newspapers--and their localized science and environmental coverage--might be in decline across the U.S., but new ethnic media outlets, many of them in languages other than English, are thriving.
These outlets will be centrally important for reaching broader audiences with localized and relevant news and information about science, environment, and health. For example, many of these audience segments may have the greatest need for news about the health consequences of climate change or how to adapt to the rising price of energy. Yet, ethnic media are rarely if ever mentioned in discussions of science communication and journalism. One way to engage with the more than 60 million Americans who rely on ethnic media is to enter into partnerships where centrally produced science-related media content is translated, distributed and shared with these organizations.
This type of initiative is ideally suited for the type of non-profit university, foundation, and government supported science journalism initiatives that I discussed at Knight Science Tracker earlier this week.
From a recent news report:
Read on »
Posted by Matthew C. Nisbet at 5:40 PM • 1 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
