With Chris Mooney, over at Skeptical Inquirer Online, we have a lengthy article evaluating coverage of the hurricane-global warming debate. We interviewed the major science writers, columnists, and political reporters who have written about the topic, we also interviewed several of the major scientists in the area. We conclude with recommendations on how journalists and scientists can work together to improve coverage. The article was originally intended to appear this summer at a print magazine, but got bumped at the last minute. So we decided to get it up on the Web with timeliness and impact in mind. Depending on trends in coverage this hurricane season, we may return to the topic as an academic journal article. So I would be very interested in reader feedback.
- Log in to post comments
What a good article - thanks.
There are a few assumptions that I would like to question. Please take all of the following as discussion points - not criticisms.
1) You start off early by talking about "what the reader needs most". It then appears that what the reader needs is a discussion of scientific uncertainty around hurricanes and global warming and the policy implications. This may be what you think the reader needs; it is very likely what many scientists think the reader needs; but it may not be what the reader wants to know. There is little point in writing an excellent discussion of the uncertainty and policy implications if no one reads it. The news peg may be essential to get news read at all.
2) It is vital that the public trust science writers. If they are lead into conjecture or expressing too much opinion about policy then that trust may be eroded. Why not leave these areas to oped? Where the understanding is that this is someone's opinion.
3) There seems to be an assumption that scientists should take a central authorative role in communicating policy implications. This seems very dangerous. Most scientists are little better qualified than laypeople outside their specialist discipline. Policy always involves balancing multiple factors across many areas of expertise. Furthmore scientists can speak with a spurious apparent authority.
Rgds
Do you think folks posting here could crosspost to my blog's parallel discussion of this piece? A bit clumsy perhaps but unless anyone's got a better idea....
http://scienceblogs.com/intersection/2006/08/covering_hurricanes_and_gl…
(Crossposted from Chris's blog.)
One thing about seacoast population growth: The people who live there, at least in this country, choose to live there. The fact that they're vulnerable to hurricanes is something that they've taken on themselves.
However, the exposure to stronger hurricanes is not something that any of us have chosen in that way. My house on the seacoast is a risk that I'm taking with my private property. Stronger hurricanes is a risk that many people are taking with many other people's property, and not just people in this country. (And remember that the have-nots are far more affected than the haves. And the haves are disproportionately creating the problem.)
The other thing is that for a long time I've heard that hurricanes are only strengthened by a small velocity for each degree of ocean warmth. But recently I heard that the destructive force of a hurricane does not follow the velocity in a linear manner. A difference of 10 mph could be crucial. This fact has not been included in much of the hurricane/GW reporting.
The other thing is that people are interested in the hurricane-GW connection not just because of hurricanes. People have found it interesting because it's evidence of GW being a problem, that humans are affecting nature in undesirable ways. It's something to take notice of, because logically, the problem might take other forms in the future.
I still think the explanation of the problem in terms of a statistical increase lacks tangibility for the general public. It doesn't give you a sense of what is changing.
Matthew, Chris -
An excellent piece. Thanks much. I would very much like y'all to follow up on what is, for me, a central and unanswered question. It is, for me, the critical "so what" question underlying all of this.
What measurable effect does the news converage have on public understanding of the issue?
What measurable effect does the news coverage have on the understanding of political/policy actors?
In other words, what would be the difference in outcomes in terms of public understanding and political/policy processes if the news media does these sort of things "well" versus "poorly"?
(Crossposted)
Thanks for all the comments. Jon, you're exactly right about the issue of agency and who's responsible. I think that is indeed part of the reason we get so exercised about this subject.
John Fleck: I will leave it up to Matt Nisbet to answer these empirical questions. This is his speciality.
Mark: I think you're going to find Matt and I disagree. While I can't speak for him, I am not at all sold on this notion of traditional roles for the scientist and the journalist that cannot be breached. I personally think both groups could stand to broaden their respective ranges.
Prometheus also comments on this piece, ending with the question: "What is the role of a science journalist in a democracy anyway?" My answer would be, it's not really any different from the role of any other journalist: Tell the stories that matter because they affect people's lives, expose wrongdoing, force decisions or action on the part of our leaders...shine the light. Our argument is that science journalists like any journalists need to help convey why the hurricane-climate issue matters (or doesn't)....
I've got a few thoughts over at The Island of Doubt, including a comparison of Chris and Matt's thoughts with K.C. Cole's piece on science journalism in general in the new CJR
In line with James, I also have Down to Earth thoughts of my own to offer, but as one of them scientists and engineers rather than a journalist.
I strongly encourage more scientific background, if sensibly illustrated. But I also think far too much media attention is going towards the hitherto-accepted link between hurricanes and climate change and not enough towards more tangible and practical responses to hurricane risk.
(Ah - of course I didn't mean "hitherto", but rather "yet to be".)
[cross-posted ... some of the references are to comments that only appear in Chris' post]
DR's comments somewhat reflect my comments as well:
http://scienceblogs.com/nosenada/2006/08/nisbetmooney_article_on_hurric…
to wit, one of my strongest comments is:
"...in creating controversy, are journalists simply giving the public what they want, rather than forcing on them something that might be better for them but doesn't taste as good?"
but John Fleck's question (also asked in comment to my post) is much more apt and, in the end, crucial.
FWIW, Appell is off his rocker here. Appell is essentially saying that giving scientific background on the issue is plenty good enough and reporting into the next level or two of implications on the social-natural feedbacks, as you guys have done, is worthless. Ludikris. As I said in my post, the never-changing news story on [fill-in-the-blank current natural disaster here] isn't useful anymore. Examining the whys and wherefores is useful and necessary if we want real movement in society's understanding of social-natural feedbacks.