As I've documented several times here at Framing Science, despite record amounts of news attention to climate change, the issue has often been eclipsed by coverage of "Paris Nicole Smith" and other celebrity scandals. So who is to blame for the skewed priorities of the press?
In a survey out this week, Pew finds that 87% of the public believes that the media has gone overboard on celebrity coverage and a majority of respondents think that it's news organizations who are to blame rather than public appetite.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
In the week following the Friday, Feb. 2 release of the Fourth IPCC report on global climate change, few if any Americans reported that global warming was the issue they were following most closely. Instead, the public turned its gaze back to the war in Iraq, while others, especially women ages…
As we argue in the Nisbet & Mooney Framing Science thesis, one reason that traditional science communication efforts fail to reach the wider American public is that the media tend to feed on the soft news preferences of the mass audience, making it very easy for citizens who lack a strong…
As we argue in the Nisbet & Mooney Framing Science thesis, infotainment dominates science as a news narrative. Despite record amounts of media attention, climate change still routinely falls short of a top news agenda item, making it exceedingly difficult to engage a broader American audience…
Slides and synchronized video of the presentations from the AGU panel "Re-Starting the Conversation on Climate Change: The Media, Dialogue, and Public Engagement Workshop" are now online. Below I link to each of the presentations highlighting key themes or conclusions and the minute mark in the…
i think ted and jennifer should go get married :)
Is it wrong for the public to watch a trainwreck in progress?
The problem with global climate science is that it's presented in a wonkish way and there's the usual pedantic arguing over "is it alarmism or is it true science that's being presented?"
Well, guess what? The general public doesn't really care about a projected event that is down the line if the scientists continue on the pedantic track. We have day jobs that are unrelated to the pedantic points, and YET we still have the capability to exercise political choice through voting. Go figure.
I would be extremely shocked if climate science becomes an issue based on wonkishness. It may become an issue, but only after it's presented in an alarming way to the public.
I disagree with Ted's cynical view of the public. True, there's a healthy percentage of the population that fits his description. It's also true that many S&T and related policy issues are presented in an overly pedantic fashion. That still doesn't excuse the 24/7 coverage of the death of Anna Nicole Smith, or Paris Hilton's brief incarceration -- and subsequent appearance on Larry King, where she struggled to fill an hour with anything worth saying. The media PERCEIVES the public to be more interested in celebrity news as opposed to "real" news. But if they suddenly stopped covering those stories, people wouldn't miss Paris; they'd find something new to gossip about over the water cooler and she would be quickly forgotten.
At least I can dream. :) And it's not necessarily the reporters' fault: I cheered the female newscaster who refused to report any more on Paris Hilton and actually tried to burn the written version of the story on air. Clearly, there needs to be a media coup. Vive la revolution!
Seems like there are two forces at work. One is mundance economics: it's inexpensive to report celebrity news, no research necessary, everyone knows as much about the "domain" as anyone else, fits into neat 3 and 5 minute segments. The other is about skills and competence. How many people in the news business today have the background to report usefully on climate change, to know who to talk to, the questions to ask, how to present technical information? Even newspapers are tossing out the science section.
And there is almost no international news on American TV aside from that related to Iraq. My cable system even eliminated the CNN International channel last year.
Best thing to happen in recent memory is Bill Moyers new show on PBS. It's just superb.
I didn't think I was being cynical. Although the public has some responsibility in what they watch, for most, it's a passive endeavor and a part of daily background noise. Again, they have day jobs.
Choosing what to present (on the news, in magazines, etc) is not a passive activity. It has a goal, and there is serious money behind it in shaping the outcome.
To assume that news, newsmagazines, etc do anything but present a specific POV is naive because there are always choices on what to present, how to present it, and who pays for the presentation.
Of course Moyers is good. Mika Brzezinski's act was a Howard Beale moment (if we forget that Howard was a loon and idolize him). But they're exceptions that you'd like to think are the norm. They're not.