In my remarks as part of a panel at Harvard last week, I predicted that a new public accountability narrative about climate scientists had been locked in by the "ClimateGate" controversy and that each successive event such as the dispute over the Himalayan glacier data would be re-interpreted and amplified through this lens.
Partisan segments of the public--whether on the left or the right--pay close attention to accusations of political wrongdoing on the part of officials and scientists are not immune to this interpretation. In fact, public accountability is an enduring theme and focus across science-related policy debates.
But questions of public accountability also attract the attention of mainstream journalists. In fact, it is one of the central themes of political coverage generally and part of how news organizations define their function relative to the government and those in power. Indeed, the few times that climate change appears as front page news--such as accusations, for example, that the Bush administration "muzzled" NASA scientist James Hansen--a public accountability focus has frequently been the lede.
Today's front page story at the New York Times by Elisabeth Rosenthal which examines allegations of conflict of interest on the part of IPCC chair Rajendra Pachauri is another clear example. Critics on the left are alleging bias in the story, but if there is bias, it is simply journalists' orientation to pay attention to and report on possible wrong-doing by those in positions of influence and to follow perceived conflict.
Sure enough, journalists can be distracted by this basic reporting instinct. Looking back on coverage of the Clinton administration during the late 1990s, there is a strong argument to make that the leading news outlets spent too much time and attention chasing accusations of wrongdoing by the Clintons and not enough focus on substantive coverage of domestic and foreign policy.
While journalists favor this type of accountability storyline, what might be lost in the debate generated by today's New York Times story is that the IPCC and other institutions such as universities need to think more carefully about establishing and enforcing clear conflict-of-interest guidelines and communicating effectively about such accusations. Rosenthal, in her story, quotes Roger Pielke Jr's apt observation:
Dr. Pielke, the University of Colorado professor, said the United Nations panel, which has no explicit conflict policy, should do the same, adding, "You need to make sure that advice is advice and not stealth advocacy."
UPDATE: At his blog, Pielke points to as an example the conflict of interest guidelines at the National Academies.
- Log in to post comments
The hacked e-mail controversy and the personal attacks on climate scientists are part of a larger strategy to sow confusion and doubt by the fossil fuel industry and their lobbyists. Dr. Jeff Masters blog post last fall nailed it.
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1389
The attacks on Phil Jones and the head of the IPCC are very much like the attacks on Bill Clinton. It's the politics of personal destruction to intimidate climate scientists and change the media narrative.
Damn if you the NY Times and Andy Rivken aren't sucked in by the manufactured doubt narrative. The PR guys have done their job well.
Meanwhile, we have just celebrated the warmest decade in recorded times, but the public is increasingly doubting the work of climate scientists because the media narrative is challenging their honesty.
You have missed the larger narrative. You and the media are being manipulated by PR firms and lobbyists working for some of the world's richest and most powerful corporations.
Not sure how you can be so sure about that.
As anyone who has watched Fox news with a critical eye understands, bias is often clothed in "balance".
With fox it's obvious, but it need not be so obvious.
But even if one can not determine whether there is an underlying bias hidden by the effort at "balance", one can nonetheless assess a piece on its (old time) journalistic merits.
I'm referring to whether the journalist actually checked facts and verified the stories of the individuals he or she quoted or just presented a "balanced" collection of their viewpoints.
The Rosenthal piece is a clear example of the latter (collection of viewpoints).
Rosenthal is hardly alone in taking this approach.
Many (if not most) journalists in the mainstream media these days operate on the impression that as long as they have given views from "both sides' of the issue (no matter how unsupported or even nutty) those views may be, they have done their job as a "journalist."
If journalists were really "following" perceived conflict -- as old time investigative journalists would "follow" things rather than as rubbernecked spectators), they would investigate and only report after they had confirmed the claims made by the various individuals (eg, Christopher Monckton in the piece by Rosenthal).
It's clear that Rosenthal made no such effort.
The Rosenthal piece might make for good sensationalist reading (like one might find in the national Enquirer), but from, the standpoint of good journalism, it's simply so much tripe.
And trying to excuse it is simply inexcusable.
Why did you remove my post pointing out that the Times article was biased due to lousy sourcing?
Do you dispute that the Times article relies overwhelmingly on Pielke and Monckton?
Or do you dispute that Pielke is controversial (at best) and that Monckton is a proven pathological liar?
Good grief, someone is defending that inept article from the NYT? Anyone but me notice that for all the claims of conflict of interest, nobody actually points out how Pachauri's consulting actually is in conflict of interest. I mean, is anyone seriously suggesting that Pachauri's institute working on solar power in India a conflict of interest? Really? That's it?
And to blandly quote Monckton as if he's got any credibility left?
Perhaps the author of the piece isn't biased but if not, then that author should be very ashamed of the quality of her work.