Over at Skeptical Inquirer online, two of your ScienceBlogs denizens have teamed up in a major article about the pitfalls in the way the press covers the issue of hurricanes and global warming. And this isn't simply some pat story about avoiding robotic "balance" in coverage, such as one might tell about reporting on evolution or reporting the basic issue of whether we're causing global warming. Matt's and my argument is much complex and nuanced this time, because the subject requires it:
Although journalists have framed the story from three main angles--an emphasis on breaking scientific news (defined by the release of a study at Science or Nature), an emphasis on conflict between scientists (by playing up personal tensions at conferences), and an emphasis on government accountability (the control of media statements made by agency scientists)--in each case they have been far too trapped by what Revkin has called the "tyranny of the news peg."Motivated by a need to appear objective and cautious, journalists have tried to tie their coverage too closely to breaking events or controversy, a pattern that can be very ill suited to a complex scientific topic like the hurricane-global warming issue. Unfortunately, such coverage sacrifices key elements that readers need most, especially as the 2006 hurricane season enters its peak months of August and September: Sustained attention, a strong emphasis on scientific context, and then--even in the face of inevitable and undeniable scientific uncertainty--an integrated discussion of policy options.
I hope you'll check this piece out; quite a lot of work went into it. Matt interviewed the journalists and I interviewed the scientists and also reported from the conference in Monterey. I wrote most of the parts about the science; Matt wrote the parts about how it's been covered. Together we put a lot of work into this piece, and we hope it will have a big effect upon how journalists approach the hurricane-climate issue going into the months of August and September, and well into the future...
- Log in to post comments
I'd like to point out another well-written series that has given sustained attention and a strong emphasis on scientific context, the "Altered Oceans" that wraps today in the LA Times: http://www.latimes.com/oceans
Although it doesn't necessarily offer an integrated discussion of policy options related to red tides, toxic bacteria, garbage dumping, and ocean acidification, the writing, video, photo, and graphic content is some of the best presentation of science journalism I have seen recently. There is quite a bit of discussion on the associated bulletin board, and we can hope that some of this discussion might translate into policy action.
In fact, there is already this possbility--at the Senate Commerce Committee's hearing on the State of the Oceans this morning (attended, unfortunately, by only 3 Senators--Sununu, Boxer, and Lautenberg), Barbara Boxer pointed out the series and entered the entire series into the record.
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.
Do you think folks posting here could also crosspost to Matt Nisbet's discussion of this article? A bit clumsy maybe but unless anyone has a better idea....Hey, nobody objects to having your comment appear twice, right?
http://scienceblogs.com/framing-science/2006/08/the_next_big_storm_arti…
A hurricane researcher named Chris Landsea? How apt--I'm surprised you were able to resist the urge to comment on it at first reference in your piece.
At the time of writing I am the only person to comment on Matt's blog. So I am just copying the whole thing here (actually with a couple of embellishments).
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 science writers are led 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 is dangerous. Most scientists are little better qualified than laypeople outside their specialist discipline. Policy always involves balancing multiple factors across many areas of expertise. Furthermore scientists can speak with a spurious apparent authority.
Rgds
(cross posted per Chris's request)
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"?
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)....
More links:
David Appell says our piece is basically worthless (kind of him isn't it)
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2006/08/hurricanes-global-warming_03.ht…
Gristmill is more appreciative
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/8/3/151744/8224
But Dave Roberts comments: "The kind of story Mooney and Nisbet are recommending is one drained of all viscera, rendered purely cerebral. Certain intellectual and policy elites might read that stuff, but most journalists aren't writing for those folks. No discussion of media reform is complete without a consideration of the marketplace demands faced by reporters."
Jeez, I don't want these stories drained of all viscera, rendered purely cerebral...that's not the point at all. If the policy is part of the story it should be *better* more interesting reporting...We are not calling for anybody to be bored.
Chris/Matt
I am not saying scientists need to stay in their box. But when they jump out it needs to be clear what their credentials are. They are no longer speaking as scientists and there is a real danger they will be given spurious authority because they are scientists. The literature is full of examples of scientists giving poor policy advice to the public because they didn't have the full picture.
E.g. you write:
"When covering the release of future scientific studies, if journalists could simultaneously turn to authoritative, peer-reviewed assertions about what might be done in the policy realm, it might make it easier for them to move beyond a "just the science" approach."
But who is doing the peer reviewing (other scientists?) and why authoritative?
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.
I like the addition of James' viewpoint to the discussion, as it expands on Dave Roberts' comment (with which I agree, sorry Chris).
The implicit issue that Dave is talking about here is one of my interests: scientists aren't trained to convey information to the public.
So, how to fix it? Do we have to train separate 'liasons' to explain? Or do we train scientists in public speaking (and also in how to rebut oppo from vested interests?)?
If we don't do these two things, then journalists need to do a better job in understanding the issues, and also in selling the story, as a whold lotta folk will have to change their lifestyles and expectations in the future if we are going to redirection society to adapt.
As most people resist change, folks will have to be educated on why they cannot live the way their parents did, and why their dreams will have to be modified. And their consumption of stuff will have to lessen. And, and, and.
That's a monumental undertaking and we need to start figgerin' out how to do it. Somebody has to do it, and do an accurate job, and make the information compelling.
Accuracy and correct science is great, but if it's not compelling, few will listen.
Best,
D
"We call upon leaders of government and industry to undertake a comprehensive evaluation of building practices, and insurance, land use, and disaster relief policies that currently serve to promote an ever-increasing vulnerability to hurricanes." --Landsea et al
Perhaps they should have adressed this to the science journalists as well because many of the issues related to vunerability to hurricanes are directly related to science and engineering -- and exist quite indpendent of the possible GW/hurricane intensity link. Science journalists could be a big help in explaining some of these issues to the public and to public officials.
It seems to me that one of the big "science" stories related to hurricane Katrina that got short shrift in the coverage was the erosion of wetlands near new Orleans. Wetlands act as a buffer, mitigating the effects of wave action and there is much evidence that the wetlands along the coast near New Orleans have been eroding, at least partly due to the very existence of the levees.
The wetland erosion issue (and the issue of the poor construction of some of the levees) got much less coverage than the possible global warming/hurricane link -- presumably because the latter is much sexier.
In short, there is lots of fairly well-settled science to write about without resorting to speculation about the latest report on the possible global warming/hurricane link.
I strongly agree with Dark Tent's comment. But I also like the idea of science journalism being more commensurate with the science it covers.
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.