Enviro/Science Reporting

Audio and Highlights of the Harvard Kennedy School Panel w/ Andrew Revkin on Climate Change, Skeptics, and the Media

nisbetmc — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 09:24:32 +0000

Audio and Highlights of the Harvard Kennedy School Panel w/ Andrew Revkin on Climate Change, Skeptics, and the Media

On Thursday, at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, I served as one of the panelists at the event "The Public Divide over Climate Change: Science, Skeptics and the Media." The two hour session drew roughly 100 attendees, was organized and moderated by Belfer Center fellow Cristine Russell, and featured Andrew Revkin of the New York Times' Dot Earth blog and Thomas Patterson, Bradlee Professor of Government and the Press at the Kennedy School.

Audio of the panel is available at the Kennedy School web site and the event was covered in detail by the Columbia Journalism Review and the Harvard Gazette. Separate press summaries are posted at the Web sites for the sponsoring Shorenstein and Belfer Centers at the Kennedy School. In the rest of this post, I highlight several key points made by the panelists and attending faculty from Harvard with the minute mark of the audio included, so that readers can listen in.

Highlights From the Prepared Remarks of Panelists

In Russell's introductory remarks as organizer and moderator (4 min mark of audio), the veteran journalist set the tone for the panel, by emphasizing the tremendous acrimony from both the left and the right on climate change and the need to identify ways to improve overall public dialogue on the issue.

Andrew Revkin (13 min mark) noted that he was making his first public remarks since accepting a buy out from his position as chief environmental reporter at the New York Times. A master of using metaphor to convey a complex concept, Revkin compared public opinion on climate change to "waves in a shallow pan" that will tip to either side based on focusing events or news trends leading to "a lot of sloshing but not a lot of depth." Revkin also predicted that in coming years, information about climate change will come less and less from journalists and their news organizations, and instead from other parties, notably either scientists themselves (through their organizations, universities, or own social media strategies) or through advocates including climate skeptics and environmentalists.

In my remarks (25 min mark), I opened by suggesting several important themes for discussion before then moving to present findings from current research with Ed Maibach on how a diversity of Americans respond to information about the potential health impacts of climate change. My opening remarks focused specifically on understanding the apparent impact that "ClimateGate" has had both on the public but also on the political outlook of scientists, particularly the use of ClimateGate by skeptics to drive a new public accountability narrative about scientists. I have pasted the text of those remarks in a separate post. To view video and a version of the slides that I presented at Harvard, go to the 32 minute mark of a similar presentation I gave at a recent panel at the meetings of the American Geophysical Union.

Since beginning graduate school, I have often turned for insight to the work of Harvard professor Tom Patterson, one of the leading scholars in the field of political communication. In his remarks (40 min 30 sec mark), Patterson referenced a classic study conducted in the 1950s that showed that even back in an age of a mass audience, campaigns designed to inform the public often had very limited effects. As Patterson also observed, even on those issues such as the health care debate that dominate news attention, public knowledge remains low. These realities along with other factors, as Patterson concluded, underscore just how difficult it is for journalists and scientists to engage the public on climate change, which is not only deeply complex and politically polarized but also remains at best a mid-tier issue on the overall news agenda [see also this relevant blog post from last week].

Highlights from the Q&A and Discussion

From the audience, there were several important questions and points made. Three in particular are likely to be of special interest to readers:

1. First, Sheila Jasanoff, Pforzheimer Professor of Science and Technology Studies at Harvard, directed her question my way ( 1 hour mark), noting the important influence of framing but suggesting that the real focus for the news media and institutions should be to invest in a long term global shift in values relative to the environment. As Jasanoff argued, to focus on issues such as public health--which was a strategy also used by the environmental movement in the 1970s--might be a short term fix for generating greater public attention to climate change policy, but would potentially distract the news media and other institutions from the longer term goal of shifting environmental values.

In my reply, which you can listen to on the audio, I acknowledged that I thought Jasanoff and I agreed on most of these issues. Indeed, I have drawn heavily on Jasanoff's scholarship in my own work. However, I would add to my reply at the panel that I think the challenge is to engage the public at both levels. In other words, institutions and organizations-- through school-based curricula, changes in workplace norms, and changes in organizational practice--can and should begin the several decade socialization process of promoting a shift in environmental values.

But over the next decade, we also need to be emphasizing the public health dimension. Not only does this new focus increase personal significance and relevance but it also communicates about objectively real and scientifically well-documented risks that the public should know about. It also starts to promote greater attention to adaptation policies and strategies--such as evacuation procedures, water and agricultural sanitation policies, improved housing, cooling stations during heat waves, and new transportation infrastructures-- that are needed to protect people and communities and that also result in healthier and higher quality lives.

This does not mean replacing environmental coverage of climate change with public health coverage, but rather continuing and complementing the news attention to environmental impacts with stories providing context and information about health impacts, especially as they relate to specific regions or cities. [Increasing the capacity of news organizations to do this, especially at the local level, is a related question that the Q&A discussion also touched on.]

The public health focus also needs to be carefully calibrated to be consistent with scientific uncertainty. Warnings and predictions about estimated deaths attributable to climate change, for example, are likely to be challenged as alarmist and discounted by the public. Such predictions--if proven false or exaggerated--also threaten to undermine public trust. Yet focusing instead, for example, on the linkages between a warmer and wetter climate in a region such as Washington, DC and the implications for allergies or asthma, is likely to be an effective way to personalize climate change while also providing information on how the most vulnerable can cope with the problem.

2. A second important question (1 hour, 10 minute mark) was directed to the panel by William Clark, Harvey Brooks Professor of International Science, Public Policy, and Human Development at Harvard.

Clark noted that in his research and experience, what appeared to be especially important to policy change was the cumulative effect of a diversity of networked and interconnected professional and social groups, which gradually begin to take account of climate change as one of the major criteria by which they make decisions and interact with government. Given the central connection between group-based politics and social change, Clark questioned why there was so much attention to the need for broader public engagement or even if broader public opinion mattered to policy action.

Tom Patterson replied that he believed that Clark was correct, much policy change is driven by the activities of these networked social and professional groups and their related "issue publics." But he also noted, when it comes to debates over systemic changes to policy--such as cap and trade legislation or health care legislation--the broader public has to be involved. As Patterson described, the general public as interpreted through opinion polls, news coverage, and constituent pressure become an important part of the decision calculus of elected officials.

Revkin followed with his perspective as a journalist. Revkin said that what Clark described is really the story of special interests, whether on climate change it be the farm state interests, clean coal interests, or the nuclear energy industry. The relevance to journalists is that it becomes very difficult to cover policy options or dimensions of the issue that fall outside the agenda and focus of these powerful interest groups. Journalists may not only lack the skill set and time to go beyond "indexing" (my term from the political science literature) the policies advocated by special interests, but it is also difficult to convince editors to devote the space and attention to a broader range of policies.

My reply to Clark followed up on Patterson's points. Climate change, which necessitates a non-incremental, systemic change in policy, should be compared to other similar policy debates where wider public opinion has played a decisive role. For example, on immigration reform, Congress and President Bush had reached agreement on legislation and a majority of Americans supported reform, but the opinion intensity on the issue was on the side of the opposition. Combined with the efforts of conservative media, the constituent voice that was heard from fence-sitters in Congress was a strong voice of opposition, and as a result, legislation failed.

Similarly, you can debate the merits of mid-1990s Welfare reform and definitely condemn in terms of ethics the specific messages used, but it is a clear example where wider public opinion and support was critical to passing systemic policy change at the national level. Here is how I described this process in a recently published book chapter on framing and policy debates:

For decades, in attacking the welfare system, conservatives claimed that symptoms associated with poverty such as crime, teen pregnancy, and drugs were in fact the result of a permissive system that allowed lifelong dependency on government assistance. Poverty, in fact, was an outcome of big government. By the early 1990s, centrist Democrats had concluded that conservatives had successfully used welfare to turn the public against any public spending and to stoke the flames of racism. Yet they reasoned that if Democrats could reform welfare and make government aid recipients appear to "play by the rules," then they could claim political credit, under cut racism, and mobilize the public in support of more effective anti-poverty policies. Soon after his election, Clinton set the agenda for these efforts, vowing in his 1993 State of the Union address to "end welfare as we know it"(Soss and Schram, 2007).

Playing on the public's conflicting orientations towards individualism and compassion for the "deserving poor," both conservatives and centrist Democrats recast policy initiatives in terms of "welfare to work," and labeled bills using frame devices such as "personal responsibility," "temporary assistance," and "family self-sufficiency." Uglier, more tacit messages evoked the myth of the "black welfare queen" or similar race codes, while the news media's episodic presentation style and skewed depictions of race further reinforced individual attributions (Schram & Soss, 2001).

This message campaign successfully redefined welfare for the public as a social crisis. In 1992, only 7% of the public named welfare as the most important problem facing the country, but by 1996, this number had crested to 27% (Soss & Schram, 2007). In fact, by 1996, given magnified media attention and selective interpretations that played on public values and racial attitudes, more than 60% of Americans supported handing responsibility for welfare over to the states, and a similar number supported capping welfare benefits at five years. In August 1996, following successful Congressional passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, more than 80% of the public said that they supported Clinton signing the bill into law (Shaw & Shapiro, 2002).

3. A third important question came from friend and journalist Chris Mooney, author of The Republican War on Science and blogger at Discover's The Intersection. Mooney noted that in his own book, he had plied the public accountability frame to draw attention to perceived political wrong doing on the part of the Bush administration and conservatives. This message was also taken up by many liberal advocates and organizations. Now that the Obama administration is in power, observed Mooney, shouldn't we have been prepared that climate skeptics were going to turn to the public accountability message to leverage their own political goals?

I agreed that it should have been expected, in part, because public accountability is an enduring theme in American politics and culture and one that captures the attention of the public and journalists. The question, however, is the impact of this strategy. As I wrote last year in a paper at the journal Environment, the "War on Science" message mobilized a base of concern among environmentalists, scientists, and liberals, but was probably ignored as more elite bickering by other segments of the public. The impact of "ClimateGate," similarly, is likely to reinforce the views of those already deeply dismissive of climate change, but have limited impact on other members of the public [see panel remarks in this post.]

A related issue is the key differences between public communication as advocacy and public communication as engagement. The distinction is important in a number of ways. Much of what science organizations and scientists do when it comes to outreach on policy-related issues has an implicit instrumental basis, turning to innovative methods to reach audiences with the hope and the belief that these efforts will lead the public to see the issue at question more as scientists do.

Yet as I noted at the panel, this particular outlook on public communication is somewhat analogous to how democracy building is often thought of relative to foreign policy: The U.S. invests in democracy building in countries, but the implicit goal and assumption is that the outcome will lead countries to be direct allies of the U.S. If this doesn't happen, then democracy building is considered to have failed.

Engagement on science and society, on the other hand, is different from implicit advocacy, and should be thought of more in terms of civic education. The goal of engagement should be to empower, enable, motivate, inform, and educate the public around the technical, political, and social dimensions of a debate, but what they do with the acquired knowledge, motivation, skills, and resources is up to them.

Citizens may turn to working in support for example of cap and trade legislation, or alternatively, they may focus their participation on advocating for a carbon tax, supporting regional-level policies, advocating for nuclear energy investment, or they may ultimately decide that climate change is not as great a priority as other issues, such as economic development. That's the nature of a democracy.

Moreover, engagement should be as much about informing the public as it should be about also informing experts and decision-makers. Communication should be viewed as a two-way process where experts and decision-makers learn from the public about, for example, how to adapt policies to a particular region or affected group, while coming to better understand the perspective of lay citizens, identifying effective innovations or even accepting new regimes for formulating and deciding policy [on these issues related to engagement, see this recent review paper.]

nisbetmc Sat, 02/06/2010 - 04:24

Tags

Enviro/Science Reporting

global warming

Political Communication

Public Opinion

Science communication research

Categories

Environment

I despair of improving the attitudes of most of the public. They are enamored (using Revkin's beautiful metaphor) of wave height and oblivious, or even hostile, to knowledge of the pan's depths.

Still, we will try to connect to a public which is primarily motivated by emotional responses instead of interest in subject matter. Maybe there is an inflection point, lurking just beyond the present chaos, that (once we are on its opposite flank) will drive us toward more civil and constructive public involvement in environmental policy.

AU Report on the Lobbying Strategy of the Nuclear Industry

nisbetmc — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 08:04:24 +0000

AU Report on the Lobbying Strategy of the Nuclear Industry

In his State of the Union speech last week, President Obama called for significant government investment in nuclear energy, telling Congress that "to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. And that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country." The declaration brought members from both parties to their feet with some of the strongest applause of the evening (video above.)

This week, as the NY Times reports, the Administration in its proposed budget plans to triple the size of the Energy Department's loan guarantee program for the nuclear industry to $54 billion, which could support the construction of seven to 10 new reactors. "We are working hard to restart the American nuclear power industry," Energy secretary Steve Chu tells the Times, asserting that nuclear is an important part of the strategy to combat climate change.

As I detailed in a side bar to an article at the journal Environment last year, over the past decade, the nuclear energy industry has been laying the perceptual groundwork for a rebirth in political discourse, public image, and support, framing nuclear energy as a "middle way" forward on climate change. [On food biotechnology, a similar communication strategy has been pursued by Monsanto, resulting most recently in the once deeply troubled company being named the company of the year by Forbes.]

This month, more detail on the lobbying and PR strategy of the nuclear energy industry is uncovered in a special report by American University's Investigative Reporting Workshop, co-published with McClatchy Newspapers.

As journalist Judy Pasternak documents, over the past decade, "companies and unions related to the industry have spent more than $600 million on lobbying and nearly $63 million on campaign contributions," targeting Republican and Democratic Congressional leaders. In the first half of last year alone, while Congress debated nuclear loan guarantees as part of the economic stimulus plan, the nuclear energy industry spent more than $55.8 million on lobbying.

Illinois-based nuclear energy company Exelon has also been a major donor to President Obama. As Pasternak writes, Exelon "has funded Obama campaigns since his Senate run, when employees contributed more than $48,000, according to CQ Moneyline, and Exelon's political action committee gave the maximum of $10,000. Exelon employees gave Obama nearly $210,000 for his presidential campaign, according to CQ Moneyline."

Perhaps most noteworthy is the effective communication strategy used by the nuclear industry, letting third parties such as environmental figures and labor leaders build the case for increased subsidies, framing the need in terms of either climate change or job creation. As Pasternak reports:

While energy lobbies such as big oil and big coal have taken turns in the spotlight, big nuke flies largely under the radar. Alex Flint, the NEI's chief lobbyist, summed up the strategy last year at a luncheon with utility officials from Southeastern states: "Quiet." He likes to let surrogates make the case.

For instance, Patrick Moore, who played a leading role in Greenpeace during the 1970s, now helps lead the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, known as CASEnergy Coalition. His partner is Christine Todd Whitman, a former New Jersey governor and Environmental Protection Agency administrator. Both have touted nuclear power at gatherings of members of Congress and on national television.

Left unmentioned in these settings is that the NEI paid a public relations company to create CASEnergy, an example of "Astroturfing" techniques that many industries have adopted to give the appearance of grass-roots support.

Moore, who runs a consulting company based in Vancouver, British Columbia, acknowledged the ties in an interview, referring to NEI as "my biggest client." He declined to divulge his fees. Whitman's firm, the Whitman Strategy Group, says on its site that it was hired by CASEnergy, but the coalition's Web site doesn't mention the financial relationship. Neither does NEI's site, where Whitman and Moore are quoted on the merits of a nuclear future.

Labor is another new ally. NEI and 20 unions co-sponsored a "Welcome Back, Congress" bash in a House of Representatives office building last January. In March, Mark Ayers of the AFL-CIO arranged a meeting between NEI's president and House Energy and Commerce Chair Henry Waxman to talk about the climate bill. The liberal California Democrat is leading the effort to pass the measure.

The full report from Pasternak is a must read and deserves significant attention, especially as Obama's proposed budget moves forward. Regardless of where you stand on nuclear energy (I happen to support increased investment), the report is a leading case study on the strategies that leverage influence in policy debates.

The report itself is also a leading example of a new model for producing quality public affairs journalism. The Investigative Reporting Workshop, an initiative of the School of Communication at American University, brings faculty, veteran journalists, and students together to work collaboratively on investigative journalism projects, partnering with major news organizations such as McClatchy, PBS Frontline, and the Associated Press to engage and inform audiences.

nisbetmc Tue, 02/02/2010 - 03:04

Tags

Enviro/Science Reporting

Future of Journalism

nuclear energy

Yeah, Exelon supported the Senator from their home state in his presidential bid... must be some kind of conspiracy.

Nuclear power is benefitting much more from increased reliability and increased output over the past 30 years or so, plus the graying of that population segment who believe there's something immoral about substances that emit neutrons.

A Look Back at AAAS 2008: "The Scientist Delusion" Column Receives Science & Society Journalism Honor

nisbetmc — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 14:08:10 +0000

A Look Back at AAAS 2008: "The Scientist Delusion" Column Receives Science & Society Journalism Honor

In a provocative article published last year, Nature columnist David Goldston tackled the topic of science and religion, focusing on the implications for public engagement and emerging policy debates. In the column, Goldston used as a backdrop the "Communicating Science in a Religious America" panel that I organized and that he moderated at the 2008 AAAS meetings in Boston.

Yesterday, in recognition of the column, Goldston was awarded an honorable mention in the National Science Writers Association's annual Science & Society Journalism Awards. Double congratulations are in order to Goldston as he was recently named Director of Government Affairs at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

nisbetmc Wed, 09/09/2009 - 10:08

Tags

Enviro/Science Reporting

And wouldn't it be wonderful if non-Nature subscribers could actually read Goldston's article?

Paul... You can't see this link?

http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080305/full/452017a.html

atheists caused 911 - treat them accordingly

you have forfeit your life

http://www.sotoman.info/freethinking/index.php?topic=1198.0

Tenure-Track Position in Science, Environmental, and/or Health Journalism: American University, Washington DC

nisbetmc — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 13:18:48 +0000

Tenure-Track Position in Science, Environmental, and/or Health Journalism: American University, Washington DC

This semester, I am serving on the search committee for an exciting new tenure track position in science, environmental, and/or health journalism. Our School of Communication at American University is a leading laboratory for professional education, research, and innovation in the fields of journalism, public communication, and film and digital media. The new faculty member would have the opportunity to train the next generation of science, environmental, and health reporters while working in Washington, DC on innovative projects that address major trends and challenges in the field.

See the job listing below.

American University School of Communication
Tenure Track Position in
Health/Science/Environmental Journalism

The nationally accredited Journalism program of The School of Communication at American University, Washington, D.C., is seeking an experienced journalist with a strong record/expertise in health, science, and/or environmental journalism for a tenure-track position beginning in August 2010. The successful applicant could have additional business, government, and/or public policy expertise. There is a four-course teaching load in the first year. Teaching will include a specialty course in science/environmental/health reporting, and other news writing/reporting and/or media studies courses. Strong skills in computer-assisted reporting, multimedia experience with knowledge of Web-based writing and software, and an interest in working on externally funded projects are highly desirable. A path-breaking research agenda is required. Teaching will include both undergraduate and graduate courses and may also include the School's weekend graduate programs.

Qualifications: Candidates should have substantial professional experience, a master's degree or Ph.D., and demonstrated potential for nationally prominent scholarly, professional, or creative work. Prior teaching experience at the university level is preferred, as is a record of top-notch research. Responsibilities also include service on departmental and university committees, and leadership in professional and academic groups.

Submit application letter, resume or vitae, transcripts and names, addresses and telephone numbers of three references to Dr. W. Joseph Campbell, Chair, Science/Environmental/Health Journalism Search Committee, School of Communication, American University, 4400 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, MGC #300, Washington, D.C. 20016-8017.
Inquiries to socsearch@american.edu.

Review of applications will begin Sept. 1, 2009, and continue until the position is filled.

Rank and Salary: The successful candidate will be appointed at the rank of Assistant Professor. Candidates with established teaching and research track records may be considered at a higher rank. Salary is competitive and negotiable, and is dependent upon qualifications and experience.

The School of Communication has more than 900 undergraduate and 300 graduate students in journalism, film & media arts, and public communication programs. American University is an independent, co-educational university with more than 11,000 students. SOC is a laboratory for professional education, communication research, and innovative production in journalism, film and media arts, and public communication. The School works across media platforms with a focus on public affairs and public service. For more information about the School of Communication, please visit http://www.american.edu/soc.

The American University is an equal opportunity/affirmative action employer committed to a diverse faculty, staff and student body. Applications from women and minorities are particularly invited.

nisbetmc Mon, 08/24/2009 - 09:18

Tags

Enviro/Science Reporting

Categories

Education

The Link? "Going Broad" with Darwinius masillae

nisbetmc — Tue, 19 May 2009 07:48:35 +0000

The Link? "Going Broad" with Darwinius masillae

Fronting the NY Times today is a preview of a bold new strategy for engaging hard to reach audiences on science. As the NY Times describes, today's media event that unveils the fossilized remains of the monkey like creature Darwinius masillae features a unique collaboration between the History Channel, the open-access journal PLoS One, and the American Museum of Natural History.

Along with today's publication at PLoS and the media unveiling at AMNH, there will be a two hour documentary on Monday at the History Channel, an exclusive arrangement with ABC News to appear on Good Morning America, Nightline, and World News, and a high end multi-media Web site. In addition, publisher Little, Brown plans to ship 110,000 copies of a book on the find titled simply The Link. The History Channel says it paid a record price for the two-hour documentary, which will subsequently also air on BBC and the German broadcaster ZDF.

Today's event--a publicity tsunami relative to traditional science communication practices--is part of what my co-author Dietram Scheufele and I call in a paper under review "going broad" with public engagement. It's a strategy that's necessary in today's fragmented media world and one used across other sectors of society and commerce. ""Any pop band is doing the same thing," Jorn H. Hurum, the lead scientist on the Darwinius masillae project tells the NY Times. "Any athlete is doing the same thing. We have to start thinking the same way in science."

Below the fold is how we describe this emerging "going broad" trend in the section of the paper that recommends several bold new innovations in science communication.

My chief concern about today's announcement is that it might extend into hype, a reservaton also noted in the NY Times article. The careful balance between innovation in public engagement and the avoidance of hype is something that we also address in the working paper. In particular, when this type of "going broad" strategy is applied around a single discovery or finding rather than a broader scientific subject or body of research, the probability of hype is deeply magnified. More on that later. But for now, go below the fold for our description of the "going broad" strategy.

"Going broad:" Beyond elite audiences. As mentioned earlier, some critics argue that it would be unethical to take advantage of strategic communication tools in order to make scientific issues more relevant and accessible to a general public. But recent data on potentially widening knowledge gaps suggests that it may be unethical if we did not use all communication tools at our disposal in order to connect with hard-to-reach audiences (Scheufele & Brossard, 2008).
Many traditional approaches to public communication about science, for instance, have inadvertently favored elite audiences. In fact, some previous attempts to connect across diverse sections of the public have resulted in widening gaps between the already information rich and the information poor. This is partly due to the likelihood of exposure. Almost 40% of college-educated respondents, for instance, visited a science or technology museum in 2006, compared to less than 10 percent for respondents with a high school education or less (National Science Board, 2008).

As a result, museum exhibits, science Web sites, traditional science documentaries, and similar outreach efforts may inherently favor elite audiences. Widening gaps between the information rich and information poor are also a function of the way issues like nanotechnology and biotechnology play out in public discourse. In their research on "knowledge gaps," Phil Tichenor and his colleagues (1970) found that audiences with high socioeconomic status (SES) showed much stronger learning effects from health related information than low-SES audiences. This effect is in part due to the fact that TV shows like PBS' NOVA or the Science section of the New York Times tailor their content to highly educated audiences. As a result, learning effects for mass audiences are minimal, even if these audiences happen to tune in to NOVA or read an article in the New York Times.

What are needed then are media strategies for "going broad" with science-related content, generating attention and interest among non-elite audiences. Surveys, for example, show that local television news remains among the dominant sources of public affairs-related information for the American public (Pew 2008b). Therefore, in order to reach non-traditional audiences, scientists and their organizations need to be on local television news. To do so, major national communication efforts should be closely coordinated across local media markets, with specific scientists, institutions, or organizations serving as the local angle and spokespeople. An alternative model is the example of Climate Central, a non-profit partnership between journalists and scientists who produce climate science stories for syndication at local television outlets across the U.S. (Brainard, 2008).

New documentary genres and storytelling techniques are also an important mechanism for going broad. Surveys in the U.S. show that programming at the Discovery Channel, National Geographic, and Learning Channel constitutes the largest and most diverse audience for science-related content. More than 40% of respondents across educational levels, gender, age, religious background, and ideological orientation say that they "regularly" view these channels. In comparison, 10% or less of respondents across these groups regularly watch PBS NOVA or subscribe to Scientific American, Discover, Nature, or Science magazines (Pew 2006). Specific to the environment, the box office success and media visibility in the U.S. for the 2009 major motion picture release of Earth, a theatrical version of a series that originally aired on the BBC and Discovery Channel, is further evidence of the wider appeal of these new documentary genres.

A recent National Academies (2008) project that pairs scientists as consultants on major motion pictures and television series is also a step in the direction of going broad and reaching new audiences. In similar fashion, an initiative led by physicists used the 2009 major motion picture release of Angels & Demons as a way to capitalize on the summer blockbuster's focus on particle accelerators and anti-matter. The project organized local lectures in 45 locations across the U.S. and Canada and launched an educational Web site "Angels & Demons: The Science Revealed."

Long used as a strategy for engaging the public on public health issues (Kaiser,2004; Montgomery, 2007), active involvement with Hollywood in the construction of messages about science can lead to a range of outcomes including informal learning, enhanced interest and attention to science in news coverage and other media, the modeling of positive behavior related to environmental sustainability or energy use, the favorable framing of controversial issues such as the teaching of evolution in schools, or even a spike in news or policy attention to a scientific topic such as climate change. Web platforms such as the Angels & Demons site facilitate incidental exposure to science among individuals using search engines to find more information about the film.

Other important media outlets for expanding audience reach include comedy news programs such as The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. Studies have documented the ability of these programs to engage younger, harder to reach audiences about political candidates and election campaigns, shaping their political attitudes and levels of political knowledge (Feldman, 2007; Feldman & Goldthwaite-Young, 2008). On science, a recent Pew (2008c) analysis finds that The Daily Show includes comparatively more attention to science and technology topics than the mainstream press and significantly more attention to climate change. These programs also generate buzz online with heavily-trafficked and forwarded clips on hot-button science topics such as evolution, genetics, climate change, or stem cell research. Additionally, both shows frequently feature scientists and science authors as interview guests, for example Neil deGrasse Tyson and Brian Greene.

Given that satire and comedic news are increasingly preferred media formats for younger audiences, more research is needed on the potential for using this style of humor as a tool for public engagement on science. Little is known, for example, about the comparative effects of science information communicated in satirical form compared with the same information communicated in traditional science media. Greater understanding in this area would inform not just media strategy but also the incorporation of humor and satire into the production of documentary film, Web, and museum content.

nisbetmc Tue, 05/19/2009 - 03:48

Tags

Entertainment Media

Enviro/Science Reporting

Science communication research

science museums/centers

Darwinius masillae History Channel

Categories

Environment

hi i like your scool
but i dont like my
and was think if i could go in your school my is sade
number 1347-488- 1958

"My chief concern about today's announcement is that it might extend into hype"

Too late.

The similarities between Ida and humans are no more proof as a "missing link" between humans and primates than the similarites between a fork and an airplane (both being of metal) prove that the fork is eventually (on its own) going to evolve into a flying machine! Similarity does NOT denote relationship. When we look at bones, we don't know if a specimen had ANY offspring, let alone different offspring.

@ Jeff, you can not compare a fork and a plane to this and a human, you could use your example if the fork had an engine, wings but no tail maybe even with out a paint job, the fact that they have a primate example with forward facing eyes and a thumb that is front facing is part of the key, fork and plane.. what ever mate.

That is a perfectly apt metaphor Jeff, comparing self replicating life with man made inanimate objects.

Of course, we all know forks and planes reproduce asexually, so we would expect them to have very slow evolution rates.

Don't get me started about the controversial placement of sporks within the New World Utensilid clade.

Many traditional approaches to public communication about science, for instance, have inadvertently favored elite audiences. In fact, some previous attempts to connect across diverse sections of the public have resulted in widening gaps between the already information rich and the information poor. This is partly due to the likelihood of exposure. Almost 40% of college-educated respondents, for instance, visited a science or technology museum in 2006, compared to less than 10 percent for respondents with a high school education or less (National Science Board, 2008).

The danger of rushing into this is that when the further analysis indicates that the analysis and the hype don't match up with the the claims being made by the media, those precise public that are the target will have yet another reason to claim that "Scientists don't know what they are talking about."

I understand the desire to spread science as it is happening, but without placing this discovery in its proper taxonomic context, and allowing the media to hype this as "The Link," the strategy is causing far more damage in the long run.

Analysis of the Shake Up at Scientific American

nisbetmc — Mon, 11 May 2009 13:36:36 +0000

Analysis of the Shake Up at Scientific American

Over at Columbia Journalism Review, Curtis Brainard has an excellent round-up and analysis of what might be afoot at Scientific American as it merges editorial direction with Nature Publishing Group and as longtime editor John Rennie steps down.

nisbetmc Mon, 05/11/2009 - 09:36

Tags

Enviro/Science Reporting

John Rennie Scientific American Nature Publishing

Pew: Few Americans Fear the Loss of Their Local Newspaper

nisbetmc — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 14:49:43 +0000

Pew: Few Americans Fear the Loss of Their Local Newspaper

The struggles of the science beat at local newspapers have little or nothing to do with scientific illiteracy or public respect for science and much more to do with the economic climate and a more general and profound absence of public appreciation for the role of the press in civic life. Consider this stark finding from a just released Pew report: Less than a majority of Americans believe that the loss of their local newspaper would critically harm the health of their community.

So what's going on here? Science has been and remains the dominant force in American culture. Research shows that scientists are deeply trusted by the public, and they enjoy high levels of social status and prestige. On key policy issues, the American public believes that scientists have greater levels of expertise and should have more say in key policy debates than religious leaders, industry, or government officials. Over time, Americans have maintained an unchanging optimism in science to improve their quality of life and to grow the economy while public trust in other institutions including the media has plummeted.

So while the public deeply respects and even strongly defers to the cultural authority of science, they use this strong deference as the ultimate heuristic, replacing the motivation to seek out quality science coverage with blind trust on most science-related issues. Only on a few issues such as climate change, evolution, and stem cell research where rival groups tell the public that science is at odds with something else they care deeply about--such as religion or the economy--does broad based public deference and support for science break down. In short, in the U.S. the default for culture is a blind faith in science, rather than a war on science.

So where does the connection to local newspapers come in? Because Americans lack both an appreciation for the importance of news in local civic life and also often strongly prefer to just trust science--many do not realize that if our local news organizations fail, the very infrastructure of our communities grows considerably weaker. In other words, if communities lack a strong source of science and public affairs information tailored to local concerns, than these communities will not be able to adapt to challenges such as climate change or economic recovery. Indeed, their citizens will be ill equipped to participate meaningfully in collective decisions and policy choices.

nisbetmc Thu, 03/12/2009 - 10:49

Tags

Enviro/Science Reporting

thanks..

biÅe anlamadÄ±m

asd masd asd by_memooo

thanks for yhe post...

thanks....

thsnkdd...

Maybe its because so many local papers, like the one in my town, haven't done anything investigative or substantial since the late '70's.

I can get pablum anytime.

I haven't bothered with a local newspaper in 20 years. And now it's even much less of use (and a pain to recycle)

I read better science news on the net, better political coverage, more varied and better (as well as worse) analysis.

Nothing in the paper comes close to sources like Scienceblogs, or political commentary from left to right, authoritarian to libertarian, searchable news articles. Nope don't miss it a bit

This is a good breakdown, but what if your fundamental premise is incorrect. That is:

Is it possible that it's time we relied on some other institution to police our society?

Was it ever really a good idea to rely on an ad-supported medium to be a check on government and corporate misdeeds?

If 90% of the functionionality of the local paper has been successfully replaced by the internet (i.e. classifieds, reviews, being the only place to get wire service news that is now carried and apparently successfully supported by a million other websites, etc.) then wouldn't it be more expeditious to find a different way to fund the 10% that isn't going to be replaced by the internet?

And isn't it possible that a much-reduced local paper, that is online only, that solely focuses on what its journalists do well and can uniquely contribute could, after all, be funded by some mix of advertising, subscriptions, foundations and all the rest?

Newspapers are not having a hard time because of the economy. They are having a hard time because they are no longer relevant.
--
www.chl-tx.com

Maybe we should interpret the quality of the local newspapers as at least as much a cause of local news readership and perception of value as any underlying prejudice on the part of the readers about the inherent contribution of journalism to civic life.

Local newspapers have been made irrelevant by the Internet. There is no need to use actual paper to transmit all of the content that has historically been in newspapers. Moreover, Internet communication is faster, more convenient, more diverse, and more easily specialized than newspapers, esp. local newspapers, can be.

Gallup: Belief in Climate Change Exaggeration at Record High

nisbetmc — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 18:01:30 +0000

Gallup: Belief in Climate Change Exaggeration at Record High

A Gallup survey report released yesterday finds that a record 41% of Americans--and 66% of Republicans--now say that news reports of climate change are exaggerated. I first spotted this troubling trend in a 2007 paper analyzing twenty years of public opinion about climate change. This latest survey reinforces my fear that climate advocates have fallen into a dangerous communication trap.

At the root of this growing perception is something I blogged about earlier this week: As long as science is communicated as the principal reason compelling policy action--and this "compelling" science dramatized by a focus on severe environmental impacts such as hurricanes--the message will either fall on passive ears and/or be easily countered as "global warming alarmism."

Here's how I describe the communication trap in a recent paper published at the journal Environment, using Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth and similarly framed news coverage as a lead example:

One of the unintended consequences of this line of communication is that it plays into the hands of climate skeptics and further reinforces the partisan divide in climate change perceptions. Andrew Revkin, who has covered climate change for nearly 20 years for the New York Times, argues these claims are effectively countered by critics, such as Inhofe, as liberal "alarmism," since the error bars of uncertainty for each of the climate impacts are much wider than the general link between human activities and global warming.32 These challenges, which are easier when the target of ridicule is a former political figure such as Gore, quickly reactivate a focus on scientific uncertainty and the heuristic of partisanship. In addition, the public is likely to translate these appeals to fear into a sense of fatalism, especially if this information is not accompanied by specific recommendations about how they can respond to the threats.33

Revkin and others worry that the news media has moved from an earlier era of false balance to a new phase of overdramatization, one that skeptics can easily exploit to dismiss climate change as a problem.34 Polls suggest that the public has picked up on critiques of the media by conservatives, likely filtering this information through their preferred partisan lens and their belief in liberal media bias. Such filtering results in Republicans who not only discount the climate change problem but who also agree that the mainstream news media is exaggerating its severity.35

This of course was the central argument that Revkin made two weeks ago in his news analysis headlined: "In Climate Debate, Exaggeration Is a Pitfall." Literal minded bloggers and Gore enthusiasts attacked Revkin for engaging in "false balance," but they appeared to miss the focus of his analysis, which he succinctly re-stated in a blog post titled "Gore, Will, Climate and Complexity":

With the battle shifting again to Congress -- where arguments will include a combination of uncertain science and subjective economics -- the potential for hyperbole is rising. Every time an overstatement is exposed, it threatens to further disengage people who are already either doubtful or misinformed.

So just how easy is it for disengaged audiences to re-interpret the science-compels-action message, especially when it is framed in the context of looming environmental catastrophe? Watch the clip below from Glen Beck's program formerly on CNN's Headline News, a segment that ran during last year's Heartland Institute "climate swindle" conference in New York.

This same script continues to play out over and over again on talk radio, conservative cable news, and among respected Republican opinion leaders. Notice the anger and the humor that Beck expertly conveys to open his segment. Then notice the narrative he weaves together with this emotion: The UN, liberals, and the elite media are censoring rival scientific evidence on climate change. In fact, to lend further ideological resonance to his narrative, Beck portrays Gore as the figurehead and lead voice of scientific consensus. He then compares Gore's claims to the opinions of two distinguished sounding contrarians, a Harvard physicist and British-accented scientist no less!

If science, as a "first premise," continues to be the focal point of calls to action on climate change, the public will remain immobilized. There needs to be a second premise effectively communicated, a values-based and normative frame that is adapted to the background of different segments of the public--especially the Republican base. These frames as I describe in the Environment paper include a focus on energy innovation, the shared values between Evangelicals and environmental advocates, and the public health implications of climate change.

nisbetmc Wed, 03/11/2009 - 14:01

Tags

Enviro/Science Reporting

global warming

climate change matt nisbet framing scientific uncertainty

Categories

Environment

What is the scientific evidence that more CO2 forces temperature more than the current concentration of CO2?

Global warming skepticism is rational in the sense that until global warming impinges upon the reality of people, some will deny the warnings (the "show me" state: I'll believe it when I feel it). Don't worry, soon record high temperatures will cause routine failure of non-irrigated crops that will catch their attention:

"Few seem to realise that the present IPCC models predict almost unanimously that by 2040 the average summer in Europe will be as hot as the summer of 2003 when over 30,000 died from heat. By then we may cool ourselves with air conditioning and learn to live in a climate no worse than that of Baghdad now. But without extensive irrigation the plants will die and both farming and natural ecosystems will be replaced by scrub and desert. What will there be to eat? The same dire changes will affect the rest of the world and I can envisage Americans migrating into Canada and the Chinese into Siberia but there may be little food for any of them." --Dr James Lovelock's lecture to the Royal Society, 29 Oct. '07

Besides, it is too late for a carbon diet anyway:

"The alternative (to geoengineering) is the acceptance of a massive natural cull of humanity and a return to an Earth that freely regulates itself but in the hot state." --Dr James Lovelock, August 2008

I'm not sure you've really supported your case with the video clip. What is attacked in that clip is the underlying science. There's no real evidence that exaggeration of the outcome precipitated this.

Mr. Arnold, you state that the failure of non-irrigated crops will get the attention of those who are skeptical about global warming. I can assure you that it will not. As far as the real skeptics are concerned, the warming, no matter how high it may get, is a natural cycle of atmospheric evolution. No currently available evidence whatsoever will suffice to change their minds as proof that man has had a great and earth-shaking impact on the global climate.

While the skeptics point of view may not concur with many in the scientific community, the sad fact is that not even all in the scientific community can agree that the changes are man-induced. The truth is that while we can suspect that the warming is being enhanced by human activities, we cannot know for certain for possibly hundreds of millenia of gathering climate information in conjunction with monitoring of human activity on the planet, which is a luxury we do not currently enjoy.

All the posturing, ridiculing, and name-calling in the world is not going to change the fact that some are not willing to swallow the current batch of Kool-Aid. And, when one thinks about it carefully, why should they in the face of insufficient irrefutable evidence that eliminates all possible causes except man?

Washington Post to Consolidate and Boost Its Science Coverage

nisbetmc — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 16:27:33 +0000

Washington Post to Consolidate and Boost Its Science Coverage

Good news on the science beat front. Cristine Russell at the Columbia Journalism Review has the details on an innovative move by the Washington Post to consolidate coverage of science, the environment, and health under one editor.

nisbetmc Mon, 03/09/2009 - 12:27

Tags

Enviro/Science Reporting

matt nisbet future of science journalism

Danish Science Journalism Meeting to Focus on Framing

nisbetmc — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 11:50:46 +0000

Danish Science Journalism Meeting to Focus on Framing

In the U.S., there is often the false assumption that Europeans are somehow more engaged and supportive of science than Americans. Yet, as I discuss in several studies and as I have written about in articles, instead of science literacy, the same generalizable interaction between values, social identity, and media portrayals drive European perceptions of science debates. Indeed, cross-national survey studies show that while science remains the most widely admired and respected institution in American society, Europeans are far more ambivalent about the costs, risks, and benefits of science than their American counterparts.

In June, I will be traveling to Copenhagen, Denmark to speak at the annual conference of the Danish Association of Science Journalists. The focus of this year's conference is "framing research." Specifically, how to use an understanding of framing and other aspects of science communication research to more effectively engage Danish publics.

In the YouTube video above hosted at the preliminary conference Web site, journalists ask Danish twenty-somethings to recall the most recent news report they read, heard, or watched about science. The results are not surprising and are consistent with what I have written about regarding the miserly nature of audiences in a media world full of competing content choices.

nisbetmc Thu, 02/26/2009 - 06:50

Tags

Enviro/Science Reporting

framing science journalism

But it's important to keep in mind, that it's difficult for "streeters" to answer open-ended questions that require specific memory. I understand the want/need to leave questions open-ended like that...however, if the video editors had interspersed questions like "What was the last science research you remember reading?" with "What recent general news story do you remember reading/watching?" we'd have a much more thorough idea of what content is actually making it through to long term memory storage.

(or more pointed questions, requiring an opinion that is then backed by content they read/watched somewhere, may have gotten a more accurate picture, like "What do you think are the causes of climate change?" vs "What movies were nominated for Oscars this year?")

From someone who does a lot of man-on-the-street, it's important to make sure the answers are not giving the wrong impression of actual knowledge. But you already know this well, from research surveys.

thanks.