Global climate change is arguably the biggest news story of our times. But from a glance at the headlines, you might not know it.
Recently I attended the Society of Environmental Journalists conference at Stanford, an annual national gathering that brings together journalists, environmental scientists, policymakers, and activists to discuss environmental issues-- and how the media covers them. One of many highlights was a panel on "Covering Climate Change," which yielded my favorite blog headline of the event:
"So, this editor walks into a bar with three climate scientists..."
Of course, as the discussion made clear, the culture gap between science and journalism is no joke. Climatologists Stephen Schneider and Heidi Cullen, social psychologist Jon Krosnick, and Sacramento Bee editor Rick Rodriguez explored how scientists and news media can better work together to educate the public about the global implications of climate change.
That pesky, ongoing language barrier between scientists and journalists was one crux of their conversation. Science deals in details and caveats; news likes bold, declarative headlines. Science is comfortable with postulation; news likes facts. Science has patience for lengthy processes of experimentation and peer review; news operates on tight deadlines and wants to know "the very latest."
In regards to climate change, scientists have criticized journalists for giving too much weight--in their efforts to be "fair and balanced"-- to a small cadre of naysayers. From the journalists' perspective, it can seem like scientists are being evasive and contradictory about the exact when, where, and how of the impacts of climate change.