Brandi D. Addison - Thesis, May 2023

The Evolution of Environmental Journalism: The Framing and Politicization in U.S. Climate Journalism

Brandi D. Addison

NYU School of Professional Studies

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the MS in Professional Writing

May 2023

ABSTRACT

This traditional thesis project explores the history of environmental journalism in the U.S. print news industry and the most notable changes that have occurred since its arrival in the 1960s. More specifically, the thesis project addresses the shifts in framing, sourcing, and storytelling and the politicization of today’s environmental news coverage. A review of literature suggests that news transitioned from presenting the climate crisis as a scientific issue to a political issue in the late 1980s, coinciding with the onset of disinformation about global warming spread by commercial fossil fuel producers. Then forward, dramatic elements and political discourse began to drive media narratives on climate and environmental news coverage. A document analysis of more than 300 environmental news stories from seven newspapers in the five major geopolitical areas across the U.S., which included archives that date back to the 1970s, supports the claim that widespread skepticism among fossil fuel interests contributed to the polarization of the climate crisis. Further, the document analysis supported that the political narrative incorporated in today’s U.S. news media coverage of the environment began in the 1980s when scientists pinpointed the issue of global warming onto the oil and gas industry. Survey collection and in-depth interviews conducted among 17 environmental and climate journalists around the U.S. also supported the idea that the climate crisis was not an inherently political issue but, consequently, remains under partisan divide today, influencing how news organizations present environmental issues in their reporting.

Key words: Climate crisis, environment, news media, objectivity, balance, advocacy, fossil fuels, partisan divide, polarization, politicization

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Foreign policy priorities in the U.S. differ based on where partisans go for news

Figure 2: Trust in climate scientists low in Republicans; considerably higher among Democrats

Figure 3: Ages among research participants

Figure 4: Years of experience among research participants

USE OF TERMINOLOGY

U.S. news media, journalism, news industry

All references to U.S. news media, journalism, or the news industry should refer to the “forms of mass media that focus on delivering news to the general public or a target public” as described by American Press Institute (n.d.). For the purpose of this thesis project, these terms will only refer to print newspapers and their digital content online. This should only include reputable national newspapers, such as The New York Times, Washington Post, and USA TODAY, or local newspapers, such as The Chicago Tribune, L.A. Times, and The Dallas Morning News. Tabloids and entertainment news, such as Buzzfeed, are not included.

The climate crisis, global warming, climate change

The terms climate change, climate crisis, and global warming all refer to “adverse effects of the climate,” which the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992) has defined as “changes in the physical environment or biota resulting from climate change which have significant deleterious effects on the composition, resilience or productivity of natural and managed ecosystems or on the operation of socio-economic systems or on human health and welfare.” For the purpose of this thesis project, these terms will include all issues adjacent to the warming of the globe, such as wildlife extinction, agriculture loss, and natural disasters.

The Evolution of Environmental Journalism

Fossil fuels

The term “fossil fuels” is used to refer to the industry of “coal, petroleum, natural gas, oil shales, bitumens, tar sands, and heavy oils,” in addition to adjacent industries that support these materials (Britannica, n.d.) For the purpose of this thesis project, the term is also synonymous with oil and gas, or Big Oil.

The Evolution of Environmental Journalism: The Framing and Politicization in U.S. Climate Journalism

INTRODUCTION

Climate change is arguably one of the most critical issues in modern history, and across the globe, people are witnessing its impact more rapidly than ever before. The world’s air quality is worsening each day, and extreme weather events are becoming more frequent and powerful (Ritchie and Roser, 2021). So far this year, as of April 2023, hundreds of communities across the nation have experienced wildfires, severe flooding, and hundreds of tornadoes (Disaster Philanthropy, 2023); New York City endured its longest period without snow in 50 years (Cohen, 2023); and California faced significant flooding and one of the largest blizzards in state history, pouring down more than 150 inches of snowfall over one week’s duration (Stillman and Livingston, 2023).

The climate crisis is even imposing on basic human needs across the globe after one of the most severe droughts on record, which stunted the global supply of crops, livestock, and water. Yet, even with definitive proof of its presence negatively impacting at least 85% of the global population, climate change is one of the most politically divisive issues in the nation. History shows climate journalism is partially to blame (Boykoff, 2011).

Problem Statement

The public has long regarded news media for its role in shaping opinion and influencing collective action, especially among social and political issues (Boykoff, 2011). Print journalism,

specifically, is historically acclaimed as one of the most reliable sources for information in the United States, serving as a watchdog for the public and providing balanced reporting on critical issues, including the climate crisis.

Several studies (Boykoff, 2011; Chinn et al., 2020) assert that the journalistic framing of climate change is one of the most influential factors over the public’s concern and engagement toward the issue. As researchers expect the climate crisis to only strengthen in impact, it is essential that news audiences receive only the most accurate information, impartial to political beliefs and personal biases. Further, to effectively prompt collective action on climate change, it’s crucial for the majority population to acknowledge that the issue is not inherently partisan, but rather, was shaped into one after corporate interests began spreading misleading and incorrect information about global warming, fueling decades of disinformation.

Though climate journalism existed far before the publication of Rachel Carson’s 1962 impactful book Silent Spring, many link the rise of the modern environmental movement in the United States to her efforts. The beat largely remained scientific throughout the remainder of the 1960s and for the entirety of the 1970s. But a notable shift occurred in the early 1980s as headlines changed from citing climate scientists to politicians, and the number of opinion articles and editorials about the climate crisis skyrocketed. As it’s evolved from the mere coverage of environmental issues in its earliest days to political coverage in the mid-2000s (McCright et. al, 2011), and now, back to a primarily science-based beat with some political undertones, the quality of climate coverage in the U.S. has changed indefinitely as a result of the disinformation spread more than 40 years ago.

Still today, climate change remains largely under partisan divide, and consequently, influences how environmental journalists choose to frame climate issues. Because of the polarization of climate change, journalists may struggle to convey scientific facts without being perceived as biased. As the climate crisis continues to worsen, it’s imperative that the industry maintains credibility, or journalists could possibly drive individuals to sources of inaccurate information and further halt collective action.

This thesis project draws conclusions from dozens of peer-reviewed articles and journals about environmental journalism, in addition to survey responses and in-depth interviews with 17 environmental journalists across the nation and the analysis of more than 300 environmental news articles from the 1970s to April 2023.

Research Questions

To further explore the problems outlined above, I used the following questions to guide the thesis project and gather qualitative data:

1. What are the most notable shifts that have occurred in environmental journalism since its modern-day arrival in the 1960s?

• How does the framing of environmental news coverage differ today from then?

• What are the most common forms of bias that occur in U.S. environmental journalism?

2. When did the polarization of environmental issues begin?

• Is there a single influence that led to the partisan divide?

• How has this changed climate journalism?

3. How do environmental and climate journalists perceive their role within the climate crisis today?

• Do environmental journalists’ expectations for objectivity and advocacy within climate journalism differ from other beats?

• Do their perceptions change based on journalist demographics, such as geopolitical location or news organization or the reporter’s age, sex and political affiliation?

As the research explores the evolving trends among U.S. environmental journalism, each subsequent question intends to guide the project to more in-depth and more detailed observations. Assuming the research leads to conclusive results, the answers will effectively frame the existing trends and influences among modern-day climate journalism and suggest the long-term outlook for the industry.

Purpose and Expectations

The purpose of this traditional thesis project is to observe the shifts in modern-day environmental journalism since its inception in the 1960s and identify any potential influencing factors over these changes. The findings of this study aim to provide further insights into how environmental journalism can bolster public understanding on science-based issues, effectively shape public opinion, and influence governmental policies related to the climate crisis.

In the literature review, I’ll analyze existing academic research, news articles, and other supporting documents to cover three main topics: expectations for balance, objectivity, and framing in U.S. news media; the politicization of the environmental movement; and an

overview on how climate journalism has historically shaped public opinion. The literature review identifies the influencing factors that have led to the partisan divide over environmental issues and the way it’s covered in print news media

The methodology section will outline the structure to my qualitative field research, which includes in-depth interviews and surveys with 17 environmental journalists, and a document analysis of more than 350 climate news stories. This section also includes a researcher positionality statement to assert my role as an observer in addition to that of an environmental journalist and addresses potential limitations in data collection.

The data analysis will provide a comprehensive account of data collection, connecting themes, patterns, and trends previously identified in the literature review to the responses from participant surveys and observations through document analysis. This section will examine correlations among individual survey responses to determine if expectations in environmental journalism differ among various populations, depending on age, sex, political affiliation, and geopolitical location. The section will also note any trends among different newspapers and coverage of particular issues.

The conclusion aims to reconcile seeming contradictions between the document analysis and field research. The section will also explain how the potential impacts of journalistic framing of the environment could contribute to the climate crisis and, ultimately, the health and safety of the human population.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

As previously noted, the journalism industry plays a crucial role in informing the public about the ongoing climate crisis. The purpose of the literature review is to examine how environmental journalism has shaped public opinion since its emergence in the 1960s. By analyzing existing literature, the review aims to identify emerging trends in climate journalism, including potential shifts and framing and increased polarization of the issue. The literature review will also explore the factors that have influenced the evolution of environmental journalism over time and seeks to provide a comprehensive overview of the history and current state of environmental journalism. This literature review will focus on three main topic areas: an overview of expectations for balance, objectivity, and framing in U.S. news media; the evolution of environmental journalism and its political transformation; and an overview of how environmental journalism shapes public opinion about the climate crisis.

The opening section lays the foundation of the ethical standards that journalists are required to adhere to as part of their commitment to the journalism industry. It also addresses the original intent of journalistic objectivity and the significance of journalistic framing in shaping public opinion and recognizes the common biases that occur despite the longstanding expectations of balance and fairness.

The second section explores the evolution of the modern environmentalist movement, which began in the 1960s with the publication of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring. It highlights how the fossil fuel industry changed the narrative of the climate crisis from science to politics after climate experts, permanently altering the public’s perception of the issue.

The final section of the literature review provides an overview of how environmental journalism has shaped public opinion of the climate crisis over the years, noting the shifts in storytelling and political framing over the last several decades.

Expectations for balance, objectivity, and framing in U.S. news media

Journalism in the United States has traditionally emphasized the importance of impartiality, adhering to the ethical standards that the Society of Professional Journalists (2014) established nearly a century ago. The SPJ Code of Ethics prioritizes factual accuracy, balance, and fairness across the industry but especially in reporting. While journalists don’t always perfectly meet these standards, most recognize that they are obligated to remain balanced and objective within a professional scope Often, many will even extend these principles into their daily lives by abstaining from sharing their personal opinions in public spaces and joining or supporting any political candidates, campaigns, or grassroots organizations. Many even refuse to vote for fear of repercussions or scrutiny that may result if their selected party becomes public (Richardson, 2015).

The lost meaning of objectivity

While most journalists strive to present information with complete objectivity, many also deny the plausibility of these longstanding principles and claim that it’s nearly impossible to remain truly impartial since all humans, including journalists, do have their own personal viewpoints. Consequently, some experts (Klotzer, 2009) believe journalists should eliminate the idea of pure objectivity and commit to these standards as it relates to their work. But the American Press Institute (n.d.) suggests there’s a lost meaning to the principle in the first place

and states that “one of the great confusions about journalism … is the concept of objectivity,” which evolved in the 1920s after top journalists recognized a growing increase of journalistic bias from untrained witnesses, albeit unconsciously, during coverage of the Russian Revolution.

At the time, Walter Lippmann, who was a founding editor of The New Republic, wrote that he was beginning to look for ways for the individual journalist “to remain clear and free of his irrational, his unexamined, his unacknowledged prejudgments in observing, understanding and presenting the news” and the solution was to acquire a standard for evidence and verification (American Press Institute, n.d.). Rather than focusing on avoiding individual biases, as the concept of objectivity stresses today, the original concept of objectivity focused on the industry’s process of research and evidence through sourcing and documentation. Of similar thought, the American Press Institute (n.d.) also asserts that “being impartial or neutral” is not plausible, and “because the journalist must make decisions, he or she is not, and cannot, be objective.”

According to the American Press Institute (n.d.), the true meaning of objectivity, as it was intended, requires journalists to seek out multiple witnesses, disclose as much as possible about sources, and ask comments from all sides. Similar definitions of objectivity include that of Mindich (1998) and Tuchman (1972), who both defined their ideas of the concept by five elements. Mindich said it requires detachment, nonpartisanship, inverted pyramid writing, facticity, and balance, while Tuchman (1972) said objectivity is defined by presenting conflicting possibilities, finding supplementary evidence, using quotation marks, putting the most important facts first (inverted pyramid) and separating facts from opinions.

The importance of journalistic framing

Each story covered in U.S. news media has its own unique framing, even if the same journalist is covering an issue they previously reported on. The concept of journalistic framing refers to the perspective or angle that a journalist selects to present their story. Often, choices of framing can shape how readers interpret or perceive the reported issue, sometimes unintentionally. For instance, a journalist covering the teacher shortage could choose to frame the issue as a result of recent vaccine requirements, the mental strain caused by the coronavirus pandemic, or inadequate compensation and benefits.

Lakoff (2010) stated that many frame circuits a theory about the factors that influence the way humans think directly connect with human emotions, especially political ideologies, such as climate change. He explained that “since political ideologies are, of course, characterized by systems of frames, ideological language will activate that ideological system” and once language is repeated enough, it still unconsciously influences ideology in the brains of citizens, including journalists, and in short, “one cannot avoid framing (p. 72).” Instead, journalists should focus on whose brains they’re framing.

In regard to environmental issues, Lakoff said it’s especially important for journalists to be cognizant of how they frame these stories because he believes the U.S. is “suffering from massive hypocognition of the environment,” which he described as the lack of having a progressive philosophy framed around environmental issues (2010, p. 76). This essentially means it’s more difficult for U.S. citizens to communicate cognitive and linguistic representations of environmental issues than other topics because the concept is not fully established (Lakoff, 2010).

Common biases in U.S. news media

Across the news industry, in all beats and topics, there are many forms of journalistic biases that may impact how readers perceive the issue, as well as diminish the credibility of the journalist and news organization. Some may consider even the mere act of selecting specific topics as a minor act of bias. Slater (2007) defines this under the reinforcing spiral framework, which combines selective exposure with biased assimilation, stating individuals intentionally seek out sources and information that reinforce their own biases on certain issues. Another type of this selective exposure, according to Bolin and Hamilton (2018), is elite cues, which suggest that individuals form opinions based on cues given by elites with whom they identify. But more extreme examples of media bias include blatant editorializing and falsifying information to align with the journalist’s beliefs. According to Bolin and Hamilton (2018), more conservative-leaning news businesses are more susceptible to bias than liberal-leaning organizations.

The evolution of the environmentalist movement and its political transformation

In its earliest days, the environmental movement solely focused on the science behind the climate crisis, but that quickly changed as newspapers began to cite political celebrities, even in headlines. In order to combat the issues surrounding the climate crisis, it is critical that the globe identifies the onset of disinformation that placed the environmentalist movement under one of the greatest political divides in our nation and restore credibility by acknowledging that the issue is inherently based upon science.

The rise of the environmentalist movement

As noted earlier, many link the rise of the modern environmentalist movement in the United States to Rachel Carson’s 1962 book Silent Spring, which focused on poor air quality due to the DDT pesticide and its impact on wildlife and the environment, as well as human health (Neuzil, 2020). The book sparked public debate on the use of pesticides and led to a nationwide ban on DDT. Carson’s work is also considered a catalyst for the environmental movement because it led to the creation of the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

Just a few years after Silent Spring, in 1969, the Environmental Action for Survival Committee at the University of Michigan began to sell buttons with the slogan “Give Earth a Chance” a twist on the slogan commonly chanted in protests against the Vietnam War (Rome, 2003) Newsweek commented at the time that this may be a symbol of a new age of conservation, according (Rome 2003). By the following spring, the nation celebrated its first Earth Day on April 22, 1970, and thousands of people marched in the nation’s capital in support of a cleaner earth.

How oil and gas industry fueled partisanship over climate change

The environmentalist movement quickly gained traction during the prime of the hippie sub-culture and amid the rise of other protests, including those fighting for civil rights and women’s rights; however, that suddenly changed in the 1980s when the fossil fuel industry began to spread disinformation about the cause of global warming. In August 1980, the American Petroleum Institute published Two Energy Futures: A National Choice for the 80s, which supported the idea that fossil fuels could alter the climate, stating that “some scientists believe that large concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can, in time, cause climatic

changes specifically, higher temperatures worldwide (p. 80).” But later in the publication, the organization contradicted its own claims and began to circulate propaganda and other misleading information about the climate crisis, then widely referred as global warming, in an attempt to promote public policies that favored the fossil fuel industry (Franta, 2021). After scientists pinpointed the oil and gas industry as the primary contributor to the climate crisis, the American Petroleum Institute, along with several oil and gas companies, organized a written campaign with misleading information denying environmental harm.

In October 2021, the federal government addressed this issue in a hearing before the Committee on Oversight and Reform House of Representatives in the 117th U.S. Congress, claiming that “Big Oil has known the truth about climate change (p.1)” since the 1970s and alleging scientists at Exxon had privately admitted to executives that burning fossil fuel was changing the global climate but denied it for economic purposes. A transcript from the hearing (Committee, 2021, p. 1) states:

Exxon and other Big Oil companies had the opportunity to tell the truth and lead the way to find alternative energy sources, but instead, Big Oil doubled down on fossil fuels.

Working with the American Petroleum Institute, and the Chamber of Commerce, and other front groups and PR firms, the industry ran a coordinated campaign to mislead the public, hide the dangers of its own product, and derail global efforts to reduce greenhouse emissions. At the same time, they were lining their own pockets. Between 1990 and 2019, the four oil companies here today reported nearly $2 trillion in profits, but the costs of inaction on climate have been far higher. The American people lost more than 30 years when we could have curbed climate change.

As a result of the intentional efforts to mislead the public early on, the climate crisis has increasingly become more polarized, despite Big Oil changing its rhetoric and affirming its belief in the climate crisis though only in an attempt to “paint themselves as climate champions” and bolster their economic revenue through renewable energy, according to the Congress hearing transcript.

The continued polarization of climate change

It was only in recent years that the U.S. government even acknowledged how the fossil fuel industry has negatively contributed to the climate crisis. The polarization of the issue rapidly snowballed at the turn of the century (McCright et al., 2011) as politicians like Al Gore and John McCain more frequently shared their opinions publicly. Hamilton et al. (2015) believes the acceleration of the partisan shift was done in part by the success of 2010 Tea Party candidates, who more often voiced their opposition to climate policy than other conservative candidates. Since then, the climate issue became a “litmus test of partisan identity” (Chinn et al., 2020, n,p,), and some conservative politicians even backpedaled on their previous support for climate action (Childress, 2012).

As Figure 1 shows, political divide on climate issues extends far beyond the existence of climate change but reaches every argument in the climate debate “down to people’s basic trust in the motivations that drive climate scientists to conduct their research” (Pew Research Center, 2016, n.p.). As the literature review has led us to expect, trust in climate scientists is significantly

Figure 1. This data table from Pew Research Center shows partisan differences in trust of climate scientists. Source: Pew Research Center

higher among liberal Democrats than conservative Republicans. Data with the Pew Research Center (2016) shows, overall, about 67% of U.S. adults believe that climate scientists should serve major roles in policy decisions, though when examining responses from individual political parties, that number shifts to 48% for conservative Republicans and 80% for liberal Democrats.

An overview of how environmental journalism has shaped public opinion

Researchers have identified journalists as some of the key actors in influencing collective action toward the climate crisis as mass media serves as the primary bridge between scientists and citizens (Nelkin, 1995) and the primary source for communication in the climate crisis (Wilson, 1995). Corbett & Durfee (2004, p. 132) said:

This is especially true for unobtrusive or ‘invisible’ issues where a person lacks realworld experiential conditions that could help shape opinion and understanding such as the global climate change. (But) even if a person lives through the hottest summer on record, record drought, or severe forest fires … it is the media that attempt to connect such events to scientific evidence. Meanwhile, Carmichael et al. (2016) posited that while media coverage does exert an important influence upon a society, the industry as a whole is largely a function of economic values and elite cues, which revisits the concept that asserts people form their opinions based on those of their influences.

How framing has shifted in environmental journalism

Under Lakoff’s aforementioned frame theory, the Environmental Frame separates humans from the environment In fact, Lakoff (2003) suggests that it’s nearly impossible to

separate nature from society, because humans are actually an inseparable part of nature. Additionally, because so many political issues intersect with the climate crisis, Lakoff said it’s difficult for citizens as well as leaders, policymakers, and journalists to capture the reality of the situation because the frames are simply incohesive with one another. Consistent with everyday patterns, the polarization of the climate crisis has inevitably reflected over into climate journalism and how reporters and news organizations choose to present environmental issues through a political frame. As hinted under Lakoff’s theory that suggests that the Environment Frame should include politics, U.S. news media has transitioned from highlighting the risks and implications of climate change to a greater emphasis on the political debate surrounding the issue due to the country’s increasing partisan divide (McComas and Shanahan, 1999). As a result, the focus has shifted away from presenting the environment as the primary subject matter, and instead, the political discourse has become the central story.

To provide an example of these changes, scientists were the primary sources for information in the earliest days of environmental journalism, but when political polarization intensified, the industry started attributing politicians and interest groups instead (Trumbo, 1996). Wilson (2001) notes that this is because the rapid spread of disinformation caused even environmental journalists to doubt the scientific certainty behind the climate crisis but increased their trust in political celebrities and non-experts, further exacerbating the spread of disinformation. In his own study on changes in climate journalism, Chinn et al. (2020) discovered that political actors have been mentioned, on average, at least once in every climate change news article since the 2000s; Williams (2001) found a similar trend when he analyzed U.S. climate news even earlier between 1976 and 1998.

At the same time, Wilson noted that the journalists who did continue to use scientists and industry experts as their primary sources continued to portray the situation with more accuracy. McCright et al. (2011) said it is more likely that left-leaning journalists are more likely to report those beliefs consistent with scientific consensus than are the journalists who favor toward conservative and Republican politicians, though mentions of scientists in U.S. climate coverage have plummeted across the industry. Chinn et al. (2020) adds that: Describing trends in politicization and polarization in climate change news coverage is an important step toward understanding why and how U.S. public opinion has become increasingly polarized, despite increasing scientific consensus on the reality and anthropogenic sources of climate change

In other words, the fact that many news readers primarily obtain information through organizations that align with their own political beliefs yields to the increased doubts in the existence of climate crisis despite the scientific consensus on the issue. Data from Pew Research Center (2021) provides further insights on the implications of these trends.

Figure 2. Data with the Pew Research Center shows how foreign policy priorities differ based on where partisans obtain their information. Source: Pew Research Center.

Approximately 5% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents whose only major news source caters to right-leaning audiences believe global climate change should be a top foreign policy priority, while approximately 84% of Democrats and Democrat-leaning independents whose who only major news source caters to left-leaning audiences prioritize climate change policy. Additionally, Figure 2 shows that even within the same political parties, there can be a significant difference in the percentage of individuals who support climate policy if they obtain information from news sources that don’t significantly align with their own political beliefs. Researchers also found that the industry began to present the story beyond scientific evidence as journalists had recognized that utilizing storytelling elements to invoke emotion placed a bigger spotlight on science news topics (Mazur and Lee, 1993). As a result, stories that stressed the importance of the destruction of rainforests and wildlife extinction got more attention because of the good story they brought rather than the science behind it. Similarly, McComas and Shanahan (1999) asserted that dramatic value drove media narratives on climate coverage more than any other consideration.

The relationship between advocacy and objectivity in environmental journalism

Despite becoming the face of one of the nation’s most polarized issues, many climate journalists don’t see their role equivalent to being an advocate for the environment. Vine (2017) states advocacy journalism is where the reporter intentionally and transparently adopted a nonobjective point of view usually for some social or political purpose. Because the climate crisis is rooted in science, many journalists believe that if they’re solely presenting the scientific data and

utilizing experts as sources, then environmental journalism is not advocacy any more than covering crime or education.

Meanwhile, Fahy (2017) states objectivity and advocacy have become contentious topics within environmental journalism since the climate crisis did evolve into a partisan concern as the topic moved from the “scientific domain to encompass also the political, social, legal, and economic realms (n.p.)” Though objectivity and advocacy remain important guiding concepts for environmental journalists today, they have been reconfigured as journalists seek to avoid perceptions of bias without undermining scientific evidence. But Fahy (2017) argues that objectivity in climate journalism differs from standard expectations in that it goes “beyond the need to present both sides of an issue.” Instead, Fahy said environmental reporters should use their training and knowledge to interpret evidence on a climate-related topic. Because science is such a complex issue and does encompass many other facets, journalists have an additional responsibility to report beyond the facts. That is, environmental journalists have a responsibility to provide a comprehensive understanding of the issue to their readers, which also interprets future implications and its impacts on other societal aspects.

Other researchers agree that while important in many cases, today’s meaning of objectivity can also prove harmful, such as in the case of climate coverage In his own personal contemplations on the idea of objectivity, Kaplan (n.d., p. 13) pondered: “Why, for example, should journalists give equal time and space to global warming deniers if 99% of scientists believe that global warming is a scientific phenomena?” As noted earlier in the subsection, similar to how journalists would not present the perpetrator’s narrative in a story about crime or domestic violence, researchers such as Kaplan (n.d.) argue that it is not necessary to provide the

narrative of climate change deniers and those whose actions deliberately harm the environment, such as Big Oil.

In environmental coverage, experts believe balance can be achieved by providing scientific evidence and allowing all mentioned parties the opportunity to confirm or deny claims about them. For the Columbia Journalism Review, Eshelman (n.d.) argued that this approach allows for fair and truthful reporting without giving a platform to those who provide false information, either through denial or intentional disinformation on the subject matter.

Conclusion

This project explores the evolution of environmental journalism since its emergence in the 1960s, focusing on the shifts in media narrative over the last several decades. The literature review covered three areas: an overview of general journalistic expectations, the evolution of the environmentalist movement and its political transformation, and the industry’s role in shaping public opinion of the climate crisis.

The first section established general expectations of balance, fairness and objectivity in the industry. The second section focused on how the fossil fuel industry politicized the climate crisis. The third section provided an overview of how environmental journalism has changed its framing and its impact on public opinion.

The findings of the literature review underscore the importance of balance and fairness in U.S. news media, especially when reporting on the complexities of climate change. The literature review also highlighted the responsibility of environmental journalists to provide a comprehensive understanding of the climate crisis and report beyond scientific evidence to include the implications of climate change on other societal aspects.

This traditional thesis project is based upon a qualitative survey and in-depth interviews with U.S. climate journalists, in addition to a document analysis of more than 350 environmental news stories between 1970 and April 2023 to further determine any correlation between actual news trends and survey responses.

Overview of Methods

I conducted a qualitative survey with open-ended questions that examine the perceptions ofenvironmentaljournalists. Ibelievea quality survey provides a platform forparticipants to share nuanced remarks about both their experiences in environmental journalism and their perceptions of the industry. While a quantitative survey may have provided a broader scope on journalism populations, the qualitative survey provides more in-depth insights on respondents’ perceptions and expectations. Survey results came from 17 environmental journalists of all ages and geographic regions.

The research also drew on more than 350 environmental news stories published in the highest circulated newspapers between 1970 and April 2023. The document analysis aimed to determine potential correlations between actual news trends and participant responses and provide a more holistic view of the industry.

Data Collection

To collect data for this project, I created a 14-question survey, including a researcher disclosure statement, on SurveyMonkey.com, which utilized long answer, open-ended questions to ensure I did not unintentionally influence participants’ responses by offering limited answer

choices. Six questions focused on the demographics of the participant, while the remaining eight asked for opinions on bias, objectivity, and advocacy in environmental journalism.

After developing the survey, I sent the link to various listserv threads with the Society of Environmental Journalists and University of Colorado’s Center for Environmental Journalism, as well as a Microsoft Teams room with 68 journalists across the USA TODAY Network. I routinely sent the link through the forementioned channels for two weeks and received qualitative responses to the questions (listed in Appendix B) from 14 journalists. I also conducted four phone interviews that provided more in-depth responses to the same questions in the survey; three of the interviews were between 30 minutes to an hour, while one was less than 30 minutes.

To bolster my research, I also conducted a document analysis as a means of triangulation

‘the combination of methodologies in the study of the same phenomenon’ (Denzin, 1978). By collecting data through various methods, especially in the document analysis of historic documents, researchers “reduce the impact of potential biases (p. 291)” that often occurs in single research projects. Bowen (2009) adds that triangulation protects the researchers against accusations of biases, because it is no longer simply an artifact of a single method, a single source, or a single investigator’s bias (p. 28).”

Over three weeks, between March 15 and April 6, I examined hundreds of news articles directly from organization websites to determine any trends in balance, objectivity, and political framing. To ensure variety in geopolitical location and determine potential trends among newspaper sizes, the news articles were retrieved from seven newspapers across the nation, including three national newspapers

TODAY and four local newspapers

The New York Times, Washington Post, and USA

The Dallas Morning News, Houston Chronicle,

Florida Union-Times, Chicago Tribune, and Seattle Times. In more than 250 environmental articles, I examined news content, headlines, captions, and authors to identify potential patterns. Further, I examined more than 100 archived articles from The Times and The Post, dating between 1970 and 2010 to determine if actuality supported the accusation of the fossil fuel industry starting the political divide among climate issues.

Researcher Positionality Statement

Positionality in qualitative research focuses on the researcher’s personal biases, thoughts, feelings, and culturally ascribed characteristics such as gender, nationality, race, and economic status and how they’re using their relevant attributes and personal history to elevate their work. Maxwell (2013) highlights that a “clear understanding of the goals motivating your work will help you avoid losing your way or spending time and effort doing things that don’t advance these goals (p. 13).”

As both an instructor of journalism and a full-time environmental journalist, the intersection of news media and the climate crisis is a close subject. While I explore the issue out of personal passion, I also intend to use the information I learn to bolster my own work as a climate journalist and avoid some of the common biases I may not recognize in my own writing.

As it relates to this topic, I do have many advantages: in education, profession, and personal interests. But, as with every other human, I come with my own personal biases toward the climate crisis, possibly shaping my position on how environmental journalists should cover the climate crisis. Additionally, I believe my geopolitical location West Texas, a major hub for agriculture and fossil fuels influenced my research. While I’ve always rejected the notion that climate coverage can be biased (because I believe no journalist would choose to advocate

against climate action), I’ve learned that bias exists in many forms beyond blatant editorializing, such as topical selection and the omission of sources.

Though I began the research expecting the experiences of most climate journalists would be akin to mine, I quickly learned that wasn’t the case. Whereas I joined the beat as a passionate individual who was once an environmental activist, most joined the beat simply because that’s the role that was available. Further, because of my location in a red-leaning state, I assumed that most climate journalists would consider the beat as one with an inherent bias in Texas, simply covering the issue translates to a type of advocacy in the minds of readers. But as I learned through my data collection, that was not the case but rather my own positionality on the subject.

As noted, my selected topic aligns with the foundation of my educational background, professional career, and eve, personal interests. There are no doubts that I hold many advantages in my research, but the predetermined expectations I had for the project, among other factors, certainly posed a disadvantage.

Limitations

Although the research appears whole, there are several limitations to my field research, in both the data collection and document analysis processes.

Interviews

While I conducted lengthy interviews through phone call with four climate journalists who were versatile in their gender, age, and tenure as environmental journalists, three of the interviewees were based in Texas and of those, two were based in Dallas-Fort Worth.

Survey responses

Obtaining responses from only 17 journalists provided limited insights and, I believe, yielded survey responses that were nearly unanimous in belief. Further, several respondents noted confusing text in Questions 11 and 12, which respectively appear as:

• Do you believe it’s essential to report with balance in environmental coverage? That is, would you give equal space to sources on both political sides?

• Do your beliefs about advocacy, objectivity, and balance reflect over to your personal life? For example, on social media, in public spaces, or through advocacy organizations

Document analysis

While the document analysis did support the claim that widespread skepticism among fossil fuel interests contributed to the polarization of the climate crisis, I believe the process would have been more effective if I observed present-day news articles for a longer duration. Because this year has been riddled with climate disasters, majority newspapers are reporting more frequently on extreme weather events than climate news in the wake of disastrous tornadoes, wildfires, and blizzards. Additionally, researcher observations only occurred in news articles that were listed on the news websites’ climate and environmental sections. Assuming some were not appropriately tagged, the research may only reflect the trends of the majority environmental news stories produced by the specific newsrooms over the designated three-week span, but not all.

Additionally, one respondent participated in both the survey and interview, complicating the process of data collection and analysis.

DATA ANALYSIS

The findings in this section were collected from four in-depth phone interviews, 13 digital survey responses, and the document analysis of more than 350 news articles, including 100 archived stories between 1970 to 2000.

Demographics

Participants’ demographics varied across the following categories: age, sex, years of experience, newspaper size, and geopolitical location. The only demographic lacking in diverse response was political affiliation, in which 10 respondents (59%) identified as Democrats, while four (22%) identified as independent, and the remainder refrained from answering.

One of the interview participants even noted that, when they were an employee for the Associated Press in the early 2000s, it was mandatory for all journalists to register as an independent voter and they have remained so ever since.

Ages of participants

Ranging from age 24 to 83, no single generation held majority power in survey responses.

Figure 3. The data table shows the ages of research respondents.

Gender of participants

Ten respondents (59%) identified as female, while seven respondents (41%) identified as male. Based upon the document analysis, female reporters are more likely to report on advocacy issues like environmental health, environmental racism, solutions journalism and wildlife accounting for 81.8% of observed solutions stories than male reporters, who are more likely to report on public policy and energy. However, the majority female respondents all but one, or 90% disagreed that advocacy was acceptable in environmental journalism.

Years of experience

The majority of respondents (71%) consider themselves experts in their fields and have reported on environmental and climate-based issues for 10 or more years. 0-5 years 6-9 years 10-14 years 15-21 years 21-29 years 31-40 years 41-50 years

The role of advocacy in climate journalism

When presented with various scenarios of whether or not they would report with advocacy (questions 9 through 13), all respondents said they would report with a facts-based approach. That is, they believe it’s acceptable for journalists to report that air quality issues are inarguably bad for the population, and with supporting evidence, they would comfortably identify the source or acknowledge public policy’s role in contributing to this issue. They would not editorialize and insert their own opinions.

At the same time, all respondents said they would not frame inarguably positive stories such as the growth of the endangered Mexican wolf population or expanded prairie land in

Figure 4. The data table shows the years of experience for all survey respondents.

a good light. Several pointed out that while these examples are mostly positive scenarios, that change may still impact someone negatively, such as ranchers with cattle or in the case of expanded prairie land, it could pose a housing shortage and further perpetuate the housing crisis Instead, they’d choose to frame the stories neutrally and allow readers to form their own perceptions of the events as expected under the journalistic guidelines established in the SPJ Code of Ethics.

All also responded that they believe advocacy is unacceptable in journalism, unless the journalist publishes in the opinions section. One respondent noted that journalists also “take the stance that sexism, racism, child abuse, domestic violence, crime, is bad,” so it shouldn’t be perceived any differently for environmental journalists who are covering environmental crisis points and supporting them with scientific research. One participant responded:

Advocacy is not acceptable when reporting on environmental issues unless one is an advocate, a lawyer, a policy maker, or an opinionator. Journalists present topics in a truthful, objective way. They might present the ‘problem of' microplastics entering the rivers or oceans, ‘the problem’ of poor air quality and how such issues are being dealt with. There are no ‘bad issues,’ only negative outcomes for health and the environment and different strategies for eradicating them. All of the different personalities and policies are revealed in the way one does environmental reporting … In general, it is essential to report with balance in environmental coverage. The only time you wouldn't give equal space to sources on both sides would be if one side is offering biased, uninformed, incomplete, or inaccurate, information. The basis of journalism is giving all sides a voice but filtering it through the lens of fact, accuracy, good science.

The perception of bias and objectivity in climate journalism

Contrary to my initial hypothesis, all respondents stated that they believe there is no room for intentional bias in environmental journalism and do not perceive their role in covering the climate differed from other beats. Many did point out, however, that pure objectivity is a concept to strive for, but not one that can be perfected. One respondent pointed out that there is “some level of bias in almost all journalism, because journalistic works select information for the purpose of making an argument,” while another noted that there’s even bias in the selection of topics, because it implies the journalist chose to cover that issue over another for a reason. All agreed that impartiality is something all journalists should attempt in every single story, and that climate journalists, especially should commit to the idea of “objectively, empirically informed reporting.”

Furthermore, all respondents stated that they did not believe that climate change and climate journalism were inherently biased matters, but rather, were shaped into a partisan issue. About a quarter compared their roles to crime reporters. In the same way that domestic violence and crime is inarguably bad, so is the climate crisis and reporting with scientific research in climate coverage is no different than using a police report or crime statistics in breaking news; all meet the standards of reporting with accuracy and objectivity as the original concept intended. All said they do not lead their coverage with political framing, though one respondent turned the table to note that the only news organizations presenting biased information about the climate crisis are right-leaning sources, such as Fox News, who choose to frame the narrative as “alarmist.”

Newspaper observations

Though respondents said they strive to leave politics and politicians out of their coverage, primarily using experts as sources, a document analysis of newspapers showed environmental coverage routinely uses politicians as sources industrywide. The New York Times and Washington Post are more likely than USA TODAY to insert politicians in the headlines, while USA TODAY is more likely to report with scientific evidence. Of 55 stories between March 15 and April 6, the New York Times unnecessarily mentioned President Joe Biden 40 times and former President Donald Trump 10 times. Washington Post mentioned Biden 21 times overall, and Trump twice. USA TODAY mentioned Biden six times overall and Trump once.

While the mere mention of politicians in a news story does not necessarily make the story political or biased, the audience’s pre-existing beliefs about the political parties and politicians they support can influence their opinions of the news story solely based on how the article frames their preferred parties and candidates. This may not mean that the journalist is biased or unbalanced, but it may unintentionally perpetuate biases on the part of the reader and possibly misdirect their beliefs.

When observing articles between 1970 and 2000, archives reaffirmed claims in the literature review that state the oil and gas industry fueled the political divide over the climate crisis. Further, national newspapers only reported occasionally on the environment until 1975, ramping up in coverage shortly after fossil fuel interests began to spread misinformation on the issue. Additionally, “scientists,” “climate experts,” and “climate scientists” lead headlines through the mid-1980s, but in 1989 just three years after the first New York Times story noted

scientists’ connection of global warming to the fossil fuel industry, headlines began to include political opinions in the headlines.

With this shift, more newspapers began to publish political op-ed articles on the climate crisis including “Hot Air and the White House Effect” and Al Gore Jr.’s “Scientists cause a stir on global warming,” which revisits the idea that media narratives have shifted from reporting on the environment as the main story to prioritizing the political drama as the central focus. Additionally, environmental news coverage is more likely to become political if it focuses on public lands and energy, further supporting the assertation that the fossil fuel industry stirred the political controversy.

That said, the majority respondents were local news journalists or freelance journalists for local newspapers, which are less likely to frame environmental stories as political framing than national news stories, further supporting the respondents’ claims that they, as individual journalists, strive to focus on the scientific evidence.

Geographic differences

While respondents did unanimously state that environmental journalism requires objectivity and balance, journalists in right-leaning states seemed more hesitant, both in written responses and interview conversations, to provide a definitive answer, while journalists in leftleaning states were more succinct in their responses. During the phone interviews, the journalists based in right-leaning states said this is because they recognize that their audiences are largely composed of climate change deniers and their readers do believe that even the coverage of climate change is inherently biased. Because of this, they feel compelled to report on the environment with caution to avoid being seen as biased and losing credibility among their local

audience. Meanwhile, the journalists from left-leaning states asserted that objectivity is still essential in environmental coverage, but in the sense of utilizing the same approach that the Columbia Journalism Review stated: using scientific evidence and allowing all parties to comment on claims about themselves but not providing a platform for inaccurate information. Additionally, journalists in right-leaning states were also more likely to bring economics into the discussions, especially as it relates to energy, than left-leaning states. Upon analyzing news articles from the five local newspapers forementioned under the data collection section, news trends aligned with the data trends provided in survey responses. For instance, the Houston Chronicle and The Dallas Morning News were more likely to report on oil and gas as a positive toward the economy than its negative impact on the environment, while the Seattle Times was more likely to focus on environmental damage and solutions like renewable energy.

The politicization of environmental journalism by the fossil fuel industry has posed a significant challenge for journalists who strive to maintain objectivity and balance in their reporting. While climate change is not an inherently biased issue, now that it is rooted in politics, journalists are having to focus harder on ensuring balance in environmental news coverage. Despite the pressure and influence from audience members who rely on the political climate to determine the facts surrounding the climate crisis rather than scientific consensus, the majority environmental journalists remain committed to their responsibility to providing credible and accurate information. In doing so, they believe objectivity is rooted in the process that relies on scientific evidence as support and experts as sourcing, while concurrently allowing those on the opposite side an opportunity to comment on claims about them, but stress that working under these standards does not mean they are advocating for the environment; they are simply reporting the facts. While journalists in right-leaning states may face additional challenges in meeting their journalistic obligations, due to audience perception, they still recognize that their commitment to the basic ethical standards of journalists that were established a century ago.

Re-Introduction to the Problem

As previously noted, various studies have found that the framing of climate change by journalists is a vital factor in shaping public opinion. To effectively promote collective action, it is essential for the public to recognize that climate change is not inherently a partisan issue, but one that has been politicized by vested interests. Just as importantly, journalists must prioritize factual scientific evidence over their political beliefs when reporting on environmental issues to

avoid the dissemination of false information and to preserve their credibility. This balanced approach can both prompt collective action on climate change and contribute to a sustainable future.

Future Implications

As the public continues to reply on the media for information, it is essential that environmental journalists remain impartial in their reporting. Though the fossil fuel industry has already changed its rhetoric regarding the climate crisis, it will continue to exert influence on media coverage, and journalists should be vigilant in their reporting. Failure to do so can result in the spread of disinformation and further politicization of an already controversial issue.

REFERENCES

Bell, A. 1994. Media (mis)communication on the science of climate change. Public

Understanding of Science 3 (4): 259–75

Bolin, J.L. & Hamilton, L.C. (2018). The News You Choose: news media preferences amplify views on climate change, Environmental Politics, 27:3, 455476, DOI: 10.1080/09644016.2018.1423909

Boykoff, M.T. (2011). Who speaks for the climate? Making sense of media reporting on climate change. Cambridge University Press.

Britannica. (n.d.). Fossil fuel. In Encyclopedia Britannica.

https://www.britannica.com/science/fossil-fuel

Carmichael, Jason & Brulle, Robert. (2016). Elite cues, media coverage, and public concern: an integrated path analysis of public opinion on climate change, 2001–2013. Environmental Politics. 1-21. 10.1080/09644016.2016.1263433.

Childress, S. (2012). Timeline: The politics of climate change.

www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/timeline-the-politics-of-climate-change

Chinn, S., Hart, P. S., & Soroka, S. (2020). Politicization and polarization in climate change

news content, 1985-2017. Science Communication, 42(1), 112–129.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547019900290

Cohen, L. (2023, January 30). New York City hits new record for longest winter period without snow in 50 years. CBS News. Retrieved April 30, 2023, from

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nyc-no-snow-new-york-city-new-record-longest-winterperiod-50-years/

Corbett, J. B., & Durfee, J. L. (2004, December). Testing public (un)certainty of scienceuniversity of Colorado Boulder.

https://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/students/envs_4800/corbett_2004.pdf

Denzin, N. K. (1978). Triangulation: A Case for Methodological Evaluation and Combination. Sociological Methods, 339-357.

Disaster Philanthropy. (2023). 2023 US Tornadoes.

https://disasterphilanthropy.org/disasters/2023-us-tornadoes/

Eshelman, R. (n.d.). The danger of fair and balance. Columbia Journalism Review.

https://archives.cjr.org/essay/the_danger_of_fair_and_balance.php

Fahy, D. (2017). Objectivity, false balance, and advocacy in news coverage of Climate Change. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science.

https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.345

Franta, B. (2021) Early oil industry disinformation on global warming, Environmental Politics, 30:4, 663-668, DOI: 10.1080/09644016.2020.1863703

Fueling the Climate Crisis: Exposing Big Oil’s Disinformation Campaign to Prevent Climate Action. U.S. Congress. (2021). https://www.congress.gov/event/117th-congress/houseevent/LC67716/text?s=1&r=23

Hiles, S. S., & Hinnant, A. (2014). Climate Change in the Newsroom: Journalists’ Evolving Standards of Objectivity When Covering Global Warming. Science Communication, 36(4), 428

453. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547014534077

Klotzer, C. (2009). The myth of objectivity. St. Louis Journalism Review, February 2009, 18.

Lakoff, G. (2010). Why it Matters How We Frame the Environment, Environmental Communication, 4:1, 70-81, DOI: 10.1080/17524030903529749

The lost meaning of 'objectivity'. American Press Institute. (2022, August 24).

https://www.americanpressinstitute.org/journalism-essentials/bias-objectivity/lostmeaning-objectivity/

Mazur, A., & Lee, J. (1993). Sounding the Global Alarm: Environmental Issues in the US National News. Social Studies of Science, 23(4), 681–720.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/285729

Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach (3rd edition).

McComas, K., & Shanahan, J. (1999). Telling Stories about Global Climate Change: Measuring the Impact of Narratives on Issue Cycles. Communication Research, 26, 30

57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/009365099026001003

McCright, A. M., & Dunlap, R. E. (2011). The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public's views of Global Warming, 2001–2010. The Sociological Quarterly, 52(2), 155–194. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.2011.01198

McCright A. M., Dunlap R. E., Xiao C. (2014). Increasing influence of party identification on perceived scientific agreement and support for government action on climate change in the United States, 2006-12. Weather, Climate, and Society, 6(2), 194201. https://doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-13-00058.1

Mindich, D. (1998) Just the Facts: How “Objectivity” Came to Define American Journalism. New York, NY: New York University Press.

Nelkin, D. (1995). Selling science: How the press covers science and technology (Rev. ed.). New York: W. H. Freeman.

Neuzil, M. (2020). The development of environmental journalism in the western world. Routledge Handbook of Environmental Journalism, 19–37.

https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351068406-3

Richardson, R. C. (2015). Political reporters, primary voting, and perceptions of bias. Columbia Journalism Review.

https://www.cjr.org/united_states_project/political_reporters_primary_voting.php

Ritchie, H. and Roser, M. (2021). Natural Disasters. Our World in Data.

https://ourworldindata.org/natural-disasters

Rome, A. (2003). “Give Earth a Chance”: The Environmental Movement and the Sixties. The Journal of American History, 90(2), 525–554. https://doi.org/10.2307/3659443

Silver, L., & Shearer, E. (2021). Americans in news media 'bubbles' think differently about foreign policy than others. Pew Research Center. Retrieved April 30, 2023, from

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/06/02/americans-in-news-media-bubblesthink-differently-about-foreign-policy-than-others/

Singer, J.B. (2011). Climate change in the newsroom: Journalists’ evolving standards of objectivity when covering global warming. Journalism Studies, 12(2), 149-164.

Slater, M. D. (2007). Reinforcing spirals: The mutual influence of media selectivity and media effects and their impact on individual behavior and social identity. Communication Theory, 17(3), 281–303.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2007.00296

Society of Professional Journalists. (2014). SPJ Code of Ethics. https://www.spj.org/ethicscode

Stillman, D., Livingston, I. (2023). How much snow fell in California? take a look. The Washington Post. f https://www.washingtonpost.com/climateenvironment/interactive/2023/california-snow-photos/

Tuchman, G. (1972) Objectivity as strategic ritual: An examination of newsmen’s notions of objectivity. American Journal of Sociology, 77, 660-679.

Vine, P. (2017). When is a journalist not a journalist?: Negotiating a new form of advocacy journalism within the environmental movement. Pacific Journalism Review, 23(1), 4354. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.959913224068625

APPENDIX A

The following is the research disclosure statement, in which all participants selected “yes”:

“The purpose of this survey is for academic research. The student, Brandi D. Addison, is producing a thesis on trends in U.S. environmental journalize and will analyze your answers for her findings All participants are guaranteed anonymity. The student will not enclose your name or specific identifying characteristics in her final product. The student will also not share your beliefs in a private or public space. All participants are promised privacy. Do you consent as a participant?”

APPENDIX B

The following are the research questions asked to all participants (and in over-the-phone interviews):

1. How old are you?

2. What’s your gender?

3. What’s your political affiliation? (If you do not feel comfortable disclosing, write N/A.)

4. Which news organization do you work for?

5. Where are you located?

6. How many years have you reported on environmental issues?

7. Do you think climate change/climate journalism is an inherently biased issue to report on? Why or why not?

8. Do you think advocacy is acceptable in climate journalism when referring to inarguably positive issues and solutions? That is, do you believe it is OK to blatantly present topics like wildlife conservation and clean energy in a positive light? Think of recent stories like the growth of the endangered Mexican wolf population or the Flash Forest Project, which is attempting to restore forest ecosystems by rapidly planting trees. Why or why not is it acceptable?

9. Do you think advocacy is acceptable when reporting on inarguably bad issues. That is, do you believeit is OKto blatantly present topics likemicroplastics, extinction,andairquality issues in poor light? Why or why not?

10. Do you think advocacy is acceptable for or against specific organizations, government policies, companies, and political candidates? That is, would you frame Chevron with a negative tone and Charity: Water with a positive tone?

11. Do you believe it’s essential to report with balance in environmental coverage? That is, would you give equal space to sources on both political sides?

12. Do your beliefs about advocacy, objectivity, and balance reflect over to your personal life? (Added for clarity after research: That is, do you refrain from posting public opinions on social media or speaking on these issues in public places, joining activism organizations, and similar actions?)

13. Do you believe it’s necessary to present climate coverage with balance as it relates to sources? That is, would you give the owners of a concrete batch plant that’s polluting the air the same amount of space you would give residents impacted by the air quality issues caused by the plant? Why or why not?

14. Do you believe your answers would change if you were at a newspaper of smaller or larger size or based in a different geopolitical region?

15. Do you believe expectations for balance and advocacy in the environmental beat differs from other news beats?

16. Is there anything else about the issue you’d like to add?

First and foremost, I would like to share my gratitude with my husband and daughter, who have supported me through all the early mornings and late nights: for their patience, for their support, and for their love. My husband always tells me I can do anything I set my mind on, regardless of how big these aspirations may be. My daughter inspires me each and every day to be a better person for her. I would also like to think my extended family – my parents, my siblings, my grandparents – who have always encouraged me to chase my dreams.

Further, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my thesis adviser, Amanda Wicks, whose expertise, guidance, and support have been invaluable throughout my research journey, and really, throughout the entirety of the M.S.P.W. program. I’d also like to think the dozens of other M.S.P.W faculty who have supported me throughout my time in the program

I would also like to thank my supervisor at Texas Tech, Dr. Robert Peaslee, who helped me cultivate this idea into a research project just through conversation; he was the one who planted the seed.

Finally, I extend my gratitude to all research participants who generously gave their time and shared their experiences with me. Their contributes have enriched my study and bolstered my research.

Without the help and support of these individuals, this would not have been possible.