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 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.

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.