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.

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 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 https://www.britannica.com/science/fossil-fuel www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/timeline-the-politics-of-climate-change

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.

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.

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/ https://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/students/envs_4800/corbett_2004.pdf https://disasterphilanthropy.org/disasters/2023-us-tornadoes/ https://archives.cjr.org/essay/the_danger_of_fair_and_balance.php https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.345

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

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

Disaster Philanthropy. (2023). 2023 US Tornadoes.

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

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

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 https://www.americanpressinstitute.org/journalism-essentials/bias-objectivity/lostmeaning-objectivity/ http://www.jstor.org/stable/285729

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

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

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 https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351068406-3 https://www.cjr.org/united_states_project/political_reporters_primary_voting.php https://ourworldindata.org/natural-disasters

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.

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

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

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

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.

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?