The theme of this session was clear from the start – science and politics is a relationship in need of some attention.  

Chair Cristine Russell set the scene: “We really are at a crossroads, as science meets political process, how we can survive the transition?” 

How will India and China react to changes in climate change policy by the US?  How should developed and developing countries take action? Most importantly perhaps, how can we engage the public in the current economic crisis, with more immediate concerns such as unemployment?  The speakers - Andrew Revkin from the New York Times, Richard Black from the BBC and Maxwell Boykoff from Oxford University - addressed these subjects. 

Andrew Revkin immediately highlighted how President Obama is “shackled to the senate” regarding environmental issues, so the US will have limited changes in policy.  At the New York Times, Obama’s plans regarding climate change policy are not clearly expressed in articles - they lack substance and depth.  He said, “the newsroom is compartmentalized, it is culturally a very decided institution.” He suggested that we challenge such preconceptions to improve the quality of reporting, with the help of online tools to widen the audience.

According to Revkin, 97% of the projected growth in CO2 emissions will be due to developing countries, so ‘rich’ countries that built their wealth on the fossil fuel industry will need to help if this trajectory is to be altered.  When questioned about the effect of the Kyoto protocol on US policy, Revkin said that the US is likely to resist a temperature target, when the impact of developing countries is set to be so considerable. 

Another concern from the audience was whether or not science and politics is as ‘divorced’ in developed countries as it is in developing countries.  Revkin replied: “Wealthy countries are using their wealth and technology to insulate themselves against climate change, but developing countries are sitting ducks so they have no capacity to deal with today’s extremes, let alone the future. Rich countries have a strategy to incorporate this reality.” 

Richard Black highlighted a major problem for journalists – mistrust from consumers, which is similar to that of politicians. A decade ago, he said, scientists and environmentalists spoke about climate change and painted a picture of doom. The politicians ignored their concerns but have more involvement now. This complicated relationship does nothing to alleviate public mistrust.

He continued about how journalists have to learn new skills on a daily basis to interpret new scientific findings - “if you’re not sure, don’t say it!” he said. Inconsistency across the media adds to public confusion and mistrust, but now the habits of journalists are changing and climate change is top of the news agenda.

He then went on to discuss the increase in news output, online for example, where journalists have to produce more to satisfy the “greedy” web.  This results in a greater number of articles, which are often more in-depth, as the subject of climate change becomes more prominent.  This puts a strain on journalistic resources. Spin and greenwash persists in many cases, not just in the corporate sector, which affects how evidence is portrayed.

Issues other than climate change, as mentioned in the GEO-4 report, are unfairly represented in the media. “Is climate change the most serious and fundamental issue?” he said. “Deforestation comes first, before climate change. Habitat loss, not climate change is the main cause of biodiversity loss.” Consumption of resources is also a main factor, all of which are interlinked. Population growth drives it all, yet is rarely spoken about in the news. This needs to be addressed to give people the bigger picture and journalists should take opportunities to explore these issues further, for example using blogs. 

When asked how to persuade editors to cover these stories, he said: “Get big name players in that field to talk to editors – editors love to be wined and dined.”  He also said we must be creative, particularly when reporting on television, to make the subject more interesting.  Often you will have to convince the editor as they become tired of the story. “Editor fatigue becomes reader fatigue,” Revkin added.

Maxwell Boykoff discussed his research into the role of the mass media and it’s relationship with cultural politics.  How do issues make their way out of the science realm and onto the kitchen table - how people make sense of it? Who speaks for the climate?  What happens after Cophenhagen? 

Regarding content of stories he said: “Reporters inflate a range of issues into one gestalt of questions. It’s useful to go through the variety of issues as they move into media space.” He added that climate change coverage is affected by a range of factors such as novelty, balance, dramatization, personalization, authority and order.  In the newsroom, both specialists and generalists exist, but the real stories are glossed over with trivial, more ‘exciting’ headlines that do not fairly represent the truth behind the science.

Finally, he described the “caring capacity” of individuals. They can only worry about so much per day and get tired of the same stories.  Therefore journalistic language needs to smarten up in order to effectively describe scientists’ work and keep readers engaged.

In response to a question from the audience about whether or not the public care about the detail, Revkin said that science stories should be a journey and not just news for this week.  Often, one issue is represented in opposing ways from one week to the next (e.g. one week, coffee is good for you, the next week it is bad - no wonder people are confused and despondent).

When asked about the effect of the political position of a particular newspaper on its coverage of climate change, Boykoff responded: “Everything is infused with values and perspectives, which affects what and how things are covered. Real efforts are being made to shape the discourse.” 

Revkin highlighted his own quest for understanding: “It is not sufficient just to do the job and go home, you have to say if there is a problem with the growing ozone layer due to humans. What will change that? If it is a climate bill, then you have to say, ‘what about China?’  Then you have to somehow say to editors whether it is meaningful or if it sucks. Find a way to say that as a reporter.”

Maxwell explained how instilling fear into the public is the wrong approach.  A focus group study revealed fear will get people’s attention, but won’t keep it. A positive approach is the best way.  “Tell them Brad Pitt said it!”

Revkin agreed. “The sociologists say you cannot force fear onto someone, to fit in a global issue is near impossible.” 

One audience member gave his thoughts about how to communicate these issues to the developing world.  How you can’t apply the same scenario to communicate global issues. “If you tell Africa ‘if you don’t participate in the Copenhagen agreement, you will die,’ in Africa, we are dying without climate change. You should say ‘if you sign this agreement your life will change for the better’.”

 “What is the role of the media in deciding what is/what isn’t dangerous?” someone asked. “Our role is to write about what is/isn’t dangerous in climate projections. Delineate more clearly what outcomes are actually possible in a warming world. Then step back and public policy makers can decide what is dangerous. Some say it is a risk management process, not a solution we can solve,” Revkin said. “Anyone that says we are going to cut greenhouse gases without a true energy revolution is spinning.” He explained that we need to be clear about how it is an “insurance buying enterprise.  How much do we want to spend versus the risk?”

Can the media play the crucial role of ‘mediator’ in this relationship?  Revkin has one approach: “Break global warming into smaller components. Focus in on the thing that matters at that place or time; locally there are powerful stories to tell.”

Carolyn Kelday