Media

Study: Most news reports about climate change focused on ‘disaster’ or ‘uncertainty’

18  September 2013

An Oxford University study shows that recent newspaper articles covering climate change are centred on narratives about disaster and uncertainty. Researchers from Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism analysed 350 articles about climate change between 2007 and 2012 published by three different newspaper titles in six countries (UK, France, Australia, India, Norway and the USA). They found a ‘disaster narrative’ in 82% of the articles in the sample, and a similar proportion about uncertainty. Articles explaining the ‘explicit risks’ of different policy options featured in just 26% of the articles surveyed. The study concludes that advances in climate modelling and attribution are likely to lead to the ‘more helpful’ language of explicit risk being increasingly used by journalists in future.

The articles in the sample analysed covered the first two reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of 2007; the IPCC report on weather extremes of 2012; and the recent melt of Arctic sea ice. The research team coded the newspaper coverage to assess ‘the presence, salience and dominance’ of different messages. They took into account whether the dominant message was one of ‘disaster’ (or implicit risk), ‘uncertainty’, ‘explicit risk’, or ‘opportunity’. They also assessed whether the articles contained prominent quotes, and analysed the use of language such as metaphors and adjectives.

Articles coded as having a ‘disaster or implicit risk’ narrative were about sea level rises, more floods, water or food shortages, or population displacements; and, in the case of Arctic sea ice melt, negative effects on the ocean ecosystem and nations living on the Arctic rim, or the heightened possibility of cold weather in the Northern Hemisphere. Articles predominantly about ‘uncertainty’ included the voices of sceptics or ‘duelling experts’, a range of projections; or the words ‘may’, ‘possible’ or ’uncertain’. Around 25% mentioned the opportunities presented by climate change, says the study.
 
The researchers found that journalists often followed the prompts given by scientists and their reports. Around 70% of the articles covering reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and nearly 60% of all the articles in the sample, included quotes from scientists or scientific reports that the researchers coded as ‘disaster narratives’. Nearly half the articles included a quote indicating some aspect of uncertainty.
 
Lead author James Painter, said: ‘There is plenty of evidence showing that in many countries, the general public finds scientific uncertainty difficult to understand and confuse it with ignorance. We also know that disaster messages can be a turnoff, so for some people risk may be a more helpful language to use in this debate.
 
‘Journalists are generally attracted to gloom and doom stories, but they are going to become more exposed to the language and concept of risks in covering climate science in coming years. The language used by scientists about “explicit risk” will be more about numbers and probabilities as climate models become more powerful and sophisticated. For policy makers, this should shift the debate away from what would count as conclusive proof towards a more helpful analysis of the comparative costs and risks of following different policy options.’
 
The study forms the basis of a book by James Painter called ‘Climate change in the media – reporting risk or uncertainty’, which will be launched in London on 18 September. The book says politicians, scientists, and policymakers are increasingly using the concept and language of risk in a context of uncertainty to frame the debate about climate change and this is likely to be reflected more in the media messages.
 
Lord Nicholas Stern, Chair of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the LSE, which co-financed the study, said: ‘How the media communicates risk and uncertainty to their audiences is critically important. This book provides extremely sensible suggestions for improvements in the future.’
 
For more information, contact the University of Oxford Press Office on +44 (0)1865 280534 or email press.office@admin.ox.ac.uk

Alternatively, contact James Painter on +44 (0)1865 611077 or email james.painter@politics.ox.ac.uk

Notes for Editors:

  • The book, ‘Climate Change in the Media – Reporting Risk and Uncertainty’, by James Painter will be published by the RISJ and IB Tauris on 18 September 2013. Amongst the recommendations for journalists are more familiarity and training about numbers and probabilities; more discussion about how uncertainty can be quantified and given a confidence level; and more use of info-graphics to illustrate the concepts of risk and other aspects of climate change. Scientists are advised to stress early on interviews with the media where there is broad consensus about climate science; and later, where there are degrees of uncertainty; they are also encouraged to explain that uncertainty does not usually mean ignorance. 
  • The countries and media included in the study were the UK (The Guardian, Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph), Australia (Australian, Herald Sun, Sydney Morning Herald), France (Le Monde, Le Figaro, Le Parisien), India (Times of India, The Hindu, Business Standard) Norway (Aftenposten, Verdens Gan, Dagbladet), and the USA (New York Times, Wall Street Journal, USA Today). They looked at four separate periods between 2007 and 2012. In each country, the newspapers were selected to represent divergent styles, political viewpoints and readerships.
  • The study was financed by the European Climate Foundation, the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics and the Norwegian Environment Agency.
  • Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism
    The Thomson Reuters Foundation is the core funder of the (RISJ) Institute, based in the Department of Politics and International Relations. The Institute was launched in November 2006 and developed from the Reuters Fellowship Programme, established at Oxford 30 years ago. The Institute aims to be global in its perspective and provides a leading forum for scholars from a wide range of disciplines to engage with journalists from around the world. https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/
  • James Painter
    James Painter is the Head of the Journalism Fellowship Programme at the RISJ. He is the author of the RISJ publications Poles Apart: the International Reporting of Climate Scepticism and Summoned by Science: Reporting Climate Change at Copenhagen and Beyond.  He has written extensively on climate change, the media and Latin America for several organisations and publications, including the BBC, the UNDP, Oxfam and Oxford Analytica. He worked for several years at the BBC World Service in various capacities including Americas Executive Editor and head of the Spanish American Service.
    https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/about/institute-staff/james-painter.html
  • Comments on the book (from leading academics, media analysts and journalists): “Communicating the observed and potential consequences of climate change is a challenging task, one that is often done poorly in the media. This important book provides many valuable insights into the use of a risk framework to communicate climate change. It is essential reading for those in the climate change communication business, especially those in the media who want to take an informed and professional approach to the topic”. Professor Will Steffen, Climate Commissioner, Australia.
    “This is a really valuable report about the framing of the climate debate as an issue of ‘risk’, emphasising that, in spite of inevitable uncertainty about the future, we can still take appropriate action to hedge against bad outcomes. It is heartening to see the dual role of number and metaphor in communication – my favourite analogy is with setting up a good pension as a sensible precaution for the highly likely, but of course not certain, prospect of an extended old age.”  Professor David Spiegelhalter, Winton Professor for the Public Understanding of Risk, Cambridge University