Quantcast
Environmental News for a Healthier Planet and Life

Study Finds Mainstream Media's Climate Coverage is Overwhelmingly Misleading

Climate

Union of Concerned Scientists

In 2007, News Corporation CEO Rupert Murdoch claimed coverage of climate change in his media outlets—which include Fox News Channel and the Wall Street Journal opinion pages—would improve over time.

Such improvement has not been achieved. A 2012 snapshot analysis shows that recent coverage of climate science in both outlets has been overwhelmingly misleading.

The analysis finds that the misleading citations include broad dismissals of human-caused climate change, rejections of climate science as a body of knowledge and disparaging comments about individual scientists. Furthermore, much of this coverage denigrated climate science by either promoting distrust in scientists and scientific institutions or placing acceptance of climate change in an ideological, rather than fact-based, context.

Fox News Channel Coverage of Climate Science

Millions of Americans get information about climate science from the Fox News Channel. In 2011, it was the most popular cable news channel in the U.S. During prime time, a median of more than 1.9 million people watched it.

  • Ninety-three percent of Fox News Channel's representations of climate science were misleading from February 2012 to July 2012 (37 out of 40 references).
  • The most common form of criticism regarding climate science was to broadly dismiss the scientific consensus that climate change is occurring or human-induced.
  • Misleading representations also included 10 instances in which a panel member expressed acceptance of climate science findings, but was drowned out by hosts or other panel members responding with multiple misleading claims.

Wall Street Journal Opinion Page Coverage of Climate Science

The Wall Street Journal has a broad readership and enjoys the largest circulation among American newspapers—more than 2 million daily readers. Within the Journal, the opinion section operates separately from the news section.

  • Eighty-one percent of letters, op-eds, columns, and editorials in the Wall Street Journal's opinion page were misleading on climate science from August 2011 to July 2012 (39 of 48 references).
  • Most of the misleading editorials, op-eds, columns, and letters attempted to broadly undermine the major conclusions of climate science. Instances of attacks on individual scientists, mocking the science, and cherry picking data were all equally common.
  • Denigration of climate science was routine. Instances included accusations that scientists were fudging data and claims that they are motivated by financial self-interest.

Examples of Misleading References to Climate Science

“The green energy stuff—I mean, that’s—that’s all a hoax and a fraud based on another hoax and fraud, global warming.” (Fox News Channel, 3/23/12)

“We are in the middle of what you might call a global warming bubble. It is a failure of the global warming theory itself and of the credibility of its advocates…” (Wall Street Journal column, 3/9/2012)

“The lack of any statistically significant warming for over a decade…” (Wall Street Journal op-ed, 5/27/12)

“I thought we were getting warmer. But in the ‘70s, it was, look out, we’re all going to freeze.” (Fox News Channel, 4/11/12)Coverage of Climate Action Also Overwhelmingly Negative

  • Although the analysis focused primarily on representations of climate science, it also found that both outlets placed heavy emphasis on negative coverage of climate action aimed at reducing global warming emissions, including personal lifestyle decisions as well as government policies.

 

Recommendations for News Corporation

  • News Corp.’s stated commitment to sustainability should be matched by a critical examination of the way in which its media properties live up to the company’s publicly stated goals. News Corp.'s efforts to engage its audiences on sustainability are undercut when it allows misinformation about a key sustainability issue to dominate coverage in two prominent outlets.
  • News Corp. should examine how it portrays climate science and develop standards and practices for accurately communicating climate science to its audiences.
  • To improve the accuracy of climate science coverage, News Corp. can help staff better differentiate between scientific and policy claims on climate change. It is always misleading to reject the overwhelming scientific evidence that human-caused climate change is occurring, but can be entirely appropriate to criticize specific policies aimed at addressing climate change.

 

Take Action

 

Learn More

Visit EcoWatch’s CLIMATE CHANGE page for more related news on this topic.

 

EcoWatch Daily Newsletter

Workers convert the Scottish Events Campus, where COP26 was to be held, into a field hospital to treat COVID-19 patients. ANDY BUCHANAN / AFP via Getty Images

The most important international climate talks since the Paris agreement was reached in 2015 have been delayed because of the coronavirus pandemic.

Read More Show Less
An aerial view of a crude oil storage facility of Caspian Pipeline Consortium (CPC) in the Krasnodar Territory. Vitaly Timkiv / TASS / Getty Images

Oil rigs around the world keep pulling crude oil out of the ground, but the global pandemic has sent shockwaves into the market. The supply is up, but demand has plummeted now that industry has ground to a halt, highways are empty, and airplanes are parked in hangars.

Read More Show Less
Sponsored
Examples (from left) of a lead pipe, a corroded steel pipe and a lead pipe treated with protective orthophosphate. U.S. EPA Region 5

Under an agreement negotiated by community groups — represented by NRDC and the Pennsylvania Utility Law Project — the Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority (PWSA) will remove thousands of lead water pipes by 2026 in order to address the chronically high lead levels in the city's drinking water and protect residents' health.

Read More Show Less
ROBYN BECK / AFP / Getty Images

By Dave Cooke

So, they finally went and did it — the Trump administration just finalized a rule to undo requirements on manufacturers to improve fuel economy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from new passenger cars and trucks. Even with the economy at the brink of a recession, they went forward with a policy they know is bad for consumers — their own analysis shows that American drivers are going to spend hundreds of dollars more in fuel as a result of this stupid policy — but they went ahead and did it anyway.

Read More Show Less

By Richard Connor

A blood test that screens for more than 50 types of cancer could help doctors treat patients at an earlier stage than previously possible, a new study shows. The method was used to screen for more than 50 types of cancer — including particularly deadly variants such as pancreatic, ovarian, bowel and brain.

Read More Show Less