When it comes to climate change, journalists are notorious for getting even the simplest of facts wrong. Take, for example, an article from March 2007, by Julie Wheldon, which proclaims “Greenhouse Effect is a Myth, Say Scientists” in the headline. Yet, the body of the article does not argue that there is no greenhouse effect. In fact, no scientist would argue that the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist. Without it, life as we know it would not exist.

So why does the media get it wrong? Well, there are a few reasons, put forth by different researchers. Here, I summarize the four main concepts from three articles: Wilson, “Communicating Climate Change Through the Media”; Boykoff & Boykoff, “Balance as Bias: Global Warming and the US Prestige Press”; and Antilla, “Climate of Scepticism: US Newspaper Coverage of the Science of Climate Change” to explain what goes on behind the headlines.

1. Misinterpreting Studies

Journalists, generally, do not have science degrees. However, when it’s a journalist’s job to translate findings from scientific articles into reasonably understandable and easy-to-read newspaper articles or TV news stories, this becomes quite the challenge.

The first problem is that the journalists themselves might not understand the complex concepts. The second problem is that they might try to simplify the concepts for others. When both problems occur, a factually incorrect story results, like Julie Wheldon’s.

2. Creating a Story

Journalists require news stories that fit the time (TV, radio), space (newspapers, magazines, blogs) and budget constraints. In TV, visuals are also crucial. However, scientific studies and theories are often too time-consuming, expensive, or risk seeming dull on TV without visuals. Thus, climate change coverage often falls by the wayside.

Reporters often try to make climate change relevant by relating it to local weather stories. From a journalist’s point of view, this provides a unique, local twist to the ongoing story of climate change. Otherwise, from a newsroom perspective, global warming provides very little potential for an article. Not surprisingly, however, its extremely hard to prove whether one particular storm or flood could be caused by global warming.

3. Drawing an Audience

Whereas scientists’ studies are full of careful phrasing, such as “possibly” and “could”, it is the job of journalists to grab people’s attention through bold headlines, and eye-catching statements. That’s how a scientist’s declaration that “climate change is too complicated to be caused by just one factor, whether CO2 or clouds” (said by Philip Stott and cited by Julie Wheldon’s article) may turn into “Greenhouse Effect is a Myth, Say Scientists” in the headline to catch readers’ attention.

Journalists also have a tendency to create drama by framing climate change in duelling-scientist model. Articles pit scientist against scientist, while ignoring the larger picture and issues.

4. Balance as Bias

No scientists deny that climate change in happening. While this may sound like a bold statement, it’s actually not. The earth’s temperature is rising—no one doubts this. The debate occurs around the details of it, and what the future will be like.

In the field of contemporary journalism, however, objectivity is valued. Thus, reporters will often go out of their way to find an opposing view, to appear balanced. These opposing views are extreme and falsified (like denying the greenhouse effect). The experts cited by journalists often have little relation to the fields of climate science. Paul Reiter, cited by Wheldon, is not a climate science expert, but a malaria researcher. He is quoted as saying “I am not a climatologist, nor an expert on sea level or polar ice. But I do know from talking to many scientists in many disciplines that this consensus is a mirage.” (http://www.eco-imperialism.com/content/article.php3?id=210).    

Highlighting incorrect science just for the sake of having two views can create a bias of its own, when it appears that there is a legitimate debate. This is the phenomenon that the term “balance as bias” describes. 

5. Corporate Ties

Returning to Wheldon’s article, many of  these “experts” she cites are not only unqualified in climatology (like the malaria researcher), but they have ties with the fossil fuel industry and big business.

Ian Clark, for example, is a member of the right wing think-tank organization “The Fraser Institute”. The Fraser institute is infamous for hiring scientists to deny global warming, and is funded by ExxonMobil. Two other organization Clark is involved in (“Competitive Enterprise Institute” and “Heartland Institute”) are also funded by ExxonMobil.

Paul Reiter, again, writes for “Tech Central Station”, a publication that is also funded by ExxonMobil. Two other organizations Reiter is involved with (“Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy” and “International Policy Network”) are —you guessed it—funded by ExxonMobil.

Clearly, these climate change deniers, cited by the media, are swimming in fossil fuel money. It’s easy to find out which denies are connected to the industry. Greenpeace has developed a wonderful tool that traces Exxon Mobil money to publications, politicians, organizations and scientists: http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/exxon-secrets

In theory, the scientists are doing their job, and the journalists are doing theirs. It’s no one’s fault that scientists use careful phrasing, while reports need to create eye-catching headlines. The problem occurs when the two disciplines become tangled together, like they do in the case of climate change.

Wilson’s article documents a study of the public’s climate change knowledge, and the results were disappointing. Many people confused the terms “climate change” and “greenhouse effect” for the same thing. They are not synonymous terms. People also believed that global warming was strongly debated among scientists. Interestingly, the people who scored the lowest are those who reported TV as their main news source.

So, why it matter if the media gets it wrong? Journalism (newspapers, magazines, TV news, etc) is the prime medium through which the public learns about climate change. Unless a person is already somehow educated about the topic, it’s unlikely that they would start reading (or have access to) peer-reviewed scientific journals. Therefore, if the media gets it wrong, chances are, the public will too. And this is a major problem.

As early as 1998, the dangers of genetically modified food (GMOs) have been recognized by numerous scientific studies. Yet, no mainstream media included stories warning of these studies. Even today, the general North American public remains ignorant of their daily food’s dangers due to the mainstream press’s continual disregard of the topic.

The media research group Project Censored brought this issue to light by admitting it in its 2007 database. Annually, the American media research organization Project Censored records the twenty-five most underreported stories of the year, in hopes of exposing significant (and ignored) stories to the public and informing them on key issues that would not otherwise be brought to their attention. Underreported stories submitted must be reliable and of major significance to the population.

This article tracks the coverage GM food’s dangers since its induction into Project Censored’s database, searching in American mainstream press, Canadian and foreign mainstream press.

In 1998,  Dr. Arpad Pusztai’s examination of  laboratory rats concluded that rats fed a diet of GM food became sickly, had malformed organs, and had abnormal blood composition, while the rats fed a non-GMO diet had no such problems (Lean, 2005). Consequently, questions were raised about the long term health risks of GM foods for humans. This study was covered in the British article “Revealed: ‘Health Fears Over Secret Study in GM Food’” by Geoffrey Lean.

In 2005, the Organic Consumers Association website also documented Pusztai’s report with the article “Monsanto’s GE Corn Experiments on Rats Continue to Generate Global Controversy”. This article, like Lean’s, tells of how authorities required Pusztai to sign a confidentiality agreement before examining the secret study. Lean further exposed the dangers of GM foods in his article “GM: New Study Shows Unborn Babies Could Be Harmed”. The study, by Russian scientists, found GM-fed laboratory rats much more likely to give birth to offspring who died before they were three weeks old and were severely underweight.

Finally, Herve Kempf’s article “New Suspicions About GMOs” was featured in Le Monde and Truthout in 2006. Kempf summarized Australian researchers’ findings that mice fed GM peas suffered an allergic reaction. In the same article, Kempf also remarks on studies by an Italian team of researchers who fed GM soy to laboratory mice. The mice experienced misshapen liver cells, which returned to normal after the GM diet was terminated.

Since the induction into Project Censored’s 2007 database, American (and Canadian) mainstream coverage since 2007 on genetically modified foods has been substantial, but lacking in reporting the health concerns. For instance, in contrast to the independent studies Project Censored refers to, the recent New York times article puts a positive spin on the issue, reassuring consumers that  ”new guidelines should allow engineered animal foods to be introduced safely. Producers will have to show that the inserted genes do not harm the animal’s health and that any food from a genetically engineered animal is safe to eat” (“Coming to a Plate Near You”, 2008, para. 2).

Surprisingly, foreign mainstream coverage is not very different. Some European articles align with the American view. For example, The Observer’s Robin McKie denies all concrete evidence for the dangers of GMOs, and argues instead that their “potential to improve human health is considerable” (McKie, 2008, para.3). However, other European articles criticize GM foods. For example, the British “Observer” addresses the American viewpoint that “in America, where more than 90 per cent of all soya is now GM, people have been eating the stuff for years, with no adverse effects. ‘That … is only because nobody is looking at what the effects might be.’ In short, GM [is] a risk because nobody knows what it might be doing” (Rayner, 2008, para. 16).

In a search for articles referring to the specific studies, there was extensive press coverage in mainstream Australian and English newspapers. Some articles, such as Steve Dube’s, even covered Dr Pusztai’s research in detail (Dube, 2008). Some local Canadian newspapers also picked up on the stories. For example, a local daily from Duncan, BC tells of lab rats’ offspring dying (Riley, 2008). However, there was no mention of the specific studies in any mainstream American or Canadian press. Usually, when the mainstream press did mention GMO dangers, they cited “recent studies”, not mentioning the researchers or universities. It is safe to say that the public is more familiar with the idea of genetically modified foods, but there is no consensus of their dangers.

The most probable reason that the story was underreported was because it challenges the profitable business of large corporations. Project Censored (2007) explains that “the vast majority of toxicological studies are conducted by those companies producing and promoting consumption of GMOs”. Clearly, this has the potential to cause many problems, including the suppression of important findings. This could not be more true than in the case of Dr. Pusztai’s work. Monsanto, being such a wealthy corporation and a worldwide producer of GMOs, has the power to stop negative press. As previously noted, Pusztai was “forced by the German authorities to sign a ‘declaration of secrecy’” (Project Censored, 2007).

It should be noted that Europe has banned the import of GM foods and has strict labelling requirements (Project Censored, 2007). The American and Canadian public consume genetically modified food (such as the soy and corn tested on the lab rats) on a daily basis, and currently, there are no mandatory labelling regulations (Project Censored, 2007).  

Therefore, although the dangers of genetically modified foods may have been confirmed, they have yet to be confirmed by mainstream news. Although it is almost certain that further scientific studies will reveal dangers of genetically modified foods, it remains unclear whether these dangers will become known to the general public.

Reference List

Coming to a Plate Near You. (2008, October 4). New York Times, p. A18. Retrieved October 10, lexisnex2008 from LexisNexis database. 

Dube, S. (2008, August 17). Food Fight. Wales on Sunday, p.26. Retrieved October 10, 2008 from LexisNexis database. 

GM Free Cymru. (2005, June 2). Monsanto’s GE Corn Experiments on Rats Continue to Generate Global Controversy. Retrieved October 12, 2008 from Organic Consumers Association website: http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/rats060205.cfm 

Kempf, H.  (2006, February 9). New Suspicions About GMOs. Le Monde and Truthout. Retrieved October 10, 2008 from LexisNexis database.

Lean, G. (2005, May 22). Revealed: Health Fears Over Secret Study in GM Food. Independent on Sunday. Retrieved October 10, 2008 from LexisNexis database.

Lean, G. (2006, January 8). GM: New Study Shows Unborn Babies Could Be Harmed. Independent on Sunday. Retrieved October 10, 2008 from LexisNexis database.

McKie, R. (2008, October 5). Science and food: Scare stories have drowned out the good that GM could do. The Observer, p. 29. Retrieved October 10, 2008 from LexisNexis database.

Project Censored (2008). #11 Dangers of Genetically Modified Food Confirmed. Retrieved October 10, 2008, from Project Censored website: http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2004/12.html

Rayner, J. (2008, October 5). Science and food: The war over GM is back. Is the truth any clearer? The Observer, p. 28. Retrieved October 10, 2008 from LexisNexis database.

Riley. J. (2008, July 4). How to avoid the genetically modified. Cowichan Valley Citizen, pg. 26 Retrieved October 10, 2008 from Canadian NewsStand database.

Photo credit: Matt Callow