Does reporting on climate change need to be balanced?

BY EMILIO LANERA, Monash School of Journalism Student

For too long, journalists have been prioritising impartiality which has compromised the accuracy of climate change coverage

To the delight of climate scientists, some news organisations like the BBC are coming to the realisation they have not been reporting on climate change very well. 

In 2018 the BBC sent a briefing note to staff admitting they have been doing a poor job of covering climate change and provided guidance to journalists on how to improve.

BBC’s new policy towards climate change is “Man-made climate change exists: If the science proves it we should report it.”

A recent Instagram post on climate change and its effects on hurricanes suggest they are staying true to their word.

Instead of framing human induced climate change as an uncertainty, they have framed how drastic the consequences will be as uncertain but reaffirm the occurrence of extreme weather patterns will be more likely if we continue not to take action.

The BBC have also been making more of an effort to reference science reports and experts when reporting on climate change and avoid giving a platform to climate deniers.

This new way of reporting can be seen as a return to accurate coverage on climate change because as American environmentalist and former New Yorker staff writer Bill McKibben said prior to fossil fuel companies interfering and turning climate change into a political issue, journalists use to only report on the science.

This influence by the fossil fuel industry has tricked journalists into treating climate change as a debate where climate sceptics with no scientific background have an equal say on the issue as climate scientists for many years.

The undue emphasis on climate deniers creates a false balance, which gives the impression the science behind climate change is uncertain despite 97% of scientists agreeing the earth is warming at an accelerated rate due to human activities.

While the BBC have altered their reporting on climate change to ensure only the most qualified people speak about the issue, some news organisations are still treating climate deniers as legitimate sources.

In fact, one study from the University of California Merced found that climate deniers receive more media attention than climate scientists.  

Given the influence of the coal industry in Australia it is no surprise that Australian media is a common offender of providing climate deniers a platform to challenge the science behind climate change.

One study found that between 2011 and 2012 21% of articles published in Australian newspapers suggested doubt about the science behind climate change and 11% outright rejected it. 

Thankfully, this debate about the existence of climate change is starting to lose momentum in Australia, due to more citizens believing the science.

One survey found that only 11% of Australians believe recent global warming is natural, and 4% don’t believe climate change exists at all.

Furthermore, Australians are expressing more concern over what consequences climate change will have on them.

The Australia Institute found 81% of Australians are concerned that climate change will result in more droughts and flooding while 78% are concerned climate change will lead to water shortages.

The 2018 State of Climate report by the CSIRO and The Bureau of Meteorology justifies these people’s concerns as it found rainfall patterns are expected to be impacted in Australia which will lead to drier conditions in some areas and flooding in others. 

Yet, instead of accepting the science and the large public concern around Australia’s changing climate, some media outlets are still finding ways to treat climate change as a debate and give sceptics with no scientific background a platform.  

Most of this scepticism is coming from NewsCorp outlets, but due to NewsCorp’s stranglehold on Australian media which includes 70% of newspaper circulation, their coverage on climate change is giving a false impression to a wide audience.

Former radio shock jock and Sky News presenter, Alan Jones used a bowl of rice to explain Australia’s carbon emissions in comparison to the rest of the world and justify why Australia should not invest in tackling climate change.

Meanwhile, after the Bureau of Meteorology declared that 17 December 2019 had been Australia’s hottest day on record, Dr Jennifer Marohasy, who works at the Institute of Public Affairs, a Melbourne thinktank financed by the mining billionaire Gina Rinehart went on Sky News and wrote a piece for The Australian insisting the Bureau’s methodology was questionable.

Given Mr Jones lack of qualifications and Dr Marohasy’s ties with the coal industry, who are staunch adversaries to climate action, these are probably not the people who should be regularly speaking on the matter.

What they both fail to understand is just because there are unpredictable elements to climate change does not mean we should delay action.

The Australian Academy of Science highlights that taking steps to reduce carbon emissions now will help reduce the likelihood of state's implementing more expensive measures later on. 

The academy also suggests that governments should listen to scientific experts on the best strategies to implement to address climate change, and it might be time journalists in Australia do the same.

For too long, journalists have been prioritising impartiality which has compromised the accuracy of climate change coverage.

By continually giving sceptics a platform to sprout their unhelpful and unscientific opinions, it undermines the seriousness and urgency of climate change and justifies not taking any action now.

Climate change is a scientific issue which requires journalists giving scientists a platform to communicate the science and explain what measures need to be implemented now to reduce the amount of uncertainties in the future.

 It does not require giving Alan Jones a TV segment where he uses a bowl of rice to show an inaccurate visual of Australian’s carbon emissions.