Scientists, Journalists Square Off in Frank Discussion about News Coverage of Climate Change

Communicating science to the public, especially the science of climate change, is critical, scientists and journalists agreed in a panel discussion at last month's SEJ Annual Meeting in Austin. But more than similarities, the "Science and Media" panel pointed out the enormous differences between the two professions and the need for better communication.

When talking to the press, said one scientist, she understands the importance of a sound bite, but has no idea what words to use when talking with news reporters, especially broadcast journalists. What would help her, as a scientist, would be to preview a story before it goes to press. By contrast, a journalist described how working in a highly competitive environment on deadline may allow controversy to be emphasized at expense of nuance, but he opposed the idea of providing sources with an option to review stories.

These were some of the differences that emerged in a 75-minute discussion between scientists and journalists organized and moderated by Bud Ward, editor of Environment Writer. The panel focused on some of the issues addressed in an ongoing series of National Science Foundation-sponsored workshops around the U.S., coordinated by the Metcalf Institute, with the goal of improving communication between scientists and journalists.

The panelists included two scientists -- Anthony Socci, Senior Science and Communication Fellow, Atmospheric Policy Program, American Meteorological Society, and Camille Parmesan, Assistant Professor, Section of Integrative Biology, The University of Texas at Austin -- and two journalists, Chris Bowman, Environmental Reporter, Sacramento Bee, and Dale Willman, Executive Editor, Field Notes Productions.

In her experience, Parmesan said, the media generally get the big picture right but the details wrong. Parmesan's suggestion, that journalists allow scientists to review their reporting, received mixed reaction from the audience in later discussions. One journalist agreed that allowing scientists to review the scientific portion of a story was acceptable, while another said they would be fired for allowing a source to review their story. Another person said that scientific review would (and has) set a dangerous precedent by giving sources the ability to judge not just the facts but the tone or perspective in a story and a former science journalist in the audience argued that he routinely checked back with his sources on complex ideas or concepts explained in a story.

Parmesan also said she takes issue with the press when they create a debate in the media when it is clear, with respect to climate change, among scientists that there is no debate. More accurate than a he-said/she-said depiction of this issue, Parmesan said, would be to call another scientist and ask if the debate is real. "I object to the scientists who have been discredited by the scientific community," she said, but asked to weigh in on an issue as a counterbalance in a news story. "Don't go outside the field of credible scientists," she said.

Bowman answered the question about whether or not there is hope that journalists can do a better job of reporting on environment. The difficulty in covering issues like climate change, he said, is that it is considered to be expendable news. Many news editors are cut from the cloth of event-driven news, he said, stories that were covered in the era of civil rights reporting and the Cold War. Environmental news coverage in the future will be part of the daily news, said Bowman, because children today are imbued with knowledge of the environment. It will no longer be a question of whether the media will provide this coverage, but that society will embrace and expect environmental news. Ways that environmental coverage will be expanded and made more accessible will include graphic-assisted reporting, web and online reporting, and expert journalism.

Peer-reviewed literature is the period at the end of the sentence, said Socci, quoting a journalist from an earlier workshop, questioning whether there was widespread agreement in the journalism community. Socci also discussed the idea of whether or not journalism is a profession or a federation of practitioners. Science, he said, can serve as a model for journalism by applying standards of objectivity, checks and balances, which help reporters (and scientists) sort out their biases.

Ward, who organized the panel and, with Socci, is coordinating the workshops around the country, discussed the idea of the media taking responsibility for the work they do through self-certification. This idea was opposed by a former science journalist in the audience, who argued that certification isn't necessary, but advanced journalism training, through programs offered for instance by the Metcalf Institute, the MIT Knight Fellowships program, and the MBL program, are important for journalists in the short and long term.

Willman, a long-time NPR reporter and editor, discussed the idea that journalists do not often take time for reflection on their craft, but that it is important for journalists to consider what the news agenda will be. It is not the role of the media, he said, to tell the public what to think, but by story selection to provide them with issues to think about. As journalists, he said, it is our job not to educate but to inform, and in that respect it's important for journalists to think about the issues and setting an agenda.