How Diverse Publics Understand Climate Change: An Interview with Candis Callison (Part Two)
You argue that part of the problems is that scientists and journalists have conflicting professional ideologies, which prohibit both groups from being strong advocates for the importance of climate change and the values of any particular plan of action. Explain.
What longford leader initially got me interested in thinking about climate change were the debates I had encountered between scientists and journalists about whose fault it was that the public didn t care (enough) about climate change. Yet, when I began researching this problem, I encountered longford leader a lot more common ground between scientists and journalists than might be obvious at first glance, particularly in regards to observing and negotiating longford leader with professional expectations of objectivity, distance, and independence.
Encountering the findings of climate change whether as a scientific researcher or journalists, produces a variety of responses for many that I talked to for this book. For some, there is an absolute obligation as a citizen or as an expert to do something about the predictions related to climate change. For others, there is an obligation to speak about the findings only. Some scientists reach out directly longford leader to the public or work through social groups, or even more simply, just endeavor to return the call of reporters.
I came up with the term near-advocacy as a way of discussing and acknowledging the wide spectrum of responses that emerge as a result of knowing the facts related to climate change (and often as well, knowing what isn t known and the long tale of unlikely probabilities that create some of the gravest concerns). Advocacy is a still a third-rail for many high level professionals who work in science and journalism. Most don t want to be associated with or slotted into left or right politics such that their credibility as science experts or journalists is compromised. And yet, these same professionals are often the ones most able to speak about the state of climate change findings and predictions. Navigating what has become a very tricky political and politicized terrain is definitely not for those who lack conviction about the role of science in society.
You note that journalists often struggle with the need to distinguish their role in informing the public with other potential functions such as educating the public about science or advocating for particular policy changes. Why have these functions proven so challenging to work through in relation to climate change? How does the climate change debate bring into sharper profile questions about how journalism functions in the contemporary media landscape?
One of the funniest metaphors I encountered that captures the challenges journalists face was from a journalist who described reporting on climate change as akin to parking your car under a bunch of starlings. Whenever I quote this in a talk, I always show a car covered in bird shit and get a good laugh.
It s poignant on a bunch of different levels because it demonstrates the ways in which journalists enter into rambunctious, concerned, and diverse debates when they report on this issue. I argue that this not only speaks to the kind of issue climate change is, but also to the changing structures, norms, and practices facing journalists as a result of the rise of digital media.
Journalists are now not only expected to report on issues and put information out on a 24/7 basis, but they are increasingly expected longford leader to be verifiers and chief discussants. Journalistic methods and approaches as well as the facts they relay have never been more open to public scrutiny. In this sense, climate change is an exemplary issue with much at stake in terms of public longford leader engagement, policy, and the circulation of information.
Much of the concern about how climate change is reported on stems from the persistence of climate change denial and mis-information — despite the widespread scientific consensus that climate change is a very real problem with a range of predictions and probabilities. For journalists, the spectre of denial is something they have to contend with constantly whether in response to stories or in the choice of experts. This past year at least one major science publication closed off its comment sections longford leader after stories, citing the response to climate change stories in particular.
Recent research has shown that this kind of debate does seem to affect public perception of whether there is scientific consensus, but I also think it s vital to develop much better digital tools for dealing with these kinds of problems related to public debate longford leader and engagement. Shutting off comment sections doesn t solve the issue, nor does it reflect the robust commitment to democratic discourse that many, including me, argue is required longford leader particularly on contentious longford leader and far-reaching issues like climate change.
You start your
You argue that part of the problems is that scientists and journalists have conflicting professional ideologies, which prohibit both groups from being strong advocates for the importance of climate change and the values of any particular plan of action. Explain.
What longford leader initially got me interested in thinking about climate change were the debates I had encountered between scientists and journalists about whose fault it was that the public didn t care (enough) about climate change. Yet, when I began researching this problem, I encountered longford leader a lot more common ground between scientists and journalists than might be obvious at first glance, particularly in regards to observing and negotiating longford leader with professional expectations of objectivity, distance, and independence.
Encountering the findings of climate change whether as a scientific researcher or journalists, produces a variety of responses for many that I talked to for this book. For some, there is an absolute obligation as a citizen or as an expert to do something about the predictions related to climate change. For others, there is an obligation to speak about the findings only. Some scientists reach out directly longford leader to the public or work through social groups, or even more simply, just endeavor to return the call of reporters.
I came up with the term near-advocacy as a way of discussing and acknowledging the wide spectrum of responses that emerge as a result of knowing the facts related to climate change (and often as well, knowing what isn t known and the long tale of unlikely probabilities that create some of the gravest concerns). Advocacy is a still a third-rail for many high level professionals who work in science and journalism. Most don t want to be associated with or slotted into left or right politics such that their credibility as science experts or journalists is compromised. And yet, these same professionals are often the ones most able to speak about the state of climate change findings and predictions. Navigating what has become a very tricky political and politicized terrain is definitely not for those who lack conviction about the role of science in society.
You note that journalists often struggle with the need to distinguish their role in informing the public with other potential functions such as educating the public about science or advocating for particular policy changes. Why have these functions proven so challenging to work through in relation to climate change? How does the climate change debate bring into sharper profile questions about how journalism functions in the contemporary media landscape?
One of the funniest metaphors I encountered that captures the challenges journalists face was from a journalist who described reporting on climate change as akin to parking your car under a bunch of starlings. Whenever I quote this in a talk, I always show a car covered in bird shit and get a good laugh.
It s poignant on a bunch of different levels because it demonstrates the ways in which journalists enter into rambunctious, concerned, and diverse debates when they report on this issue. I argue that this not only speaks to the kind of issue climate change is, but also to the changing structures, norms, and practices facing journalists as a result of the rise of digital media.
Journalists are now not only expected to report on issues and put information out on a 24/7 basis, but they are increasingly expected longford leader to be verifiers and chief discussants. Journalistic methods and approaches as well as the facts they relay have never been more open to public scrutiny. In this sense, climate change is an exemplary issue with much at stake in terms of public longford leader engagement, policy, and the circulation of information.
Much of the concern about how climate change is reported on stems from the persistence of climate change denial and mis-information — despite the widespread scientific consensus that climate change is a very real problem with a range of predictions and probabilities. For journalists, the spectre of denial is something they have to contend with constantly whether in response to stories or in the choice of experts. This past year at least one major science publication closed off its comment sections longford leader after stories, citing the response to climate change stories in particular.
Recent research has shown that this kind of debate does seem to affect public perception of whether there is scientific consensus, but I also think it s vital to develop much better digital tools for dealing with these kinds of problems related to public debate longford leader and engagement. Shutting off comment sections doesn t solve the issue, nor does it reflect the robust commitment to democratic discourse that many, including me, argue is required longford leader particularly on contentious longford leader and far-reaching issues like climate change.
You start your
No comments:
Post a Comment