Problems of covering Climate Change

News coverage on climate change faces several issues, which the media should be held accountable for, as it possesses significant influential capacities on society.

38

Since climate models usually estimate changing circumstances for future decades and as a global phenomenon, finding resonation within the average citizens’ lives and causing an emotional response has been difficult (Brauch et al., 2018; Happer & Philo, 2016; Schäfer, 2015). This is intensified by the fact that the effects of rising global temperatures will mostly be experienced by younger and future generations when looking at the global North.

Additionally, the underlying data is based on complex calculations which all contain varying levels of uncertainty, and mitigation methods are highly debated and have elusive consequences for different social strata (Schäfer, 2015).

Another problem emerges due to the fact that analyses in climate science often follow a slower and steadier process instead of ground-breaking and dramatic discoveries that are more convenient for journalistic norms, which translates into only episodic coverage (Pepermans

& Maeseele, 2017; Schäfer, 2015). These peaks of media attention are mostly aligned with international summits, whereas national conferences receive considerably less media coverage, thereby disconnecting citizens from local measures and problems with higher impacts for them personally, thus diminishing their will to act (Carvalho, 2010).

Furthermore, with the growing influence of online and social media, mainstream media are demanded to act within a highly competitive market of newspapers contending for audiences.

In addition, they depend on commercials resulting in quantity over quality writing, which leaves little time for in-depth analyses of social issues, hence contributing to media propaganda (Maclean, 2019; Pepermans & Maeseele, 2017; Schäfer, 2015; Schäfer & Painter, 2020).

Therefore, slow journalism with a focus on high quality reports of global social developments, instead of only current events can enhance public understanding and participation (Pepermans

& Maeseele, 2017).

At the same time representing both climate change denialists and advocates of anthropogenic climate change equally, in an attempt to preserve objectivity, lends the fleeting percentage of climate contrarians a platform disproportionate to their numbers also described as the false balance coverage (Gibson et al., 2016; Happer & Philo, 2016; Pepermans & Maeseele, 2017;

Petersen et al., 2019; Schäfer, 2015; Schäfer & Painter, 2020). Climate journalists state that this method of reporting has lessened over the years and now climate change denialists are not treated as a trustworthy alternative side in coverage of the climate crisis (Gibson et al., 2016; Schäfer & Painter, 2020). However, research for the US found that denialists there gained even more media coverage in the last ten years, specifically after the election of Trump as US president (Schäfer & Painter, 2020).

In their analysis of English media articles and research publication Petersen et al. (2019), discovered that climate contrarians are represented 49 % more than climate scientists, but when only looking at mainstream media that increased visibility is reduced to 1 %. Therefore, they demonstrate how new media sources might add to misinforming citizens in comparison to professional mainstream media (Petersen et al., 2019).

Additionally, the opinions of fossil fuel companies are often still globally represented, justified by arguing at aiming to maintain objectivity and present arguments of both sides,

39

even though this branch of industry cannot be regarded as a neutral discussion partner since they have their own financial agenda (Pepermans & Maeseele, 2017).

These journalistic norms of personalisation where individual journalists decide which stories to cover, novelty as in event-driven reporting and dramatisation with exaggerated or alarmist presentation, all contribute to a depolitisation of climate change and thus inhibit valuable discussion of underlying norms and value systems, or explaining solutions (Pepermans &

Maeseele, 2017). Alternatively, personalisation can also refer to the strategy of emphasising agents as the causer of events and labelling them as victims, villains, or heroes, whereas emotionalisation describes emotional reporting, and fictionalisation includes hypothetical narratives (Lück et al., 2018).

As an alternative, there exists a small number of government and reader sponsored newspapers, which actively seek to thematise the North-South divide, particularly representing the voices of the poor to encourage communication between these two parties and hold responsible entities accountable, thus enabling a transition to a sustainable future.

These outlets practice advocacy journalism, which focuses on social responsibility.

Moreover, instead of staying neutral as the original idea of newspaper suggests, they openly declare support for practices in line with their ideals that are based on facts and transparently explained. Additionally, they highlight the positive developments and measures happening, to motivate readers and discuss the potentials on different levels to show how governments, citizens, and the industry are required to work together in order to achieve fundamental change, also referred to as constructive journalism (Pepermans & Maeseele, 2017).

As news is the main source of information on scientific, political, and social developments for citizens, the way it presents the data heavily shapes the publics’ opinion. Therefore, the media cannot stay completely neutral as simply choosing the broadcast program and taking a side in discussions already applies a filter on the events happening. Thus, journalism requires the inclusion of voices from activists, especially of marginalised groups and developing countries, to explain underlying power relations and encourage readers to question the existing socio-political and economic systems (Pepermans & Maeseele, 2017).

3.4.7PROVISIONAL RESULT

As media holds the power of influencing concern, the perceived credibility of the varying involved parties and the way citizens perceive their role and potential that civil action can have in this crisis, it falls to them to provide information on underlying power relations, encourage critical thinking and explain scientific background in a way that causes emotional responses, even though the global concept is difficult to grasp and does not follow standard journalistic norms (Carvalho, 2010; Happer & Philo, 2016; Lück et al., 2018; Pepermans &

Maeseele, 2017; Schäfer, 2015).

Although there is a proven attitude-action gap between knowledge of climate change and environmental behaviour (Happer & Philo, 2016; Kulin & Sevä, 2019; Schäfer, 2015) hostile media coverage (Feldman et al., 2017), the illusion of knowing (Yang et al., 2020), as well as social media can affect societal trends and encourage action around climate change, while the

40

latter can also lead to increased polarisation through their personalised algorithms (Anderson, 2017).

Since media is the main medium for politicians, scientists and representatives of industry or NGOs when trying to seek public attention and influence positions of society (Schäfer, 2015), the voices represented in the media will be crucial in shaping the development of policies (Carvalho, 2010).

Yet journalists mostly rely on elite authorities and often represent both climate change denialists and advocates of anthropogenic climate equally, in an attempt to maintain factual coverage and objectivity (Gibson et al., 2016; Happer & Philo, 2016; Pepermans & Maeseele, 2017; Petersen et al., 2019; Schäfer, 2015; Schäfer & Painter, 2020).

However, this results in false balance coverage, neglects marginalised voices, as well as the political opposition, local development regarding climate change mitigation and inhibits discussions around the tenets of capitalism and neoliberalism or the reasons for the North-South divide (Carvalho, 2010; Pepermans & Maeseele, 2018).

Therefore, past and present media coverage has contributed to a manipulative reporting system (Maclean, 2019; Schäfer & Painter, 2020) and should thus be held responsible for its journalistic narratives and frames (Lück et al., 2018). At the same time, independent

financing and focussing on the issues of climate justice and intersectional approaches could create a more holistic understanding of climate change within society, enhance self-efficacy and encourage citizens to question the existing socio-political and economic systems (Pepermans & Maeseele, 2018).

4DISCUSSION

4.1LIMITATIONS

Due to the limitation of chosen papers and articles for each category, this thesis in its predetermined length cannot cover and analyse every detail regarding different aspects of responsibility allocations for the various groups. The section of historical occurrences in politics and industry was deliberately merely outlined, to present a brief overview of past actions, but afterwards putting the focus on the current situation.

Additionally, the subject of climate justice is still fairly new in scientific research and the long-term consequences of mass protests on climate politics and individual adaption methods are yet to be determined and studied in future research.