Climate change may well be the most important environmental issue of our time. For journalists covering the environmental beat, there is no bigger story-and none more treacherous. Journalists have been accused of distorting the scientific consensus by applying "false balance" to those who say anthropogenic climate change is happening and those who say it isn't. This study interviewed 11 experienced environmental reporters for mainstream print or online publications about how they understand the occupational norm of objectivity as applied to coverage of climate change, and how has that changed since 2000. Results were that subjects expressed support for several of nine dimensions of objectivity considered, but they redefined these terms to fit with their experiences. In the case of "balance," reporters have redefined it to mean applying a "weight of evidence" approach (Dunwoody, 2005) to science stories, and they tend to use global warming "skeptics" as sources very sparingly now. There only limited support for increased transparency in journalism, especially if that included revealing the reporter's personal opinions. Eight of 11 reporters interviewed said journalists should still be objective when covering climate change-but they indicated this meant "writing with authority," or interpreting their research. The other three journalists rejected the notion of objectivity as being impossible or prone to abuse. This study's findings indicate that the core values of journalism are incredibly durable, especially among its senior practitioners.

This study investigated how highly experienced environmental journalists view the professional norms of objectivity when covering climate change over time. Elite journalists were sought, and all had a minimum of 10 years of experience in climate coverage. In-depth interviews revealed a paradox: Most still profess belief in objectivity even as they reject or redefine it. Participants said that journalists should use objective practices and refrain from revealing their own biases, including advocating for the environment. However, participants have radically redefined the component of objectivity known as "balance." They now advocate a "weight-of-evidence" approach, where stories reflect scientific consensus.

Long before “fake news” became a catchphrase, misguided beliefs about scientific truths undermined the free exercise of democracy and personal decision-making. Journalistic norms such as providing false balance in the name of “objectivity,” deliberate manipulation by vested interests, and the human tendency toward confirmation bias combined to enable the dissemination of damaging misinformation about tobacco, climate change, vaccines, nuclear power, genetically modified foods, and other topics critical to the health and welfare of the modern world. This article examines an innovative new course designed to teach a mixed group of journalism and science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) majors to evaluate expertise and bias, examine data and misrepresentation, and develop evidence-based communication on complex scientific topics. The course covered concepts such as fact-checking, validation, fraud, the “backfire effect,” confirmation bias, limitations of the scientific method, conspiracy theories, misuse of statistics, and the role of journalists and scientists as truth-tellers in society. Journalism and science students learned to communicate with each other and with their respective audiences. A series of critical thinking assignments culminated in a final project where students, working in mixed teams, developed an interactive multimedia project communicating a controversial science topic to the public. This interdisciplinary course is offered as one model for teaching science literacy and information literacy to journalism and STEM students.

No abstract

No abstract