Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
However, one can argue that the 'balance' achieved in the four news-
papers scrutinised was, in fact, a form of
bias
. One can suggest that in
re
presenting the findings of climate change scientists these broadsheets effec-
tively
mis
represented them much of the time. Outlier views were amplified,
despite 'balance' appearing to be a value-free journalistic norm. In this way,
the norm in fact clashed with the other important reporting norm of 'objec-
tivity' because, 'objectively' speaking, climate change sceptics such as Willie
Soon and Sallie Baliunas (see
Box 7.3
) enjoyed little or no credibility among
their scientific peers. The former journalist Ross Gelbspan has explained the
problem of 'balanced' reporting of science thus:
When the issue is of a political or (moral)
nature, fairness - presenting the
most compelling arguments of both sides with equal weight - is a fundamental
check on biased reporting. But this
...
...
causes problems when it's applied to
issues of science. It seems to demand that journalists present competing points
of view
...
as though they had equal scientific weight, when actually they don't.
(Gelbspan, 1998: 57-8)
In other words, 'balanced' reporting of debates about climate change science
amounts to
decontextualising
them and thus preventing consumers of news
from understanding how much (or little) importance to attach to dissenting
views.
Study Task:
Why, aside from respecting the norm of 'balance', do you think
the quality newspapers analysed by the Boykoffs often presented both sides
of the climate change debate equally over such a long period of time? Think
back to the earlier discussion of what determines 'the news' in formulating
your answer.
Why did 'balance as bias' (Boykoff and Boykoff, 2004) persist for so long
in American broadsheets? We can only speculate. One thing we can almost
certainly rule out is the kind of behind-the-scenes string pulling that Edward
Herman and Noam Chomsky believe is rife in the US media. There's no
evidence that climate change sceptics enjoyed privileged access to reporters
working for the
New York Times
,the
Los Angeles Times
,the
Washington Post
or the
Wall Street Journal.
Alternative explanations thus suggest themselves.
Arguably, balanced reporting made climate change science more newswor-
thy than it would otherwise have been. By focussing on challenges to
the IPCC scientific consensus, reporters could write stories in which per-
sonalisation and drama were allowed to feature. At the same time, only
experienced science journalists able to specialise in science reporting (like
the
New York Times
'
s
Andrew Revkin) were likely to appreciate the nuances
past generation mean that many lack the time and expertise to determine
whose views to give the most weight to. The default position then becomes
