Arguments
93% of Fox News climate change coverage misleading
Posted on 1 October 2012 by John Cook
I've just had an article What happened to climate change? Fox News and the US elections published in The Conversation that examines the reality inversion promoted by News Corporation. Here's an excerpt:
An analysis of prime time programs on Fox News has found that 93% of their coverage of climate science in 2012 was misleading. The report, published by the Union of Concerned Scientists, analysed six months of prime time segments covering climate change in early 2012.
The Wall Street Journal, News Corporation’s other media flagship, didn’t fare much better. The report also included WSJ opinion pieces over the last year and found 81% of their climate change coverage was misleading.
To characterise this coverage as biased doesn’t capture the magnitude of their treatment of climate science. News Corporation is promoting an inversion of reality. For the past several decades, there has been a strengthening scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming.
Surveys of the climate science community since 1996 have found the percentage of climate scientists agreeing on human-caused global warming has steadily increased to the point where in the last few years, several independent surveys have found 97% agreement among actively publishing climate scientists.
Fine words from Murdoch but …As the scientific consensus strengthened, there have been signs of improvement in media coverage of climate change. From 1988 to 2002, US prestige press newspapers such as the New York Times, Washington Post (and yes, the Wall Street Journal) gave disproportionate attention to climate contrarians. However, coverage improved to the point where in 2007, 96% of U.S. prestige newspaper coverage of climate change depicted human contribution to climate change as significant.
At this time, Rupert Murdoch pledged that News coverage of climate change would improve. In 2007, he said “I think when people see that 99% of scientists agree about the serious extent of global warming, it’s going to become a fact of life”. In fact, the link between perception of scientific consensus and acceptance of climate change has been demonstrated by researchers. The important consequence emerging from this research is that perception of consensus is also a strong predictor of support for climate policy.
Despite Murdoch’s promise to improve Fox coverage, this 2012 analysis shows that coverage is worse than ever at Fox News and the Wall Street Journal.
I recommend checking out the full article. If my last Conversation article is any indication, expect plenty of knee-jerk science rejection in the comments thread.
Does James Murdoch hate climate skepticism as much as phone-hacking?
It was an intense period of exchange - eat, sleep, and type away like a madman on my laptalk. John Cook may note a late September increase in hits to the SkS website.
There were literally thousands of comments to this Yahoo News article. Its popularity was probably due to a number of factors:
1. The U.S. is approaching the "make or break" period in a presidential campaign that was already in full gear last year. Ultra-conservatives in the Republican Party has forced Governor Romney to retreat from his previous acceptance of ACC. It's getting crazy here, folks!
2. This story "93% of Fox News climate change coverage misleading" followed immediately on the heels of the news story from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) that Arctic sea ice had hit "record" lows.
3. Many are upset that no questions involving climate change were planned for any of the three upcoming presidential debates. That may change.
4. Many are complete exasperated with News Corporation. As the article notes, it is not just Fox News, but also Wall Street Journal editorials. Some Yahoo commentors have also noticed a decline in the quality of WSJ news articles since Murdoch took over.
Anyone wishing to discuss this further with me directly, feel free to contact me at TomPainInTheAsk@yahoo.com (-snip-).
--Gary Walker
(aka TomPainInTheAsk)
1 Climate's changed before 4.6%
2 It's the sun 4.5%
3 It's not bad 4.3%
4 There is no consensus 3.4%
-5 It's cooling 3.4%
6 Models are unreliable 3.1%
7 Temp record is unreliable 2.6%
8 Animals and plants can adapt 2.4%
-9 It hasn't warmed since 1998 2.1%
10 Antarctica is gaining ice 2.0%
-11 CO2 lags temperature 2.0%
12 Ice age predicted in the 70s 1.9%
13 Climate sensitivity is low 1.9%
-14 We're heading into an ice age 1.8%
-15 Ocean acidification isn't serious 1.8%
16 Hockey stick is broken 1.8%
17 Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy 1.7%
18 Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming 1.7%
-19 Glaciers are growing 1.6%
20 Al Gore got it wrong 1.6%
Below are frequent arguments I encountered that are not in SkS's current Top 20.
24 Sea level rise is exaggerated
27 Mars is warming 1.2% (followed by Jupiter, Neptune, and Pluto!)
28 Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle
29 Increasing CO2 has little to no effect 1.1%
32 IPCC is alarmist 1.0%
39 CO2 is not a pollutant 0.8%
54 It's a natural cycle 0.5%
60 Scientists can't even predict weather 0.5%
85 Solar Cycle Length proves its the sun 0.3%
86 CO2 is not the only driver of climate 0.2%
102 Arctic sea ice loss is matched by Antarctic sea ice gain 0.2%
106 Solar cycles cause global warming 0.2%
111 The IPCC consensus is phoney 0.1%
126 Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer 0.1%
133 The sun is getting hotter 0.1%
136 Skeptics were kept out of the IPCC? 0.0%
Frankly, NewsCorp is so ridden with ideologues that it's very hard to imagine it ever changing without a root-and-branch, intentional - and highly-unlikely - clean sweep.
Once centrist, The Australian, for instance, is now not much more than a far-right-wing thinktank that happens to publish the national daily. Just as Rupert created it. It is a veritable crypt of Zombie notions, and not just regarding climate...
The News Corp viewer/reader demographics skew toward climate denial and maintaining viewership which in turn generates the highest amount of ad revenue; that is his main priority.
Reality and corporate citizenry pale in comparison to next quarters dividends.
Legally he is required to manage in such a way that best ensures profit for the shareholder.
The Australian pushes so many barrows, that I've stopped reading it. And they typically only run one side of an argument, which is deeply unsatisfying.
Still, maybe they are just trying to be controversial, because it sells newspapers.
The recent restructure of News is supposedly designed to stop the cross subsidisation of newspapers that has been around for ages. The Australian has supposedly never made a profit. It will be interesting to see what effect the restructure has.
The RS article suggested that James Murdoch has basically persuaded his old man of the soundness of prevailing science, the elder Murdoch was even quoted as saying "Roger [Aimes] is nuts" on that score. Despite which climate science and sensible policies informed by it are a continuing casualty of what looks like an ongoing power struggle at News Corp.
Since every opinion manipulator knows, one must first establish trust by offering a certain amount of truth. When that audience is drawn in, only then does the skilled propagandist brandish their swill.
Fox doesn't even rise to that level - maybe we should be thankful that they are so bad at it.
That would be for the reason that Murdoch the Younger hasn't taken over from Murdoch the Elder.
As of just now young Murdoch is a "minister without portfolio" in the Murdoch Empire, is wandering in the desert, has been since his memory became significantly impaired while attempting to recollect his involvement in the NoW/NI organized crime coverup.
"Legally he is required to manage in such a way that best ensures profit for the shareholder. "
OK maybe I am being too literal but there are no laws that directors etc. should ensure profit for shareholders. It is most probably the aim of the company, nothing more. Certainly not something that should trump law, and in my opinion, ethics.
What would you say about the increasing numbers of cases where company directors or managers are being charged with criminal fraud, or shareholders are filing class action lawsuits (and winning) because companies were not managed in the best interests of the shareholders?
A Google search will bring up tons of stuff. This one (picked semi-randomly) seems to cover the idea reasonably well: the relevant term seems to be "shareholder derivative action".
Managers do have legal obligations to the shareholders.
It's a basic requirement of business -- and a legal requirement, certainly in the UK -- that the directors of a company must maximise the profits for, and look after the interests of, the shareholders. However, it goes without saying that these aims must be accomplished within the law of the land; for overstepping the mark could bring the firm into disrepute and thus damage shareholder value -- which is exactly what the hacking scandal brought about for News International.
Looking at the environmental angle, clearly these requirements can be interpreted in many different ways. A responsible company might come to the realisation that a short-term pursuit of profits could actually harm the long-term survival of the company and thus the interests of shareholders. Consequently, enlightened directors might realise that anything that damages their company's ability to, say, obtain raw materials or operate as usual, is something they should work to overcome. This is why, for instance, both insurance providers and food companies have accepted the science of climate change and are taking steps to engage actively in the fight to prevent it. There's more about this here from an organisation which seeks to encourage businesses to make a difference.
I'm proud to have helped certain companies on that list achieve the highest positions in their sectors. It's never enough of course, but we can do our bit through our choices to keep the pressure on.
For an interesting case of a conundrum produced by the collision of business objectives and implicit promises to shareholders versus the law, see this article:
Insurance Companies Face Increased Risk from Global Warming.
It's an ironic title, given that some insurance companies are confronted with a difficult choice about whether and how to actually face global warming:
Fear leads to feigned ignorance:
Gee, I hope someone asks during the debates. Rombot's position is so corporate it can hardly be believed...but believe it.