Climate
If you plan to cover climate change, thicken your skin. The topic is one of the most highly politicized areas in science journalism today. It's not surprising, given that so much is at stake. Environmentalists fear for the very future of the planet, while conservative politicians and energy ind...
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Format: | Book Part |
Language: | unknown |
Published: |
Oxford University Press
2005
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195174991.003.0043 |
id |
croxfordunivpr:10.1093/oso/9780195174991.003.0043 |
---|---|
record_format |
openpolar |
spelling |
croxfordunivpr:10.1093/oso/9780195174991.003.0043 2023-05-15T14:12:23+02:00 Climate McFarling, Usha Lee 2005 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195174991.003.0043 unknown Oxford University Press A Field Guide for Science Writers book-chapter 2005 croxfordunivpr https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195174991.003.0043 2022-08-05T10:30:25Z If you plan to cover climate change, thicken your skin. The topic is one of the most highly politicized areas in science journalism today. It's not surprising, given that so much is at stake. Environmentalists fear for the very future of the planet, while conservative politicians and energy industry leaders dread pollution controls that could threaten the nation's prosperity. As with all controversial issues, stakeholders on both sides are quick to attack reports—and reporters—that do not promote their point of view. I have been criticized by conservative think tanks for overplaying the potential dangers of climate change and scolded by environmentalists for downplaying those same dangers. It gives me solace to think that if I am aggravating both sides, then I am being fair. Critics of climate change coverage are right to some extent. The area, in my opinion, is among the most poorly covered in science journalism. This is because politically motivated campaigns of misinformation muddy the issue and because the science of climate—both highly complex and uncertain—is difficult to convey. Much climate change coverage exaggerates potential problems or greatly oversimplifies the issues. Reports are spotty at best, coming in droves when a particularly large piece of ice breaks off of Antarctica or there is a heat wave on the East Coast, but evaporating with the cool of autumn. Events from malaria outbreaks to species declines are attributed to climate change without adequate proof. Climate change coverage too often falls through the cracks between beats. Climate is not only a science story. It is a political story, a foreign story, and a business story as well. It would be best if climate were covered from all of these myriad angles; more commonly, no one takes ownership of it. Science writers, with their technical expertise, ability to translate jargon, and patience with details, are in prime position to be on the front lines of climate coverage—perhaps with occasional forays into political and economic terrain when ... Book Part Antarc* Antarctica Oxford University Press (via Crossref) Patience ENVELOPE(-68.933,-68.933,-67.750,-67.750) |
institution |
Open Polar |
collection |
Oxford University Press (via Crossref) |
op_collection_id |
croxfordunivpr |
language |
unknown |
description |
If you plan to cover climate change, thicken your skin. The topic is one of the most highly politicized areas in science journalism today. It's not surprising, given that so much is at stake. Environmentalists fear for the very future of the planet, while conservative politicians and energy industry leaders dread pollution controls that could threaten the nation's prosperity. As with all controversial issues, stakeholders on both sides are quick to attack reports—and reporters—that do not promote their point of view. I have been criticized by conservative think tanks for overplaying the potential dangers of climate change and scolded by environmentalists for downplaying those same dangers. It gives me solace to think that if I am aggravating both sides, then I am being fair. Critics of climate change coverage are right to some extent. The area, in my opinion, is among the most poorly covered in science journalism. This is because politically motivated campaigns of misinformation muddy the issue and because the science of climate—both highly complex and uncertain—is difficult to convey. Much climate change coverage exaggerates potential problems or greatly oversimplifies the issues. Reports are spotty at best, coming in droves when a particularly large piece of ice breaks off of Antarctica or there is a heat wave on the East Coast, but evaporating with the cool of autumn. Events from malaria outbreaks to species declines are attributed to climate change without adequate proof. Climate change coverage too often falls through the cracks between beats. Climate is not only a science story. It is a political story, a foreign story, and a business story as well. It would be best if climate were covered from all of these myriad angles; more commonly, no one takes ownership of it. Science writers, with their technical expertise, ability to translate jargon, and patience with details, are in prime position to be on the front lines of climate coverage—perhaps with occasional forays into political and economic terrain when ... |
format |
Book Part |
author |
McFarling, Usha Lee |
spellingShingle |
McFarling, Usha Lee Climate |
author_facet |
McFarling, Usha Lee |
author_sort |
McFarling, Usha Lee |
title |
Climate |
title_short |
Climate |
title_full |
Climate |
title_fullStr |
Climate |
title_full_unstemmed |
Climate |
title_sort |
climate |
publisher |
Oxford University Press |
publishDate |
2005 |
url |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195174991.003.0043 |
long_lat |
ENVELOPE(-68.933,-68.933,-67.750,-67.750) |
geographic |
Patience |
geographic_facet |
Patience |
genre |
Antarc* Antarctica |
genre_facet |
Antarc* Antarctica |
op_source |
A Field Guide for Science Writers |
op_doi |
https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195174991.003.0043 |
_version_ |
1766284692054605824 |