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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: McFarling, Usha Lee
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