Defining criteria for good environmental journalism and testing their applicability: An environmental news review as a first step to more evidence based environmental science reporting

Abstract

While the quality of environmental science journalism has been the subject of much debate, a widely accepted benchmark to assess the quality of coverage of environmental topics is missing so far. Therefore, we have developed a set of defined criteria of environmental reporting. This instrument and its applicability are tested in a newly established monitoring project for the assessment of pieces on environmental issues, which refer to scientific sources and therefore can be regarded as a special field of science journalism. The quality is assessed in a kind of journalistic peer review. We describe the systematic development of criteria, which might also be a model procedure for other fields of science reporting. Furthermore, we present results from the monitoring of 50 environmental reports in German media. According to these preliminary data, the lack of context and the deficient elucidation of the evidence pose major problems in environmental reporting.

Keywords

environmental reporting science journalism quality standards

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Allan

Ewart

(2015) Citizen science, citizen journalism. In: Hansen

Cox

(eds) The Routledge Handbook of Environment and Communication. London; New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 186–196.

Anderson

(2009) Media, politics and climate change: Towards a new research agenda. Sociology Compass 3(2): 166–182.

Anhäuser

Wormer

(2012) A question of quality: Criteria for the evaluation of science and medical reporting and testing their applicability. In: Quality, honesty and beauty in science and technology communication. Proceedings of the 12 international public communication of science and technology conference (PCST) (ed Trench

Bucchi

), pp. 335–337. Available at: http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/FIELD/Venice/pdf/news/Programmedef.pdf

Arnold

(2008) Qualität im Journalismus – ein integratives Konzept [Quality in journalism – an integrative concept.]. Publizistik 53(4): 488–508.

Bauer

(2012) Public attention to science 1820–2020 – A ‘long durée’ picture. In: Rödder

Franzen

Weingart

(eds) The Science Media Connection – Public Communication and Its Repercussions, Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook 28. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 35–57.

Bauer

(2013) The knowledge society favours science communication, but puts science journalism into the clinch. In: Barange

Schiele

(eds) Science Communication Today. International Perspectives, Issues and Strategies. Paris: CNRS Editions, pp. 145–166.

Bauer

Gregory

(2007) From journalism to corporate communication in post-war Britain. In: Bauer

Bucchi

(eds) Science, Journalism and Public Relations. London: Routledge, pp. 33–52.

Bauer

Howard

Romo Ramos

Y-J

Massarani

Amorim

(2013) Global science journalism report. Working conditions & practices, professional ethos and future expectation. SciDev.Net, Trident printers. Available at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/48051/1/Bauer_Global_science_journalism_2013.pdf

Bell

(1994)Media (mis)communication on the science of climate change. Public Understanding of Science 3: 259–275.

10.

Bødker

Neverla

(2012) Environmental journalism. Journalism Studies 13(2): 152–156.

11.

Bonfadelli

(2007) Nachhaltigkeit als Herausforderung für Medien und Journalismus [Sustainability as a challenge for media and journalism.]. In: Schweizerische Akademie der Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaften (eds) Nachhaltigkeitsforschung. Perspektiven der Sozial- und Geisteswissenschaften. Bern, pp. 255–279.

12.

Bourassa

Amend

Secko

(2013) A thematic review and synthesis of best practices in environment journalism. Journal of Professional Communication 3(1): 39–65.

13.

Boykoff

(2004) Balance as bias: Global warming and the US prestige press. Global Environmental Change 14: 125–136.

14.

Braun

(1996) Qualitätskontrollen im Wissenschafts- und Umweltjournalismus [Quality control in science journalism and environmental journalism]. ZIF: Mitteilungen 1: 1–6.

15.

Braun

M-L

(2009) Verloren in der Informationsflut? Zum Stand des Umweltjournalismus [Lost in information overload? The state of environmental journalism]. In: Bayerisches Landesamt für Umwelt (ed.) Fachtagung Umweltkommunikation: Für Natur und Umwelt begeistern. Augsburg: Bayer, pp. 111–113.

16.

Brüggemann

Esser

Humprecht

(2012) The strategic repertoire of publishers in the media crisis: The ‘Five C’ scheme in Germany. Journalism Studies 13: 742–752.

17.

Brumfiel

(2009) Supplanting the old media. Nature 458: 274–277.

18.

Bucchi

Mazzolini

(2003) Big science, little news: Science coverage in the Italian Daily Press, 1946–1997. Public Understanding of Science 12(1): 7–24.

19.

Clark

Illman

LDL

(2006) A longitudinal study of the New York Times science section. Science Communication 27(4): 496–513.

20.

Cook

Boyd

Grossmann

Bero

(2007) Reporting science and conflicts of interest in the lay press. PLoS ONE 2(12): e1266.

21.

Cox

Depoe

(2015) Emergence and growth of the ‘field’ of environmental communication. In: Hansen

Cox

(eds) The Routledge Handbook of Environment and Communication. London; New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 13–25.

22.

Davydova

(2013) The state of environmental journalism in Germany and Russia. Global Media Journal 3(1). Available at: http://www.globalmediajournal.de/archive-volume-3-no-1/

23.

Dernbach

(2012) Die unterschiedlichen Rhythmen des (Umwelt-) Journalismus und der Nachhaltigkeits-kommunikation [The different rhythms of (environmental) journalism and sustainability communication]. uwf UmweltWirtschaftsForum 19: 177–183.

24.

Dudo

Dunwoody

Scheufele

(2011) The emergence of nano news: Tracking thematic trends and changes in U.S. newspaper coverage of nanotechnology. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 88: 55–75.

25.

Dunwoody

Peters

(1992) Mass media coverage of technological and environmental risks: A survey of research in the United States and Germany. Public Understanding of Science 1: 199–230.

26.

Edmonds

Guskin

Mitchel

Jurkowitz

(2013) Newspapers: By the numbers. Pew Research Center. Available at: http://stateofthemedia.org/2013/newspapers-stabilizing-but-still-threatened/newspapers-by-the-numbers/

27.

Elmer

Badenschier

Wormer

(2008) Science for everybody? How the coverage of research issues in German newspapers has increased dramatically. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 85: 878–893.

28.

Enda

Mitchell

(2013) Americans show signs of leaving a news outlet, citing less information. Pew Research Center. Available at: http://stateofthemedia.org/2013/special-reports-landing-page/citing-reduced-quality-many-americans-abandon-news-outlets/

29.

Fink

Kosecoff

Chassin

Brook

(1984) Consensus methods: Characteristics and guidelines for use. American Journal of Public Health 74: 79–983.

30.

Franzen

(2014) Medialisierungstendenzen im wissenschaftlichen Publikationssystem [Tendencies towards medialization in the system of scientific publication]. In: Weingart

Schulz

(eds) Wissen – Nachricht – Sensation. Weilerswist: Velbrück Wissenschaft, pp. 19–45.

31.

Freimuth

Greenberg

DeWitt

Romano

(1984) Covering cancer: Newspapers and the public interest. Journal of Communication 34(1): 62–73.

32.

Frome

(1998) Green Ink: An Introduction to Environmental Journalism. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press.

33.

Glynn

Tims

(1982) Sensationalism in science issues: A case study. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 59: 126–131.

34.

Guyatt

Sackett

Sinclair

Hayward

Cook

. (1995) Users’ guides to the medical literature IX. A method for grading health care recommendations. Journal of the American Medical Association 274(22): 1800–1804.

35.

Haller

(2014) Chance auf Comeback. Message 3: 82–89. Available at: http://www.message-online.com/archiv/message-3-2014/

36.

Hansen

(2011) Communication, media and environment: Towards reconnecting research on the production, content and social implications of environmental communication. The International Communication Gazette 73(1–2): 7–25.

37.

Heidmann

Milde

(2013) Communication about scientific uncertainty: How scientists and science journalists deal with uncertainties in nanoparticle research. Environmental Sciences Europe 25: 1–11.

38.

Hingst

Rager

Weber

(1995) Seismograph statt Sirene [Seismograph instead of siren]. Münster: LIT-Verlag.

39.

Hornbostel

(2010) (Forschungs) evaluation [(Research) evaluation]. In: Simon

Knie

Hornbostel

(eds) Handbuch Wissenschaftspolitik. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, pp. 293–309.

40.

Ivanova

Schäfer

Schlichting

Schmidt

(2013) Is there a medialization of climate science? Results from a survey of German climate scientists. Science Communication 35(5): 626–653.

41.

Jerome

(1986) Gee whiz! is that all there is? In: Friedman

Dunwoody

Rogers

(eds) Scientists and Journalists: Reporting Science as News (AAAS Issues in Science and Technology Series). New York, NY: The Free Press, pp. 147–154.

42.

Kavadias

Sommer

(2009) The effects of problem structure and team diversity on brainstorming effectiveness. Management Science 55(12): 1899–1913.

43.

Kohring

(2007) Vertrauen statt Wissen – Qualität im Wissenschaftsjournalismus [Trust instead of knowledge – quality in science journalism]. In: Kienzlen

Lublinski

Stollorz

(eds) Fakt, Fiktion, Fälschung. Trends im Wissenschaftsjournalismus. Konstanz: UVK Verlagsgesellschaft, pp. 25–38.

44.

Krassuski

(2010) Qualitätskriterien in der Umweltberichterstattung [Quality criteria in environmental reporting]. Bachelor Thesis, Chair of Science Journalism, TU Dortmund University, Dortmund, unpublished results.

45.

McCright

Dunlap

(2003) Defeating Kyoto: The conservative movement’s impact on U.S. climate change policy. Social Problems 50(3): 348–373.

46.

McQuail

(1992) Media Performance: Mass Communication and the Public Interest. London: SAGE.

47.

Maillé

M-E

Saint-Charles

Lucotte

(2010) The gap between scientists and journalists: The case of mercury science in Québec’s press. Public Understanding of Science 19(1): 70–79.

48.

Major

Atwood

(2004) Environmental stories define problems, not solutions. Newspaper Research Journal 25: 8–22.

49.

Metag

Marcinkowski

(2014) Technophobia towards emerging technologies? A comparative analysis of the media coverage of nanotechnology in Austria, Switzerland and Germany. Journalism 15: 463–481.

50.

Mooney

(2004) Blinded by science: How ‘balanced’ coverage lets the scientific fringe hijack reality. Columbia Journalism Review 43(4): 26–35.

51.

Moynihan

Bero

Ross-Degnan

Henry

Lee

. (2000) Coverage by the news media of the benefits and risks of medications. New England Journal of Medicine 342: 1645–1650.

52.

Nationale Akademie der Wissenschaften Leopoldina, German National Academy of Science and Engineering – Acatech & Union der deutschen Akademien der Wissenschaften (2014) On designing communication between the scientific community, the public and the media. Position Paper. Available at: http://www.acatech.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Baumstruktur_nach_Website/Acatech/root/de/Publikationen/Kooperationspublikationen/3Akad_Stellungnahme_Kommunikation_2014_EN_final.pdf

53.

Neidhardt

(2006) Forschungsevaluation [Research evaluation]. Soziologie 35: 419–425.

54.

Neidhardt

(2010) Selbststeuerung der Wissenschaft: Peer review [Self-regulation of science: Peer review]. In: Simon

Knie

Hornbostel

(eds) Handbuch Wissenschaftspolitik. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, pp. 280–292.

55.

Oxman

Guyatt

Cook

Jaeschke

Heddle

Keller

(1993) An index of scientific quality for health reports in the lay press. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 46(9): 987–1001.

56.

Peters

(2013) Gap between science and media revisited: Scientists as public communicators. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110(Suppl. 3): 14102–14109.

57.

Peters

Dunwoody

Allgaier

Y-Y

Brossard

(2014) Public communication of science 2.0. EMBO Reports 15: 749–753.

58.

Sachsmann

Myer Valenti

(2015) Environmental reporters. In: Hansen

Cox

(eds) The Routledge Handbook of Environment and Communication. London; New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 158–167.

59.

Sachsmann

Simon

Myer Valenti

(2004) Risk and the environment reporters: A four-region analysis. Public Understanding of Science 13: 399–416.

60.

Schmidt

Ivanova

Schäfer

(2013) Media attention for climate change around the world: A comparative analysis of newspaper coverage in 27 countries. Global Environmental Change 23: 1233–1248.

61.

Schwitzer

(2008) How do US journalists cover treatments, tests, products, and procedures? An evaluation of 500 stories. PLoS Med 5(5): e95.

62.

Singer

(1990) A question of accuracy: How journalists and scientists report research on hazards. Journal of Communication 40(4): 102–116.

63.

Society of Environmental Journalists (2013) Guide to diversity in environmental reporting. Available at: http://www.sej.org/library/books/sej-guide-diversity-environmental-reporting

64.

Tankard

Jr Ryan

(1974) News source perceptions of accuracy of science coverage. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 51: 219–225.334.

65.

Terwee

Mokkink

Knol

Ostelo

RWJG

Bouter

De Vet

HCW

(2012) Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: A scoring system for the COSMIN checklist. Quality of Life Research 21: 651–657.

66.

Thorbrietz

(1986) Vernetztes Denken im Journalismus: Journalistische Vermittlungsdefizite am Beispiel Ökologie und Umweltschutz [Joined-up thinking in journalism: Deficits in journalistic presentation, using the example of ecology and environmental protection]. Tübingen: De Gruyter.

67.

Thorsen

(2009) Blogging the climate change crisis from Antarctica. In: Allan

Thorsen

(eds) Citizen Journalism – Global Perspectives. New York, NY: Peter Lang, pp. 114–117.

68.

Trench

(2012) Scientists’ blogs: Glimpses behind the scenes. In: Rödder

Franzen

Weingart

(eds) The Sciences’ Media Connection – Public Communication and Its Repercussions, Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook 28. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 273–289.

69.

Weingart

(2012) The Lure of the mass media and its repercussions on science. In: Rödder

Franzen

Weingart

(eds) The Sciences’ Media Connection – Public Communication and Its Repercussions, Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook 28. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 17–32.

70.

Weischenberg

Malik

Scholl

(2006) Die Souffleure der Mediengesellschaft: Report über die Journalisten in Deutschland. Konstanz: UVK.

71.

Westphal

(2010) Geologie [Geology]. In: Engelen

E-M

Fleischhack

Galizia

Landfester

(eds) Heureka – Evidenzkriterien in den Wissenschaften. Heidelberg: Spektrum, pp. 61–74.

72.

Wilson

Bonevski

Jones

Henry

(2009) Media reporting of health interventions: Signs of improvement, but major problems persist. PLoS ONE 4(3): e4831.

73.

Wyss

(2008) Covering the Environment: How Journalists Work the Green Beat. New York, NY; London: Routledge.

74.

Zara

(2013) Remember newspaper science sections? They’re almost all gone. International Business Times, 10 January. Available at: http://www.ibtimes.com/remember-newspaper-science-sections-theyre-almost-all-gone-1005680

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.22 MB