A changing climate of skepticism: The factors shaping climate change coverage in the US press

Abstract

Skepticism toward climate change has a long tradition in the United States. We focus on mass media as the conveyors of the image of climate change and ask: Is climate change skepticism still a characteristic of US print media coverage? If so, to what degree and in what form? And which factors might pave the way for skeptics entering mass media debates? We conducted a quantitative content analysis of US print media during one year (1 June 2012 to 31 May 2013). Our results show that the debate has changed: fundamental forms of climate change skepticism (such as denial of anthropogenic causes) have been abandoned in the coverage, being replaced by more subtle forms (such as the goal to avoid binding regulations). We find no evidence for the norm of journalistic balance, nor do our data support the idea that it is the conservative press that boosts skepticism.

Keywords

climate change skepticism content analysis global climate change mass media United States

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aldy

Pizer

(2009) Issues in designing US climate change policy. The Energy Journal 30: 179–209.

Anderegg

Pra

Harold

Schneider

(2010) Expert credibility in climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107: 12107–12109.

Antilla

(2005) Climate of scepticism: US newspaper coverage of the science of climate change. Global Environmental Change 15(4): 338–352.

Baumgartner

Jones

(1993) Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Bennett

(1990) Toward a theory of press state relations in the United States. Journal of Communication 40(2): 103–127.

Boykoff

(2012) US media coverage of the Cancun climate change conference. PS: Political Science & Politics 45(2): 251–258.

Boykoff

(2007a) Flogging a dead norm? Newspaper coverage of anthropogenic climate change in the United States and United Kingdom from 2003 to 2006. Area 39(4): 470–481.

Boykoff

(2007b) From convergence to contention: United States mass media representations of anthropogenic climate change science. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 32(4): 477–489.

Boykoff

(2004) Balance as bias: Global warming and the US prestige press. Global Environmental Change 14(2): 125–136.

10.

Boykoff

(2007) Climate change and journalistic norms: A case-study of US mass-media coverage. Geoforum 38(6): 1190–1204.

11.

Boykoff

Mansfield

(2008) ‘Ye Olde Hot Aire’: Reporting on human contributions to climate change in the UK tabloid press. Environmental Research Letters 3(2): 024002.

12.

Boykoff

Rajan

(2007) Signals and noise. EMBO Reports 8(3): 207–211.

13.

Brownstein

(2010) GOP gives climate science a cold shoulder. National Journal Available at: http://www.colorado.edu/physics/phys3000/phys3000_fa10/articles-f10/0707.pdf (accessed 3 May 2015).

14.

Brulle

(2014) The development, structure, and influence of the U.S. national climate change movement. In: Wolinsky-Nahmias

(ed.) Climate Change Policy and Civil Society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Congressional Quarterly Press.

15.

Capstick

Pidgeon

(2014) What is climate change scepticism? Examination of the concept using a mixed methods study of the UK public. Global Environmental Change 24: 369–401.

16.

Carvalho

(2007) Ideological cultures and media discourses on scientific knowledge: Re-reading news on climate change. Public Understanding of Science 16(2): 223–243.

17.

Carvalho

Burgess

(2005) Cultural circuits of climate change in UK broadsheet newspapers, 1985–2003. Risk Analysis 25(6): 1457–1469.

18.

Chadwick

(2013) The Hybrid Media System: Politics and Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

19.

Diethelm

MacKee

(2009) Denialism: What is it and how should scientists respond? European Journal of Public Health 19: 2–4.

20.

Dispensa

Brulle

(2003) Media’s social construction of environmental issues: Focus on global warming–a comparative study. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 23(10): 74–105.

21.

Doran

Zimmerman

(2009) Examining the scientific consensus on climate change. EOS 90(3): 22–23. Available at: http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf (accessed 2 October 2014).

22.

Dryzek

Downes

Hunold

Schlosberg

Hernes

(2003) Green States and Social Movements: Environmentalism in the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, and Norway. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

23.

Dunlap

McCright

(2008) A widening gap: Republican and democratic views on climate change. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 50(5): 26–35.

24.

Dunlap

McCright

(2010) Climate change denial: Sources, actors and strategies. In: Lever-Tracey

(ed.) Routledge Handbook of Climate Change and Society. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 240–259.

25.

Dunlap

McCright

(2011) Organized climate change denial. In: Dryzek

Norgaard

Schlossberg

(eds) The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 144–160.

26.

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(2): 199–230.

27.

Elsasser

Dunlap

(2013) Leading voices in the denier choir: Conservative columnists’ dismissal of global warming and denigration of climate science. American Behavioral Scientist 57(6): 754–776.

28.

Entman

(1989) Democracy without Citizens: Media and the Decay of American Politics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

29.

Feldman

Maibach

Roser-Renouf

Leiserowitz

(2011) Climate on cable: The nature and impact of global warming coverage on Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC. The International Journal of Press/Politics 17: 1–29.

30.

Fisher

Leifeld

Iwaki

(2013a) Mapping the ideological networks of American climate politics. Climatic Change 116: 523–545.

31.

Fisher

Waggle

Leifeld

(2013b) Where does political polarization come from? Locating polarization within the U.S. climate change debate. American Behavioral Scientist 57(1): 70–92.

32.

Gallup (2014a) A steady 57% in U.S. blame humans for global warming. Available at: http://www.gallup.com/poll/167972/steady-blame-humans-global-warming.aspx (accessed 2 October 2014).

33.

Gallup (2014b) Climate change not a top worry in U.S. Available at: http://www.gallup.com/poll/167843/climate-change-not-top-worry.aspx?version=print (accessed 2 October 2014).

34.

Gamson

(1988) Political discourse and collective action. International Social Movement Research 1: 219–244.

35.

Gentzkow

Shapiro

(2010) What drives media slant? Evidence from U.S. daily newspapers. Econometrica 78(1): 35–71.

36.

Gifford

Luedecke

McAllister

Nacu-Schmidt

Wang

Andrews

. (2015) World newspaper coverage of climate change or global warming, 2004–2015. Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado. Available at: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/media_coverage (accessed 24 April 2015).

37.

Groseclose

Milyo

(2005) A measure of media bias. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 120(4): 1191–1237.

38.

Grundmann

(2007) Climate change and knowledge politics. Environmental Politics 16(3): 414–432.

39.

Grundmann

Scott

(2014) Disputed climate science in the media: Do countries matter? Public Understanding of Science 23(2): 220–235.

40.

Gupta

(2010) A history of international climate change policy. WIREs Climate Change 1: 636–653.

41.

Hallin

Mancini

(2004) Comparing Media Systems: Three Models of Media and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

42.

Hickman

(2013) The era of climate change ‘denial’ is over. The Guardian, 28 August. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2013/aug/28/era-climate-change-denial-over (accessed 16 April 2015).

43.

Hiles

Hinnant

(2014) Climate change in the newsroom: Journalists’ evolving standards of objectivity when covering global warming. Science Communication 36(4): 428–453.

44.

Quinn

(2008) Measuring explicit political positions of the media. Quarterly Journal of Political Science 3: 353–377.

45.

Hobson

Niemeyer

(2012) “What sceptics believe”: The effects of information and deliberation on climate change scepticism. Public Understanding of Science 22(4): 396–412.

46.

Hoffman

(2011) Talking past each other? Cultural framing of skeptical and convinced logics in the climate change debate. Organization & Environment 24: 3–33.

47.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (ed.) (2014) Fifth assessment report. Available at: www.ipcc.ch (accessed 2 October 2014).

48.

Iyengar

Hahn

(2009) Red media, blue media: Evidence of ideological selectivity in media use. Journal of Communication 59(1): 19–39.

49.

Jacques

Dunlap

Freeman

(2008) The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism. Environmental Politics 17(3): 349–385.

50.

Leiserowitz

Maibach

Roser-Renouf

Smith

Dawson

(2013) Climategate, public opinion, and the loss of trust. American Behavioral Scientist 57(6): 818–837.

51.

Levendusky

(2013) Why do partisan media polarize viewers? American Journal of Political Science 57(3): 611–623.

52.

Lombard

Snyder-Duch

Bracken

(2002) Content analysis in mass communication. Assessment and reporting of intercoder Reliability. Human Communication Research 28(4): 587–604.

53.

Lutsey

Sperling

(2008) America’s bottom-up climate change mitigation policy. Energy Policy 36(2): 673–685.

54.

McCright

Dunlap

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

55.

McCright

Dunlap

(2011) The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public’s views of global warming, 2001–2010. The Sociological Quarterly 52(2): 155–194.

56.

Nisbet

(2009) Communicating climate change: Why frames matter for public engagement. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 51(2): 12–23.

57.

Nisbet

(2011) Public opinion and participation. In: Dryzek

Norgaard

Schlossberg

(eds) The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 355–368.

58.

Nisbet

Mooney

(2007) Science and society: Framing science. Science 316: 56.

59.

Oreskes

(2004) Beyond the ivory tower: The scientific consensus on climate change. Science 306(5702): 1686.

60.

Painter

(2011) Poles Apart: The International Reporting of Climate Skepticism. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.

61.

Painter

Ashe

(2012) Cross-national comparison of the presence of climate scepticism in the print media in six countries, 2007–10. Environmental Research Letters 7(4): 1–8.

62.

Painter

Gavin

(2015) Climate skepticism in British newspapers, 2007–2011. Environmental Communication. Epub ahead of print 27 January 2015. DOI:10.1080/17524032.2014.995193

63.

Rahmstorf

(2004) The climate skeptics: In weather catastrophes and climate change: Is there still hope for us? Available at: http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/ (accessed 2 October 2014).

64.

Russill

Nyssa

(2009) The tipping point trend in climate change communication. Global Environmental Change 19(3): 336–344.

65.

Scruggs

Benegal

(2012) Declining public concern about climate change: Can we blame the great recession? Global Environmental Change 22(2): 505–515.

66.

Selin

Van Deveer

(2010) US climate change politics and policymaking. WIREs Climate Change 2: 121–127.

67.

Stocking

(1999) How journalists deal with scientific uncertainty. In: Friedman

Dunwoody

Rogers

(eds) Communicating Uncertainty Media Coverage of New and Controversial Science. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 23–41.

68.

Stocking

Holstein

(2009) Manufacturing doubt: Journalists’ roles and the construction of ignorance in a scientific controversy. Public Understanding of Science 18: 23–42.

69.

Washington

Cook

(2011) Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand. London; Washington: Earthscan.

70.

Xie

(2015) The story of two big chimneys: A frame analysis of climate change in US and Chinese newspapers. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research 44(2): 151–177.

71.

Zaller

(1992) The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

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

0.07 MB