In November 2016, small groups of coders, climate scientists, scholars, journalists, and activists came together under the umbrella organization Environmental Data & Governance Initiative (EDGI) to defend against the Trump administration’s attacks on environmental protections. A distinguishing feature of EDGI, and the focus of this study, is the methods it has developed to combat propaganda and misinformation around science. This article analyzes the push-and-pull dynamic between the values and practices of EDGI and journalism, as they interacted in the expanded political information news field. Drawing on EDGI publications and interviews with its members, this article details EDGI’s efforts to connect with journalists and the public. It explores EDGI news coverage, focusing on the manner and frequency in which EDGI values and perspectives were, and were not, conveyed in the coverage. We trace the development of what we argue are new forms of public intervention and offer an expanded understanding of the misinformation ecosystem.
AalbergTEsserFReinemannC, et al. (eds) (2017) Populist Political Communication in Europe. London: Routledge.
2.
AntonioRBrulleR (2011) The unbearable lightness of politics: Climate change denial and political polarization. The Sociological Quarterly52(2): 195–202.
3.
BennettL (2002) News: The Politics of Illusion. New York: Longman.
4.
BergmanA (2018) Interviewed by Adrienne Russell, 21 September.
5.
BergmannE (2018) Conspiracy and Populism: The Politics of Misinformation. New York: Palgrave.
6.
BourdieuP (2005) The political field, the social science field, and the journalistic field. In: BensonRNeveuE (eds) Bourdieu and the Journalistic Field (trans. NiceR). Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 29–47.
7.
BoykoffMBoykoffJ (2007) Climate change and journalistic norms: A case-study of US mass-media coverage. Geoforum38(6): 1190–1204.
8.
BrüggemannM (2017) Post-normal journalism: Climate journalism and its changing contribution to an unsustainable debate. In: BerglezPOlaussonUOtsM (eds) What Is Sustainable Journalism?New York: Peter Lang, pp. 57–73.
9.
BrüggemannMEngesserS (2014) Between consensus and denial: Climate journalists as interpretive community. Science Communication36(4): 399–427.
10.
BrymanA (2004) Social Research Methods. London: Oxford University Press.
11.
BryantACharmazK (2007) The SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory. Los Angeles: Sage.
12.
CammaertsB (2012) Protest logics and the mediation opportunity structure. European Journal of Communication27(2): 117–134.
13.
CarlsonM (2017) Journalistic Authority: Legitimating News in the Digital Era. New York: Columbia University Press.
14.
CastellsM (2012) Networks of Outrage and Hope. Cambridge: Polity Press.
15.
CeccarelliL (2018) The defense of science in the public sphere. In: Proceedings of the 9th conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, Amsterdam, 3–6 July.
16.
CouldryN (2012) Media, Society, World: Social Theory and Digital Media. Cambridge: Polity Press.
17.
DillonL (2018) Interviewed by Adrienne Russell, 23 February.
18.
DillonLSellersCUnderhillV, et al. (2018) The environmental protection agency in the early Trump administration: Prelude to regulatory capture. AJPH Perspective108(2): 589–594.
LazerDBaumMBenklerY, et al. (2018) The science of fake news. Insights Policy Forum359(6380): 1094–1096.
24.
McAdamD (1983) Tactical innovation and the pace of insurgency. American Sociological Review48(6): 735–775.
25.
MacKendrickN (2017) Out of the labs and into the streets: Scientists get political. Sociological Forum32(4): 896–902.
26.
OreskesNConwayE (2010) Merchants of Doubt. New York: Bloomsbury Press.
27.
PainterJErvitiMCFletcherR, et al. (2017) Something Old, Something New: Digital Media and the Coverage of Climate Change. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.
28.
PapacharissiZ (2015) Toward new journalism(s): Affective news, hybridity, and liminal spaces. Journalism Studies16(1): 27–40.
SchäferMIvanovaASchmidtA (2014) What drives media attention for climate change? Explaining issue attention in Australian, German and Indian print media from 1996 to 2010. International Communication Gazette76(2): 152–176.
35.
SchudsonM (2003) The Sociology of News. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
36.
SegerbergABennettL (2013) The Logic of Connective Action: Digital Media and the Personalization of Contentious Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
37.
SilvermanC (2016) Lies, damn lies and viral content: How news websites spread (and debunk) online rumors, unverified claims and misinformation. Tow Center report, 1February. Available at: https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/doi/10.7916/D8Q81RHH
38.
TambiniD (2017) Fake News: Public Policy Responses. Media Policy Brief 20 (ed. TambiniDGoodmanE). London: London School of Economics and Political Science.
39.
TandocECTakahashiB (2014) Playing a crusader role or just playing by the rules? Role conceptions and role inconsistencies among environmental journalists. Journalism15(7): 889–907.
40.
TufekciZ (2017) Twitter and Tear Gas: The Power and Fragility of Networked Protest. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
41.
VeraL (2018) Interviewed by Adrienne Russell, 22 May.
42.
WalkerD (2018) Interviewed by Adrienne Russell, 22 May.
