Public media the source of doubt on climate change

Public media has greatly contributed the confusion and doubt about climate change. The general public trusts the media. They trust the journalists who write for the New York Times, Time Magazine, and the like to do all the research and then present the information unbiased. Obviously it is nearly impossible to be completely unbiased, but in some sense, journalists are employed to do research so that everyone else does not have to, and their reports shape the opinion of the public. Therefore the public expects these investigators to get expert opinions on the subject, to explore all sides of an opinion, and use scientific evidence to write a piece that either expresses the truth to the best of their knowledge or presents all the facts so that the reader can make an informed opinion them self.

Yet, throughout Merchants of Doubt journalists repeatedly took the work of a few scientists who were not experts and published their opinion while ignoring the attempts of the rest of the scientific community to set things right. How can a reporter take the word of a few scientists and not the rest of the scientific community? Unfortunately, it seems that sometimes journalists report what the public wants to hear as opposed to the truth. This was absolutely the case with climate change. Frequently the reports read that there was scientific disagreement, or debate as to the reality of climate change, and that more research was needed until a consensus could be made, but that’s not altogether true. Scientists had long agreed that climate change was real; they needed more research to determine what came next. Unfortunately that is not how it sounded to the public.

So what can reporters do to accurately present the known science and the debate on climate change? For a start, they should do research on the scientists that they publish. If their work on the subject is in academic journals then they are probably an acceptable source, because there is a peer review process in order to make sure that only good research is published. Those scientists could be an expert opinion, and provide very good information. Then using expert opinions a reporter could present both sides of a scientific debate, because there is still scientific debate surrounding climate change. The debate is more centered around how soon will it happen, is it reversible, will it slow down, and do we need to stop it; not is it fact or fiction. Reporters need to present the established facts, the scientific consensus, as well as the debate. Finally reporters need make corrections to their work as new information comes out. Science is always changing, so there will always be room for a new headline, but the facts need to be set straight.