Download the eBook (8.25 MB) - ECREA Thematic Sections

Diversity of Journalisms. Proceedings of ECREA/CICOM Conference, Pamplona, 4-5 July 2011
epidemiological evidence was uncertain and a potential relationship was plausible
(despite the preponderance of scientific evidence to the contrary)”.
In some cases, the search for opposing points of view can lead to inappropriate
journalistic practices. In a study on the coverage of the breast implant controversy in
the US press, Powers (1999) observed that some scientific sources were accepted, in
spite of not having received the approval of the scientific community, by way of
publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Some of the sources supporting one side of the
controversy had even been funded by a manufacturer of implants. Therefore, the
author states that journalists are responsible to “decipher the motivating factors behind
the sources” (p. 96).
In sum, as Corbett and Durfree (2004, p. 142) suggest, it can be “problematic to
introduce dissent where science largely agrees, particularly for readers unable to
evaluate where the balance of the evidence lies”.
Within the specific area of the coverage of climate change (CC), the journalistic norm of
balance has been regarded as a source of inaccuracy, especially in the US. Boykoff
and Boykoff (2004, 2007a) concluded that the coverage of the US media emphasized
the position of the so called ‘sceptics”, a minority group supporting the idea that
changes in climate are due to natural cycles, thus challenging the ample scientific
consensus about the existence of an anthropogenic climate change. As a result, media
discourse differed substantially from the scientific consensus, and retarded the
necessary action to mitigate the consequences of this phenomenon, as demanded by
the majority group of scientists, represented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. In addition, some of the articles including the opinion of the sceptics have
been written by news agencies, which causes and exponential diffusion of the
information (Antilla, 2005, p. 350).
This phenomenon of over-representation of the ‘sceptic’ point of view has been
observed, especially in the US, for over a decade. Although scientific consensus has
strengthened along this period of time, the media have not always reflected this
situation. From 1995 to 2004, 69% of US network news segments provided a
“balanced” coverage of anthropogenic climate change vs. natural variations. In this
case, there were no significant differences in the coverage along the period of analysis
- in spite of the increasing scientific consensus-, to the point that this period has been
regarded as a “lost decade” for CC mitigation (Boykoff, 2008, p. 9).
On the contrary, a study on CC coverage in prestige US newspapers, from 2000 to
2006, shows that there is a dramatic change along this period. Whereas in 2000 almost
half of the coverage diverged from the scientific consensus, in 2006 this position was
only represented in 8% of the articles. In the UK prestige newspapers, the
representation of scientific consensus increases from 67% to 83% of the coverage in
the same period. However, the situation is quite different in the UK tabloid press, which
still does not inform according to the consensus. (Boykoff & Mansfield, 2008).
According to Gelbspan (2005), this is a “profoundly distorted form of journalistic
balance”, and is related to misinformation campaigns funded by the fossil fuel lobby. In
his view, balance should be employed only when the content of a story resolves largely
around opinion. But when the story is based mainly on facts, it should not apply. And
184