Download the eBook (8.25 MB) - ECREA Thematic Sections

Diversity of Journalisms. Proceedings of ECREA/CICOM Conference, Pamplona, 4-5 July 2011
Paper panel 11 – Science journalism
Monday, July 4th 16.00 - 17.30 (Room 3)
Balance as a source of misinformation. A study of the coverage of the
Copenhagen summit on climate change in the Spanish press.
León, Bienvenido
Journalism Projects Department, School of Communication, University of Navarra,
Pamplona, Spain
Among traditional journalistic norms, balance has played a key role, as it is often seen
as a criterion that portrays the pursuits of objectivity. Balance reporting is seen by
journalists as a tool to present the views of legitimate spokespersons of the conflicting
sides in a dispute and provide both sides with equal attention.
However, in the coverage of climate science, balance has also been regarded as a
factor that can contribute to misinformation by way of disguising bad journalistic
practices (vg. when journalists lack the necessary scientific knowledge). In the
coverage of misinformation of the public, as it has enabled that the views of the so
called ´climate climate change, following the norm of balance has contributed to a
significant change skeptics´ have had a more relevant position in the media than
within the scientific community. However, as the scientific consensus on climate
change has been more steadily established, after 2005, the coverage of this topic is
more inclined towards the scientific consensus.
This paper analyzes the coverage of the International Conference on Climate
Change, promoted by the United Nations, which took place in Copenhagen in
December 2009, by the two leading Spanish newspapers (El País and El Mundo).
Results indicate that the importance given to balance (and controversy) is subject to
the editorial line of each newspaper. Although, scientific consensus is not directly
disputed, balance can still be used as a tool to support the editorial line, thus
becoming a possible source of misinformation. While one of the newspapers backs
established scientific knowledge, the other one maintains an ambivalent position, by
supporting the scientific consensus on the editorial articles, and presenting the
skeptical point of view, specially in opinion articles.
419