by Rona Fried
One of the biggest barriers to addressing climate change is "spin"
– how the news media does or doesn’t cover it and how PR firms
promote industry messages.
While we can observe media coverage, the role of public relations (PR) is much less visible.
In a survey of the world’s 25 largest PR firms conducted by
The Guardian and Climate Investigations Center, the 10 that responded say they don’t take on clients that want to promote climate change-denial or block regulations that would bring emissions down.
It’s a strong position to take considering that disseminating misinformation regarding climate change and the role of fossil fuels has become a multi-billion dollar industry.
"We would not support a campaign that denies the existence and the threat posed by climate change, or efforts to obstruct regulations cutting greenhouse gas emissions and/or renewable energy standards," says Michelle Selesky of Weber Shandwick.
"We ensure that our own work complies with local laws, marketing codes and our own code of business conduct. These prevent advertising that is intended to mislead and the denial of climate change would fall into this category," says UK-based WPP, the world’s largest advertising firm, which owns Burson Marsteller and Oglivy Public Relations. However, WPP says its companies make
independent decisions regarding the campaigns they take on.
Other major firms that made similar statements include Waggener Edstrom Worldwide, Text100, and Finn Partners. Many of the largest firms measure their climate footprint and have internal goals to reduce emissions, including US-based Edelman, which got its own media attention by waffling in the survey.
What could Edelman possibly say given that it represents ALEC and American Petroleum Institute campaigns promoting the Keystone tar sands pipeline? That they take clients on a case by case basis and by energy campaigns they encourage discussion of the issue, said a spokesperson.
Embarressed by the exposure, Edelman later wrote on its website, "Edelman fully recognizes the reality of, and science behind, climate change, and believes it represents one of the most important global challenges facing society, business and government today. To be clear, we do not accept client
assignments that aim to deny climate change."
In doing so, Edelman became the first big PR firm to publish a position on climate change and reject climate science denial, Kert Davies, founder of Climate Investigations, told The Guardian. "This is a big step … and it might pull the rest of the industry along to take a firm stance on climate change."
So, will Edelman drop ALEC and American Petroleum Institute from its client list? It’s doubtful.
Television Media
British Broadcasting Corp. (BBC) has also decided to stop presenting climate denialist views as equally valid as climate scientists.
We will no longer insert ‘false balance’ into issues that are not contentious and will stop giving "undue attention to marginal opinion" on scientific issues, BBC says. Rather than completely exclude skeptics, journalists are being trained on how to appropriately address their views.
"The BBC Trust wishes to emphasize the importance of attempting to establish where the weight of scientific agreement may be found and make that clear to audiences," says its report. In the past, too much weight has been given to unqualified critics, it says.
As an example of BBC’s former attempts at "balance," after the IPCC released its report this year, BBC producers searched unsuccessfully for a UK scientist who would give an opposing view. They ended up airing a non-expert from Australia who called it "hocus pocus," reports The Independent.
In the US, Sunday news shows and evening news still barely bring up the subject of climate change, much less the growth of renewable energy. In the first half 2014, together they gave the subject 65 minutes of air time – and that exceeds the last four years combined, according to non-profit Media Matters.
And that’s in a year when crucial reports have been released, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), US National Climate Assessment, carbon measurements over 400 ppm and EPA’s important regulations on power plants.
Much of the coverage focused on dismissing climate change science as false and Fox didn’t even include an interview with a scientist.
30% of CNN’s coverage was inaccurate last year, according to an analysis by the Union of Concerned Scientists, but improved somewhat in 2014. Misleading statements usually take place during debates about established science, they say, where off-based statements by politicians and commentators often go challenged.
Among the three top cable networks, MSNBC is the most accurate (8% of segments contain misleading statements); followed by CNN, and then, of course, Fox "News" with 72% misleading statements.
Read our article, Media Twists Climate Change Poll Results.
How About Newspapers?
Although coverage dropped 30% for the NY Times last year after it ditched its environmental desk (it just hired an editor to oversee coverage again), and 33% for the Washington Post after dropping its lead environmental reporter, it climbed at many outlets, up 30% overall in 2013 (but still down from its peak in 2009).
Reuters led with almost 1100 stories, followed by Associated Press with 1030, and The Guardian with 1025. Coverage was up 50% at Globe and Mail, 48% at USA Today and 40% at Wall Street Journal, Sydney Morning Herald and Financial Post.
Reuters coverage has been dropping though and changing in tone since a climate-denier took over as Managing Editor, reports Media Matters.
Coverage mostly concentrated on the many extreme weather events and energy issues like the growth of fracking, according to Daily Climate. But they rarely connected the dots to climate change, says Joe Romm at ThinkProgress.
The Los Angeles Times no longer publishes letters to the editor that are factually incorrect. "Saying ‘climate change is a liberal hoax or that ‘there’s no sign humans have caused climate change’ is not stating an opinion, it’s asserting a factual inaccuracy," says editor Paul Thornton. Popular Science stopped allowing comments on articles because they couldn’t moderate them effectively and they were "undermining scientifically sound" information. Trolls and spambots sometimes hijacked the conversation, particularly on divisive issues like climate change and evolution.
Reddit has banned climate change deniers in its science forum, where four million subscribers discuss topics related to peer-reviewed journals. "No topic consistently evokes such rude and uninformed opinions as climate change," says moderator Nathan Allen. "To allow a handful of people to purposefully mislead our audience is simply immoral."
Read our article, Climate Scientists Fight Back Against Spam Wall St. Journal Climate Denial Op-Ed.
++++
Rona Fried is CEO of SustainableBusiness.com
Loading...