Week 6 – Emily Thibodeau
October 8, 2011 at 6:58 pm | Posted in Weekly Responses | 1 CommentStocking examines how journalists deal with uncertainty and Schrope discusses the IPCC’s Summary for Policy Makers, touted as an corner stone for the global response to climate change–but why isn’t the IPCC’s SPM the news topic it should be? Stocking points out that journalists often don’t include caveates when discussing controversial scientific issues the way scientists would. Journalists, Stocking speculates, often present science as far more certain than is generally agreed upon. However, there are challenges to presenting scientific uncertainty that range from issues on the organizational level — such as appealing to readers and advertisers, and on the individual journalists level, which may include a lack of knowledge. Overall, while scientific controversy may be detailed, it is rarely shown to be as controversial as scientists feel it is.
Similarly, Schrope accounts for the controversy surrounding the IPCC’s SMP report. He discusses how the political influence of diplomats in writing the most read section of the report is controversial, but potentially a necessary evil to make the document as important as it is regarded to be. Additionally, the negotiated nature of the SMP leaves room for controversy as to how each individual change was made. This article in general is a perfect gateway for learning about the controversy behind politically important scientific documents. Why is this controversy not public knowledge? This article details not only the climate change controversy but how key individuals react to such controversy. Because this article is short and fairly easy to understand, it should be a more valuable piece to journalists who may not be adequately educated on climate change prior to their writing of pieces about climate change.
Both articles discuss the inclusion of uncertainty. Stocking focuses on However, each article leads to different conclusions about uncertainty. Stocking’s article points out how journalists often overstate certainty or give weight to illegitimate sources of uncertainty on scientific topics. Examples of this include how journalists may give equal weight to good scientists as they do to fringe scientists or non-scientists. Schrope discusses how some scientists and individuals who contest climate change believe the SPM does not highlight uncertainty where it is necessary in an attempt to force governments to act. My question is: is there any real way journalists, irrespective of education or organizational differences, make an effort to present scientific uncertainty in a better way?
http://www.npr.org/2011/02/10/133647884/new-republic-the-wilting-climate-change-debate
1 Comment »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.
Debating Politics and Science 
It is hard to say exactly what efforts journalists put into presenting scientific uncertainty. Sure, they claim to have done their research, but have they really?
Although there may be some journalists out there, perhaps those who write for scientific magazines and newspaper sections, that do put effort into effectively presenting scientific uncertainty, the vast majority of them fail to do so. As you said above, Stocking argues that journalists often make the public see tentative findings as certain ones and give undeserved attention to illegitimate sources when discussing controversial topics. Therefore, they are either giving a scientific uncertainty too much certainty, or scientific certainty too much uncertainty.
Do I think that journalists are incapable of presenting uncertainty in a better way? No; I do not. There are plenty of ways that journalists can more effectively and more correctly discuss scientific uncertainty. The problem is that most do not make the effort to do so. And on that note, as Schrope demonstrates, neither do policymakers. The political influence policymakers have on creating IPCC’s SMP report is dangerous and some scientists feel that they do not give scientific uncertainty enough weight in its presentation.
A great point was made in class today: when we consume news, we tend to, whether consciously of unconsciously, seek out news most relevant to our lives and curiosities. With that, if a media consumer is looking at something outside of personal relevance, than they are doing so in the easiest and fastest way possible. The articles and stories that Stocking talks about and the SMP that Schrope discusses are ways to get information, and get it fast.
Journalists and policymakers may have agendas different than those of scientists. To reach the most people, at the fastest rate they seem to allot minimal efforts in presenting scientific uncertainty. Until they truly do their research and until their agenda becomes synonymous with that of scientists, there really is no better way journalists have addressed scientific uncertainty.
Comment by abbyl0— October 10, 2011 #