Newspapers are disappearing faster than alpine glaciers, and a new paper by journalist-turned-public-policy scholar Eric Pooley suggests the two may be related.
Pooley's paper argues that newspapers have failed as referees of the public debate on preventing climate change, reporting junk economics and good economics with equal weight. In these muddied waters, Pooley suggests, it's harder for the government to push sound policy to stop global warming.
As an example, he points to the failure, last year, of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act. The bill was the most serious climate-change-prevention legislation ever to make it to the Senate. It failed, Pooley argues, in part because journalists emphasized dubious claims about the short-term economic costs of reducing carbon emissions over the long-term costs of doing nothing. More rigorous reporting might have sussed out those differences and translated into more public support for climate change action.
So why don't newspapers do better climate reporting? Editors are devoting ever fewer resources to solid climate reporting, meaning fewer journalists can stay on the beat long enough to develop the nuanced scientific understanding necessary to report fairly and accurately. And with newspaper revenues shrinking, money for good environmental reporting will be even scarcer.
Why does that matter?
Print journalism has been in decline at least since newspapers began experimenting with online journalism in the early 1980's. But whether print news survives is beside the point. The real value of newspapers, James Warren writes in The Atlantic, is as institutions that train and support professional journalists to referee our public debates and help us make sense of the complexities of modern life:
A very shrewd journalist-entrepreneur I know, Steve Brill, asks that one just imagine walking into a library and seeing the pages of all the books scattered on the floors and stairwells. To be sure, editors are human and subjectivity plays a role, but a newspaper places those pages -- and thus the news -- in some sensible order.
We've written before about how aggressive newspaper reporting can keep members of congress more accountable to their constituents -- and more likely to break with party doctrine under scrutiny of their positions.
Engaged newspapers can keep local politicians honest. But can they shape better environmental policy and help stop global warming?
What a crock! Newspapers are supposed to, like, report the news. Not get bills passed. The Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act failed because it was a disaster and even congress wasn't stupid enough to further kill the economy.
ResponderEliminarThat newspapers turned into advocates, pushing a particular partisan viewpoint on climate, politics, etc. is one reason for their demise.
This is a reach. A huge reach.
ResponderEliminar"The real value of newspapers, James Warren writes in The Atlantic, is as institutions that train and support professional journalists to referee our public debates and help us make sense of the complexities of modern life:..."
ResponderEliminarSorry, too late, journalism is now just another profit centered industry that is beholden to the business interests which spend on advertising or own the media outlets or sponsor the media...
Example: If reporters were really independant and editors interested in printing real stories, they would report on the sham presidential debates run by a partisan group with business sponsors which have turned the presidential debates into a big infomercial for both the two business funded political parties. "journalists to referee our public debates" - just ask the media talking heads who were the "moderators" at the debates about "real debates".
Newspapers & global warming are connected. With the decline of newspapers we've seen the globe cool down. Since newpapers kill trees which are necessary to pull CO2 out of the air, their demise means more trees & less CO2. Causal or pure coincidence? You be the judge.
ResponderEliminarI have always thought a lot of the difficulty in reporting technically complex issues is made up of a) the reporter has a limited basis of understanding (even scientific trained reporters can not be expert on all areas) and b) the media need to give equal time to opposing views. I recently saw a report on MMR vaccine and autism and once again, equal time was given to the scientists who had examined thousands of patients over years to say there was no correlation and the mother of one child with autism who was SURE that the vaccine was responsible for her childs problems.
ResponderEliminarAmazing that this guy is bemoaning the fact that newspapers aren't trying to push HIS OWN subjective viewpoint over all others. "Why can't the press be my personal advocate?"
ResponderEliminarI hear the telegraph has fallen on hard times too. And they don't even teach kids Morse code. What's the world coming too?
ResponderEliminarRegarding Global Warming....two things are true:
1) Science is not a matter of getting everyone to agree. Really it isn't. Honest! Why this has become a political debate is beyond me.
2) In the words of Dr. David Deutsch, it is too late to prevent a global-warming disaster. In fact it was too late to stop the global-warming disaster even in the 1970's when the best scientific theory said that atmospheric polution was going to cause a new ice age that would kill millions.
See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_minimum
I thought you guys were supposed to be economists. Think about the incentives.
ResponderEliminarNewspapers prosper by keeping people glued to the news. They do this by stoking anxiety, not by allaying unfounded fears of environmental doom. So if anything, it's in a paper's interest to inflate the perception of dangerous climate change, not to reduce it.
The media is mostly one big cheerleader for the alarmists, and give almost no credence to actual climate scientists.
by ACTUAL ECONOMICS
I think this is an anecdote of a much larger problem: pop media is a bunch of noise and journalism is virtually kaput. Engaged journalists keep the public informed. That, in turn, keeps politicians honest and important issues at the forefront.
ResponderEliminarMost newspaper writers, like jurors, are generalists. No special training required. Some argue that for sophisticated cases like patent law, juries of our peers do not do us justice. Certainly, it takes a very special newspaper to hire trained science writers, trained economics writers and the like.
ResponderEliminarThe influence of accurate writing, nonetheless, may be small, as the ultra-wealthy employee noise machines (and Congress members) to shout down all reasonable arguments perceived to threaten the status quo and their wealth/prestige/power. The power of the press seems to belong to those who own the presses.
But, as the Internet evolves, and as print media dies down, it is unclear whether those who own the presses will have more influence or less influence. One could equally imagine a highly engaged "Facebook" electorate or something out of a George Orwell book.
This ultimately leaves me optimistic, as George Orwell novels have seemed to carry the decade so far.
@3 When wasn't journalism a profit-centered business? The term "yellow journalism" was coined in 1897.
ResponderEliminarWhen it comes down to it, journalism is still about story telling (albeit nominally non-fictional stories). No matter how objective they try to be, the story will always colored by their own viewpoint, limited by the information they choose to include and the manner in which they present it. Unless they're writing about journalism, they generally won't ever be experts in what they are reporting on, because it's not what they do. They rely heavily on the information they are given, and since it undoubtedly will not always agree they rely on their own gut for how to edit. (If even the experts can't agree, how is an outsider supposed to get to the absolute truth?)
Add onto that the attention span of your average reader, and their predisposition to commit to news sources that tell them what they already believe along with the explosion of different news sources they have to pick from, and now try to convince me that in-depth, knowledgable, and complete reporting on any subject is achievable.
"It failed, Pooley argues, in part because journalists emphasized dubious claims about the short-term economic costs of reducing carbon emissions over the long-term costs of doing nothing."
ResponderEliminarEven if you accept the premise -- which is ridiculous -- how about the fact that short-term costs are obvious while long-term facts are not. There is far more consensus on the costs of addressing alleged climate change than the benefits, with long-term forecasting at the mercy of computer models of dubious accuracy. In fact, that's the whole point, that it makes little sense to sacrifice economic growth in the short term for dubious benefits.
No wonder newspapers are fighting to survive. This arrogant attitude by the journalistic elite about what the news really means has sent many of us seek out alternate sources of news. Where have the lost newspaper readers gone? For answers, look at the ratings for talk radio and Fox News (as they say on Fox,
ResponderEliminarWhy would I trust a journalist to evaluate science?
ResponderEliminarPooly got it the wrong way round.
ResponderEliminarNewspapers do not exist to inform the public. They exist to sell newspapers. They do this by reporting "news" stories that say exactly what the readers want to read. The only difference between The New York Times, and The Enquirer, is the target audience.
ResponderEliminarIf you want to read un-biased reporting that accurately covers all aspects of a story, newspapers (or any other "news" media) are the last place to look.
Hogwash!
ResponderEliminarRe:
"...As an example, he points to the failure, last year, of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act. The bill was the most serious climate-change-prevention legislation ever to make it to the Senate...."
.
The reason the bill didn't move is the floor managers couldn't get enough Senators to put their names to the thing.
Most folks understand that the price of coal-fired electricity would have to rise two to four times for wind/solar to be competitive. That was the purpose of L-W.
.
Upon being sworn in, most politicians come to believe that the most statesmanlike, the most patriotic, thing they can pursue is their own re-election.
Today I linked to a CJR post suggesting that newspaper websites go dark for a week. My first thought was how many truly awful essays would be written that week.
Looks like it's already happening.
Now I'm torn between using the phrases arrogant twaddle or errant drivel.
Fire away, but since many of the points made here are addressed in my paper, I'd invite anyone who's interested to read it rather than simply responding to this necessarily brief and incomplete summary. Cheers.
ResponderEliminarHonestly!!?? Journalists need to be climate activists!!??
ResponderEliminarI have lost a lot of respect for freakonomics after reading this garbage
I note that the listed author for this piece is simply "Freakonomics". Almost all of the other posts have had a proper name listed, but this one's anonymity strikes me as somewhat suspicious. Who really wrote this one, anyway?
ResponderEliminarAgreed with the other commenters. Journalists should report facts, not advance political agendas.
ResponderEliminarIt failed, Pooley argues, in part because journalists emphasized dubious claims about the short-term economic costs of reducing carbon emissions over the long-term costs of doing nothing. More rigorous reporting might have sussed out those differences and translated into more public support for climate change action.
It is entirely reasonable, and indeed beneficial, to talk about the economic costs of reducing emissions and weigh them against the costs of not doing so. As for "dubious claims," as has been pointed out, the short-term costs are reasonably well-known (especially compared with the benefits). Apparently "more rigorous reporting" means "reporting with a bias toward my political leanings."
"The real value of newspapers, James Warren writes in The Atlantic, is as institutions that train and support professional journalists to referee our public debates"
ResponderEliminarJournalism is not a profession. It's a trade that can, as journalist Hugh Hewitt says, be competently performed by anyone who successfully completed middle school. Journalists are , with few exceptions, not qualified to "referee a debate" on any subject except possibly journalism itself.
"But can they shape better environmental policy"
Yes, by giving us the facts instead of trying to referee a debate on a subject you're no more qualified than the reader to assess.
I thought we were going to stitch together some kind of orbital shield made from newspapers, and block a portion of sunlight from hitting the Earth.
ResponderEliminarJournalists? Who're they? Do they do anything? Are they the ones who just tell us what we want to hear instead of what we need to hear?
Newspapers and Journalists are responsible for reporting news stories with as little bias as possible. That being said I do think that news outlets can greatly influence the behavior of those who are exposed to whatever their message might be. (Alternatively there maybe a great deal of self-selection with in media. ie conservatives watch fox news because of what they report, people don't become conservative by watching fox news)
ResponderEliminarIn response to some others posts regarding environmental activism as hurting or even destroying our economy... Please realize that just the opposite is possible. Environmental regulations can prompt innovation and advancement in many fields, even perhaps create jobs right here in the United States. WE NEED AN ENVIRONMENTAL REVOLUTION! And I'm not saying this because I eat granola and wear a poncho but because I want to see America prosper and continue as a country that the world looks to for innovation, creativity, technology and expansion into new fields.
The demise of newspapers may speed global warming, but for a different reason. Consider this: Most newsprint ends up in landfills where the carbon will sit for hundreds, if not thousands of years. By the time it is released, we won't be dependent on oil for energy.
ResponderEliminarIt's the year 2009. Anyone with an internet connection, some patience, and a few critical thinking skills can be their own editor and "referee" of information. We don't need newspapers per se, we need trained reporters to get that raw or lightly edited information online (sorry, but with a few notable exceptions most "citizen reporters" and bloggers just don't do that great a job).
ResponderEliminarI absolutely agree that the media has, does and will drop the ball on this issue time and time again. I'm floored by the commenters here who don't see that--they may be the same people who hypocritically rant that Fey stopped Palin from being electable. Thomas Jefferson once noted,
ResponderEliminarSalamander, I think you need to differentiate between presenting all arguments as balanced and simply showing every side. Commenter 5 gave an excellent example:
ResponderEliminar"equal time was given to the scientists who had examined thousands of patients over years to say there was no correlation and the mother of one child with autism who was SURE that the vaccine was responsible for her childs problems"
I disagree that giving the mother equal time is a bad thing. There are, in fact, nut jobs, er, I mean people who think vaccines are causing an explosion in autism. An equal time presentation that juxtaposes their views with people who actually know something about the subject is actually quite effective in informing the viewer.
There are two problems with not presenting the mother's point of view in a story like this:
1. Generically speaking, as we've discussed earlier, on many issues, a journalist no more qualified than the reader/viewer to assess the validity of the arguments being made.
2. When one point of view is effectively suppressed, a lot of people begin to suspect those doing the suppressing are hiding something or otherwise have some agenda. This has been a huge problem in the AGW debate.
It's true arguments aren't always balanced. In fact, they pretty much never are. But assessing that is a job for the viewer/reader, not the journalist.
If you grow trees, turn them into newspapers, then throw them away, you are taking carbon out of the cycle. So long as you replant the trees, you're helping stop global warming, right?
ResponderEliminar