Media Matters has some reasonable complaints about a PBS NewsHour story from last night featuring a climate change denier. Shauna Theel raises an important point, which is that creating for the public even the perception of debate is a goal of climate change denial groups.
Theel also writes:
"While PBS mentioned that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that manmade global warming is occurring, it did not reflect this consensus by giving significant airtime to Watts' contrarian views. The segment presented Watts as the counterbalance to scientists that believe in manmade global warming -- every time a statement that reflects the scientific consensus was aired, in came Watts to cast doubt in viewers' minds. As 66 percent of Americans incorrectly think that "there is a lot of disagreement among scientists about whether or not global warming is happening," news organizations need to be careful not to contribute to this confusion."
I'm sympathetic to this concern, but I wonder if news organizations really need to -- as a general rule -- reflect the balance of opinions in their use of sources. I think properly contextualizing fringe views is a more important objective. That way journalists can report on the activities of climate change denial groups, intelligent design proponents, etc. when those activities have news value.
No comments:
Post a Comment