i freeze \u2014 two middle-aged women in flowy bright skirts have asked my roommate and i to pose for a photo with their banner. my roommate, already holding a poster that reads \u201cbelieve scientists,\u201d enthusiastically says yes. i quickly swallow my hesitation and grab a corner of the \u201cthere is no planet-b\u201d sign as they snap the photo.<\/p>\n
they thank us and we slip back into the crowd of protestors chanting in the shadow of the madison gas and electric plant. that photo op won\u2019t be the last time i overthink a seemingly easy decision on this hot afternoon, because today is the global climate strike and i\u2019m not attending it \u2014 i\u2019m covering it.<\/p>\n
as i march with the crowd from mg&e to the steps of the state capitol, it\u2019s hard not to get swept up in the rousing speeches and impassioned chants, but i try to remember the journalistic guidelines i have been taught. <\/p>\n
when i first started at the badger herald, one of the university of wisconsin\u2019s student newspapers, i was quickly taught the basics of unbiased journalism \u2014 speak to a representative from both sides, report only verifiable facts and do not post anything political to your social media. many of these \u201cjournalism ethics\u201d were then expanded upon and further instilled into me through my classes at uw. <\/p>\n
at the strike, i stood next to my friends who waved large crayola-lettered signs and chanted passionately. as i weaved through the sweaty crowd, i tried to establish my own journalistic guidelines on the fly \u2014 i could accept pamphlets but i couldn\u2019t hold a sign, my friends could post pictures i was in but i couldn\u2019t post one myself, i could clap but i couldn\u2019t cheer. <\/p>\n
looking back, i was definitely overthinking things, but my self-imposed limitations do a raise a question many environmental journalists are constantly facing \u2014 what is our role in the fight against climate change?<\/p>\n
it may seem obvious that as with other global debates, our job is to inform the public and report the facts. but with climate change, these \u201cfacts\u201d are often more complicated than they appear. <\/p>\n
climate change first really came into the public sphere in 1988 when dr. james hansen of the national aeronautics and space administration testified in front of a congressional committee and said he was \u201c99 percent certain\u201d that the warming trend of the previous few years was not because of natural variation, but was caused by a buildup of carbon dioxide and other artificial gases in the atmosphere as a result of the burning of fossil fuels. <\/p>\n
this story<\/a> made the front page of the new york times under the headline, \u201cglobal warming has begun, expert tells senate.\u201d this article cited several scientists and mathematical models, all indicating that immediate action was needed. the piece included only one sentence acknowledging that some scientists believe the recent warmer temperatures are due to natural fluctuations. <\/p>\n over 30 years later, the public\u2019s perception of climate change has become increasingly divergent from the scientific discourse. <\/p>\n ninety-seven percent of climate experts have concluded that human-caused climate change is a reality, according to the american association for the advancement of science<\/a>. but as of 2019, 35% of americans think that global warming is generally exaggerated, up from 31% in 1997, according to a gallup poll.<\/a>this same poll found that as of 2018, only 42% of americans would consider themselves an environmentalist, down from 76% in 1989.<\/p>\n i have seen how important this public perception of climate change can be in directing policy. one of my aforementioned crayola sign-toting roommates is marina minic, a uw junior studying chemistry and environmental studies and an executive board member for campus leaders for energy action now.<\/a> <\/p>\n clean is a student organization working through strikes and petitions to get uw to power the campus exclusively with renewable energy by 2050 and to derive all electrical power from renewable resources by 2030. i have covered several protests organized by clean and have joined them during their weekly petitioning around campus, their version of greta thunberg\u2019s fridays for future. <\/p>\n minic said that most students she interacts with support clean energy; they are just unaware that it is such a major issue at uw. she said that whenever she tells students that only 1.61%<\/a> of uw\u2019s energy consumption comes from clean and renewable sources, they are disappointed and happy to sign clean\u2019s petition. <\/p>\n a major way clean informs students and gains visibility is through media coverage, minic told me. <\/p>\n \u201cif the chancellor wakes up the next morning and she sees every local paper has written about something, obviously you can’t ignore it at that point,\u201d minic said. \u201cit\u2019s also a good way to raise awareness to other students to get involved in the movement because i think most people do care about this issue and maybe just didn’t know about it.\u201d<\/p>\n this media attention has always been key for the environmental movement. however, in the years since hansen first testified before the senate, how the media covers climate change has shifted. <\/p>\n a study<\/a> published in 2003 by the global environmental change journal featured a content analysis of articles published by the wall street journal, the new york times, the washington post and the los angeles times from 1988 to 2002. the study found that the majority, 52.6%, of articles presented both the view that climate change is being caused by humans and the view that it is due to natural fluctuations, in a balanced way. the study also found that from 1988 to 2002, the articles\u2019 focus on the need for immediate climate action decreased. <\/p>\n this study is dated, but more recent studies show similar trends. the day after the intergovernmental panel on climate change released its report<\/a> announcing that global warming is likely to reach 1.5\u00b0c between 2030 and 2052 if current trends continue, media matters for america<\/a> analyzed the home pages of the top 50 newspapers in the country. they found that only 22 covered the report. <\/p>\n this lack of coverage and the tendency to prioritize balance over accuracy may be connected to the politicization of climate change. a recent report<\/a> published by the science communication journal conducted a content analysis of all climate change-related articles published by major newspapers in the u.s between 1985 and 2017. the report found that representations of climate change have become more politicized. <\/p>\n the content analysis showed that political actors have been increasingly used as sources in recent years, while the use of scientists as sources has been decreasing. it also found that the mention of \u201cdemocrats\u201d and \u201crepublicans\u201d in climate change-related articles have increased. <\/p>\n the perceived politicization of climate change has influenced actions being taken to address it. when 350 madison<\/a>, a climate action organization, petitioned the uw foundation to divest from fossil fuel industries, the foundation wrote a letter<\/a> saying it did not want to do anything that would make the university be seen as a political actor, rather than an academic and research institution. <\/p>\n this argument is not unique to uw. ari bortman, a university of pennsylvania junior and a campus organizer with fossil free penn,<\/a> told me that when fossil free pushed for divestment at upenn, the administration said it did not want to make a political statement. that refusal, bortman said, is a political statement in itself. <\/p>\n \u201cat this point, their vehement resistance to make any kind of statement on the industry really belies their leanings,\u201d bortman said. \u201cwe know that the fossil fuel industry destroys people\u2019s lives, destroys people\u2019s homes for profit\u2026 exxon admits to spending billions of dollars to spread false science to misinform people, that’s not debatable. to not say that these things are bad is a political statement.\u201d<\/p>\n bortman\u2019s reference to exxon mobile\u2019s misinformation campaigns actually touches on part of why climate change has become so politicized. a recent report, \u201camerica misled,<\/a>\u201d analyzed internal corporate documents from the fossil fuel industry showing it knew about the reality of human-caused climate change for decades and actively funded denial and disinformation campaigns. <\/p>\n one document<\/a> from 1998 outlines the american petroleum institute’s global climate science communications plan. this plan includes a bullet point list titled, \u201cvictory will be achieved when.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cmedia \u201cunderstands\u201d (recognizes) uncertainties in climate science,\u201d one bullet point read. \u201cmedia coverage reflects balance on climate science and recognition of the validity of viewpoints that challenge conventional wisdom.\u201d<\/p>\n corporations\u2019 efforts to influence media messages about climate change have persisted throughout the years. one day in february, after covering clean\u2019s divestment die-in where protestors chanted and laid down at the top of bascom hill as a part of the national fossil fuel divestment day, i came home to find marina fuming in the kitchen. <\/p>\n i had been covering the protest for the badger herald, but the other school newspaper, the daily cardinal, had been given a pamphlet from the uw alumni foundation emphasizing that technically it is the foundation that is invested in fossil fuels, not the university. <\/p>\n the resulting daily cardinal article<\/a> said that students were protesting uw\u2019s \u201calleged\u201d investment in fossil fuels. <\/p>\n