The changing nature of journalism, including the competition between objective coverage and advocacy, has played a key role in the public perception of global warming. American journalism is regarded as the Fourth Estate, or a final check and balance on government.

Media professionals claim to have evolved a tradition of neutrality in news stories, but both the reality and the ideal of neutrality have been called into question. Journalists themselves are unsure of the role they should play in global warming debates. At the same time, the nature of journalism has blurred with the rise of the Internet and the focus on immediacy in news coverage.

Over time, American journalists have evolved an unofficial code of ethics that calls for unbiased or neutral reporting. This concept is integral to ordinary reporters being seen as chroniclers rather than advocates. The ideal has gained widespread but not universal acceptance.

Journalists use several means to enforce neutrality in stories. The traditional approach would include editors removing any comments that are not objective from a given story. Journalists also seek the help of professional organizations to support unbiased reporting. The Society of Professional Journalists says reporters must distinguish between advocacy and news in their reporting. The Society of American Business Editors and Writers tells its members to simply avoid any action that might "appear" to harm objectivity. The Society of Environmental Journalists has been criticized for taking sides in the global warming debate.

Many newspapers also have their own codes of behavior for journalists. The New York Times urges staff to remain free of any bias, as do many other organizations. Some media outlets even employ ombudsmen to serve as reader representatives. Media outlets also have detailed correction policies. There are flaws in all of these approaches. Editors do not catch every instance of bias. Organizations are voluntary and do not police a code. News outlets also use codes as guidelines, but public examples of enforcement are rare. Ombudsmen generally lack any real authority in a newsroom.

Every one of these strategies is at issue in the global warming debate. Scientists and other experts complain that biases are present in news stories (Bowen, 2008). The other methods of controlling bias, from policies to ombudsmen, are unable to keep up with a sophisticated and scientific debate involving professionals who often know far more than reporters or editors.

The traditional approach is not the only approach. The term "news media" itself has become fluid. It encompasses alternative weeklies, freelance journalists, and opinion media that take an advocacy role. Even the mainstream media have a strong strain of advocacy (Gelbspan, 2004). Many media outlets have long employed journalists who advocate for positions-- from environmentalism to a higher minimum wage. There is a journalistic tradition that reporters should "afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted." That plays out in the climate change debate, as journalists try to show the potential harm of global warming--from species loss to climate disaster.

Several journalists have spoken out and complained about the neutrality requirements. Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS) reporter Scott Pelley famously compared global warming skeptics to Holocaust deniers. Other reporters and editors have taken an activist stand on the issue, claiming that too many lives are at risk because of global warming. Time magazine has repeatedly put global warming on its cover, warning that something must be done to stop it.

All major news outlets have found navigating the issue to be difficult. Fox News, whose motto is Fair and Balanced, was criticized by supporters of anthropogenic global warming theory for including too many skeptics. When Fox News ran a special that included their side, skeptics complained and Fox News then produced a second documentary highlighting flaws in the alleged global warming consensus.

The issue of media neutrality is central to how ordinary Americans see global warming. Do they view it as an imminent threat or as debated science? Journalists have been much criticized by readers, as well as by advocates on the Left and Right.

The issue of media bias about global warming has become almost as big a story as climate change itself. Scientist James E. Hansen complained that the George W. Bush administration censored his work, but he received a great deal of media attention as a result. Skeptical scientists have complained about being either ignored or undermined in stories. Time magazine modified the famous photo of the Iwo Jima flag raising to replace it with a tree in a push for global warming action. That decision resulted in thousands of reader complaints as well as criticism from photojournalists. Because global warming is such a controversial issue, it highlights the many flaws in journalistic neutrality. That, in turn, undermines the idea that reporters are objective in other areas of news coverage.

References

1. Bowen, Mark. Censoring Science: Inside the Political Attack on Dr. James Hansen and the Truth of Global Warming. New York: Dutton Books, 2008.

2. Gelbspan, Ross. Boiling Point: How Politicians, Big Oil and Coal, Journalists, and Activists Are Fueling the Climate Crisis--And What We Can Do to Avert Disaster. New York: Basic Books, 2004.

Free term papers are not written to satisfy your specific instructions. You can use our professional writing services to buy a custom written research paper, term paper, or essay on Global Warming at affordable price. CustomTermPapers is the best solution for those who seek help in writing term papers, essays, and research papers related to Global Warming and other relevant topics.