{"id":1522,"date":"2020-04-01T17:00:00","date_gmt":"2020-04-01T22:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ic4ml.org\/?post_type=journal-article&p=1522"},"modified":"2022-05-12T17:33:45","modified_gmt":"2022-05-12T22:33:45","slug":"fake-climate-news-how-denying-climate-change-is-the-ultimate-in-fake-news","status":"publish","type":"journal-article","link":"https:\/\/ic4ml.org\/es\/journal-article\/fake-climate-news-how-denying-climate-change-is-the-ultimate-in-fake-news\/","title":{"rendered":"Fake Climate News: How Denying Climate Change is the Ultimate in Fake News"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Download full article pdf >><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

After the 2016 US-presidential election and Brexit referendum, fake news emerged as a quintessential democratic problem that media literacy was tasked to solve. The broad social concern about fake news acknowledges that the public sphere is a kind of commons that requires tending, and reminds us of the human (and civic) need for authenticity, honesty, clarity, and fairness in our shared discourses. In light of the perceived danger to democracy that fake news embodies, increasingly media literacy is seen as fundamentally about cultivating civic engagement skills. In addition to improving the news and information ecosystem of social media, media literacy promotes critical thinking skills and fundamental research techniques to distinguish legitimate and authentic information from propaganda, disinformation, hoaxes, lies, and blatant manipulation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Unfortunately, these debates over simplify the larger problem of fake news, and sets up a false dichotomy between \u201cfake\u201d and \u201creal\u201d or \u201ctrue\u201d and \u201cfalse\u201d that disregards legitimate critiques of established news organizations or pits \u201cold\u201d versus \u201cnew\u201d media. The proliferation of climate disinformation and detrimental environmental media coverage has been perpetuated by traditional gate keepers of so-called real news. Moreover, as David Buckingham (2019) argues in The Media Education Manifesto<\/a><\/em>, the problem with fake news, propaganda and disinformation spreading on platforms like Facebook cannot be addressed by conventional media literacy alone:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Media literacy is not simply a matter of knowing how to use particular devices, whether in order to access or to create media messages. It must also entail an in-depth critical understanding of how these media work, how they communicate, how they represent the world, and how they are produced and used. Understanding the media today requires us to recognize the complexity of modern forms of \u2018digital capitalism.\u2019 And if we really want citizens to be media literate, we need comprehensive, systematic and sustained programmes of media education<\/em> as a basic entitlement for all young people. (p. 3)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In terms of addressing fake climate news, we believe critical media literacy and media reform need to be holistically combined to create a healthy media ecosystem that can adequately address the climate crisis. Combining these approaches promotes ecological ethics and education for sustainability, which is what differentiates media literacy from ecomedia literacy. Sustainability education promotes eco-citizenship, which means embodying sustainable behaviors and cultural practices that shape and promote ecological values within the interconnected realms of society, economy and environment. Ecomedia Literacy supports learners to make sense of how everyday ecomedia practice impacts our ability to live sustainably within earth\u2019s ecological parameters for the present and future. Ecomedia Literacy proposes that media literacy can highlight how on a daily basis we encounter the interrelationship between media and living systems (L\u00f3pez, 2014).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fake Climate News<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The term \u201cfake news\u201d became popular during the 2016 election, when it was used to describe hoaxes, conspiracies and disinformation that went viral. These were reports people created and disseminated for the intended purpose of fooling the public for political and\/or economic gains, such as the fictitious Pizzagate and the false Papal endorsement of candidate Trump. The New York Times<\/a><\/em> has called fake news, \u201ca neologism to describe stories that are just not true\u201d which they suggest has since been \u201cco-opted to characterize unfavorable news\u201d (Ember, 3 April 2017). Writing for Common Dreams<\/a><\/em>, Neal Gabler (30 November, 2016) provides a more critical analysis, arguing that fake news is an attack on truth that is intended \u201cto destroy truth altogether, to set us adrift in a world of belief without facts, a world in which there is no defense against lies.\u201d It is important to consider who would benefit from a post-truth era in which science and facts are free for any interpretation. In the absence of accountability to facts or evidence, it is highly likely that those who control the airwaves and algorithms will define reality and truth as best fits their interests.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cFake news\u201d and \u201calternative facts\u201d can be devastating to issues in which understanding observable facts and knowing scientific truth is essential, such as anthropocentric climate change. Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson challenges the current attack on science and truth in a short video called, Science in America<\/a><\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\nhttps:\/\/youtu.be\/s2YZxh_Ty6Q\n<\/div><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

For decades scientists have reported the data, facts, and evidence that human caused CO2 emissions are increasing the temperature of our planet. And yet a small powerful group of individuals have managed to create doubt in public perceptions with unfounded claims that ignore the scientific evidence. This false notion of a controversy and uncertainty, as Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway (2010) have written about in their book, Merchants of Doubt, is not simply misinformation, it is actually a well-organized campaign of disinformation. When the president of the United States makes claims that are obviously false and completely unsubstantiated (such as crowd sizes, illegal voting, wiretapping, and climate change denials), he challenges the power of truth and honesty that the rule of law is based on. When media outlets repeat and disseminate these lies, they contribute to undermining a key foundation of democracy. These are actions that when unchecked and allowed to continue can only benefit those in power by allowing them to choose the versions of reality that best meet their political and financial interests.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Donald<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

A Healthy Media Ecosystem: The Need for Media Reform<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The Nation<\/a> and Columbia Journalism Review<\/a> have initiating the Covering Climate Now Project to transform the media\u2019s coverage of the climate crisis<\/a>. They are responding to shoddy reporting and a dearth of environmental coverage over the past 30 years. For example, in the 2018 there was a 45% drop in climate crisis coverage by the three major US TV networks (Fox decreased from just 260 minutes in 2017 to 142 minutes in 2018)<\/a>. The liberal media watchdog group, Media Matters for America, has been generating annual reports that show how little coverage there has been<\/a>. In one egregious example,  they reported that \u201cABC\u2019s World News Tonight<\/em> spent more than seven minutes reporting on the birth of royal baby Archie in the week after he was born \u2014 more time than the program spent covering climate change during the entire year of 2018<\/a>\u201c). Reporting for The Natio<\/em>n, Mark Hertsgaard<\/a> and Kyle Pope<\/a> point out that in 1988 climate change was big news. Earth was Time Magazine<\/em>\u2018s \u201cPlanet of the Year\u201d and climate science was reported on the front page of the New York Times<\/em>. But since 1990 we have had a 41% increase in greenhouse gas emissions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Five
Five primary greenhouse gases tracked by AGGI. The AGGI tracks carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and two chlorofluorocarbons that were banned by the Montreal Protocol because they damage Earth\u2019s protective ozone layer. These five primary greenhouse gases account for about 96 percent of the increased climate warming influence since 1750.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

While it could be argued that in 1990 it would have been easier (and cheaper) to decarbonize our economy and develop an alternative energy path, we may have waited too long to act. And the media is partly to blame. In their role as watchdog and Fourth Estate, the mainstream and corporate media was manipulated by Big Carbon, whose strategy (honed by the tobacco and chemical industries) was to create doubt about climate science, and hence delay action. Unfortunately, this was particularly an American failure. Part of this relates to conventional journalistic practice of being \u201cfair and balanced\u201d by allowing different sides of the climate discussion equal time (even calling it a \u201cdebate\u201d concedes too much to the dirty energy industry). This leads to false equivalency. From 1988 to 2002, 53% major newspapers gave equal attention to both \u201csides\u201d of climate debate (imagine giving flat earthers this much airtime). On Last Week Tonight<\/em>, John Oliver brilliantly commented on this absurdity when he demonstrated what a mathematically representative climate change debate would look like<\/a>. Rather than have two people facing off against each other (which visually gives them equal weight), he brought on stage 97 climate scientists to debate three scientists representing the skeptic\/denial side.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n