Trends in Visibility of Environmental Issues in the U.S. News Media

Transcription

Trends in Visibility of Environmental
Issues in the U.S. News Media
April 2015
A report from the
PROJECT FOR IMPROVED ENVIRONMENTAL COVERAGE
environmentalcoverage.org
News media is a primary source of public information about the environment, upon which we entirely depend as a society. Since visibility in news media is such an important factor in public understanding and perceptions about environmental issues, it is important to understand the current state of environmental coverage in the United States; how visibility
of the most critical environmental issues has changed over time; how coverage of these issues compares to more trivial
issues covered in the news; and how coverage in the United States compares to coverage in other countries.
Answering these questions is the basis for the research discussed in this report. The Project for Improved Environmental
Coverage (PIEC) identified 10 critical environmental topic areas based on surveys of professors, scientists, environmental
NGOs and other experts whose careers focus on environmental science and/or conservation. Once the broad environmental topics were established, PIEC staff conducted searches of 33 U.S. news organizations (see full list in appendix I)
using Lexis-Nexis to identify the number of stories mentioning each of the 10 broad environmental topic areas for each
year between 2010 and 2014. The process was also repeated for 9 English-language foreign newspapers to compare visibility of environmental issues in newspapers from the U.S. and other countries. Key findings are summarized below.
Key Findings:
• Visibility of the ten environmental topic areas tracked decreased steadily between 2010 and 2013; with a sharp increase of 17.2% from 2013 to 2014.
• Six of the ten broad topics were less visible than just one celebrity, Beyoncé Knowles.
• Stories mentioning Beyoncé were more than 11 times more common than stories mentioning deforestation and
more than five times more common than stories mentioning ocean health as a topic area.
• The broad topic of Ocean Health, while ranked as just slightly less important than Climate Change by environmental
experts, was mentioned in less than 1/16th the number of stories that mentioned climate change.
• In 2014, international newspapers included in the study had a level of environmental topic visibility that was 81%
higher than U.S. newspapers analyzed.
• The number of stories mentioning broad environmental issues on network television in 2014 increased nearing 50%
from 2010 to 2014. CBS news mentioned broad environmental issues 148.6% more in 2014 than it did in 2010.
Executive Summary
2
Six Topics Increase and Four Topics Decrease in Visibility
Over the five year period, visibility increased for six of the ten broad topic areas (fresh water quality/scarcity, biodiversity,
air pollution, ocean health, agriculture/food safety/security and climate change). Visibility decreased for four of the ten
broad topic areas (environmental Justice, deforestation/habitat loss, environmental health and renewable energy).
A Slow Decline and a Sharp Increase
As evidenced in the table below, total visibility of environmental issues decreased consistently from 2010 to 2013, followed by a dramatic increase of more than 17% in 2014.
Climate Change the Most Visible Topic by Far
As shown in the graph below, visibility varied tremendously from issue to issue. Climate change was far more visible
than any other environmental issue and in 2014 was mentioned in nearly 36% of the stories that discussed one of the
10 broad environmental topic areas. While climate change is deservedly receiving relatively large amounts of coverage,
environmental stories still constitute just 1% of environmental headlines. It can be argued that all the broad environmental topics tracked in this report are deserving of more visibility, especially many important topics that receive virtually no
coverage. (See chart on following page)
3
While Increases in Visibility are Good, There is Much Room for Improvement
Increases in environmental topic visibility are no doubt a good thing. However, when taken in context, environmental
issues receive far less visibility than many trivial issues. While celebrities and entertainment are a key part of American
culture, it is hard to argue that Beyoncé warrants 11 times more coverage than deforestation, given that forests are our
planet’s lungs and that many millions of people and species depend on them.
79% of Americans want improved environmental coverage in the news – averaged across all demographics and geographic locations1. A Gallup poll from 2014 found that 66% of Americans worry about the environment either “a great
deal” or “a fair amount”2. This was higher than the number of people who were concerned either “a great deal” or “a
fair amount” about race relations, illegal immigration, drug use or the possibility of a future terrorist attack in the United
States, all of which deservedly garner a lot of coverage.
As indicated by the data discussed in more detail throughout this
report, many critical environmental issues are rarely even mentioned in the news media and combined environmental stories
make up less than 1% of headlines3. Society has a narrow window
of time to prevent irreversible changes to the earth’s life sustaining
systems. Changes to the environment, by definition, affect everyone.
If news coverage—the primary source of public knowledge about
the environment—continues at current low levels, it may well be
viewed as one of the greatest failings of the media to adequately
inform the public about critical issues in the public interest.
Many critical environmental
issues are rarely even mentioned
in the news media and combined
environmental stories make up
less than 1% of headlines.
While many newsrooms are eliminating environmental reporters and editors, there are some bright spots to point to
such as Environmental Health News and others that are producing award-winning environmental stories. A range of
innovative news organizations from the Washington Post and the Guardian to the Huffington Post and Vox are ahead of
the pack in prioritizing environmental reporting. And there are a range of topic-focused institutions like Inside Climate
News and the Center for Public Integrity, many of which are partnering with legacy news organizations to expand their
reach. New models continue to be explored and academic programs and nonprofit programs continue to develop new
resources to assist environmental reporters. With more resources to support strong environmental coverage than ever
before, and numerous examples of leadership in environmental coverage, the opportunities are clear for innovation in
the industry and increased visibility of this critically important topic.
1
2
3
Opinion Research Corporation Poll commissioned by Project for Improved Environmental Coverage
http://www.gallup.com/poll/167843/climate-change-not-top-worry.aspx
Project for Improved Environmental Coverage Ranking Report, http://environmentalcoverage.org/ranking/
Executive Summary
4
Broad Trends
Between 2010 and 2013 there were consistent declines in visibility of environmental issues on average for the 33 U.S.
news organizations reviewed for this study, however in 2014 there was a fairly steep increase in visibility of 17.2%. This
increase in 2014 was enough to bring the total number of stories mentioning environmental topics just above where
they were in 2010. It is unclear if this large increase represents a short term spike in visibility of environmental issues, or
if it is indicative of a new, positive, trend.
The total number of stories mentioning each broad topic areas, as well as the year-over-year change and the total change
between 2010 and 2014 are displayed in the table below.
Changes in U.S. Environmental Topic Visibility and Coverage
Number of Stories (% Change)
Topic
2010
Climate Change
7,269
--
Fresh Water
Quality/Scarcity
2,269
Renewable Energy
4,117
--
--
Ocean Health
406
--
Agriculture/
Food Safety/Security
2,056
Environmental Health
1,226
---
Deforestation/
Habitat Loss
434
--
Biodiversity
1,607
--
Air Pollution
826
--
Environmental Justice
Combined U.S. Sources
105
2011
5,541
(-23.8%)
2,984
(31.5%)
3,769
(-8.5%)
681
(67.7%)
1,937
(-5.8%)
906
(-26.1%)
305
(-29.7%)
1,384
(-13.9%)
993
(20.2%)
86
2012
5,495
(-0.8%)
2,867
(-3.9%)
3,660
(-2.9%)
369
(-45.8%)
2,148
(10.9%)
979 (8.1%)
298
(-2.3%)
1,377
(-0.5%)
852
(-14.2%)
47
2013
5,805
(5.6%)
2,481
(-13.5%)
2,946
(-19.5%)
372 (0.8%)
2,298
(7.0%)
940
(-4.0%)
304
(2.0%)
1,411
(2.5%)
992
(16.4%)
87
--
(-18.1%)
(-45.3%)
(85.1%)
20,315
--
18,586
18,092
17,636
(-8.5%)
(-2.7%)
(-2.5%)
2014
5 Year Total
7,408
31,518
(27.6%)
3,085
(24.3%)
3,048
(3.5%)
448
(1.9%)
13,686
(36.0%)
17,540
(-26.0%)
2,276
(20.4%)
(10.3%)
2,222
10,661
(-3.3%)
918
(-2.3%)
334
(9.9%)
2,135
(51.3%)
969
(-2.3%)
100
(8.1%)
4,969
(-25.1%)
1,675
(-23.0%)
7,914
(32.9%)
4,632
(17.3%)
425
(14.9%)
(-4.8%)
20,667
95,296
(17.2%)
(1.7%)
5
Comparison to Celebrity Coverage
While some environmental topics appear more often than others in the news media (such as climate change which was
mentioned in over 7,400 stories in 2014) it must be remembered that this is the total from 33 news sources over the
course of a year. Because this study only focused on the number of stories mentioning a topic, the number of stories discussing the issue in detail is likely far lower. For example, an analysis by the Project for Improved Environmental Coverage
found that for more than 400 news stories mentioning climate change in 2013, only 14% focused on the topic in depth.
Source: Research conducted by Project for Improved Environmental Coverage sampling over
7,400 stories mentioning climate change
When the least visible broad topics included in the study are considered, the visibility is shockingly low. Environmental
Justice was mentioned in only 100 stories from all 33 news outlets over the course of 2014, while deforestation and habitat loss was mentioned only 334 times. This means that on average, each news outlet mentioned deforestation/habitat
loss less than once a month and environmental justice in just three stories per year.
When compared to more trivial topics such coverage of celebrities, it is possible to make some stark comparisons. In
fact, just one celebrity, Beyoncé, was more visible than five of the ten broad environmental topic areas, with dramatically
more coverage than some issues as illustrated in the graph below.
Project for Improved Environmental Coverage
6
Coverage vs. Importance
In previous research, PIEC conducted a survey of environmental professionals (including scientists, professors, researchers and employees of conservation organizations) and asked them to rate the importance of addressing various environmental issues over the next ten years on a scale of 1 to 10. The results of this survey are displayed below:
Env. Expert
Ranking
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Category Area
Climate Change
Fresh Water Quality / Scarcity
Energy Issues
Public/Political Will to Address Env. Issues
Ocean Health
Agriculture/Food Systems/Food Security
Environmental Literacy
Overconsumption
Environmental Policy/Government
Deforestation/Habitat Loss
Biodiversity
Sustainable Community Design/Planning
Land Use/Land Use Chang
Air Pollution
Transitioning to a Green Economy/Green Jobs
Transportation
Accurately Valuing Ecosystem Services
Environmental Disasters/Refugees
Technological Solutions to Env. Problems
Environmental Impacts of Military/Security
Env. Experts Average
Rating
8.88
8.20
8.05
7.87
7.70
7.60
7.58
7.56
7.48
7.47
7.44
7.31
7.07
7.06
7.04
6.91
6.79
6.72
6.55
6.46
6.38
5.44
While some of the issues that received the highest average ratings did receive more coverage than other environmental
topics, there are some that were ranked just a little lower but received virtually no coverage.
For example ocean health was on average rated a 7.9 on a scale of 1 to 10 by environmental experts—just 1.2 points
lower than climate change which was ranked the highest at 9.1. While it was ranked as just slightly less important by
environmental experts, it was mentioned in less than 1/16th the number of stories that mentioned climate change.
While overall coverage of environmental issues is too low, some topics that are considered very important by scientists
and experts in the field are discussed far less in the news media than some of the most prominent environmental issues
like climate change. There is a real opportunity here to explore and innovate news coverage of the range of environmental issues deemed most important by scientists, but to date are not receiving the coverage deserved when considering
their importance.
7
Changes in Visibility by Topic
As discussed previously there was a large degree of variability from issue to issue both in terms of the absolute number
of stories mentioning each broad environmental issue and in terms of changes in visibility over time.
The issue that was by far the most visible was climate change, which was mentioned in about 7,400 stories in 2014 and
in over 31,500 stories over the five year period. The number of stories mentioning climate change increased by just less
than 2% over the five year period.
Visibility of climate change contrasts sharply with coverage of deforestation and habitat loss, which was mentioned in
just 334 stories in 2014 and was down 23% compared to 2010.
Of the ten broad topics considered in this study, the one with the largest increase in visibility was Fresh Water Quality/
Scarcity, which saw a 36.0% increase over the five year period.
The broad environmental topic that saw the greatest decrease in visibility between 2010 and 2014 was renewable energy
which saw a 26.0% decrease in visibility among U.S. news sources reviewed. As illustrated below, much of this decrease
occurred in 2013, which saw a drop in visibility of nearly 20%.
8
Comparisons of Media Types
It is encouraging to see that the two media platforms with the broadest reach, network TV news and national newspapers,
were the two platforms that saw an increase over the five year period. Network TV news saw an increase nearing 50%.
National Newspapers
Overall visibility of environmental coverage in the three national newspapers included in the study increased by just
over 13% over the five year period. Of the three national newspapers included in the study, there were dramatic
differences in total visibility of the broad environmental topic areas that were searched with the newspaper with the
highest visibility, The New York Times mentioning environmental issues nearly six times more frequently than USA
Today over the five year period.
Visibility of Broad Environmental Topics in National Newspapers
Newspaper
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
5 Year Total
The New York Times
2,599
--
2,525
(-2.8%)
2,540
(+0.6%)
2,706
(+6.5%)
3,139
(+16.0%)
13,509
(+20.8%)
Washington Post
1994
--
1740
(-12.7%)
2025
(+16.4%)
1648
(-18.6%)
2200
(+33.5%)
9,607
(+10.3)
USA Today
511
--
479
(-6.3%)
445
(-7.1%)
430
(-3.4%)
433
(+0.7%)
2298
(-15.3%)
National News Papers Total
5104
--
4744
(-7.1%)
5010
(+5.6%)
4784
(-4.5%)
5772
(+20.7%)
25,414
(+13.1%)
Regional Newspapers
10 Regional newspapers were selected to include in this study. Total visibility of broad environment issues decreased by
3.0% over the five year period for all regional newspapers. The Philadelphia Inquirer and The Seattle Times shared the
largest percentage decline in visibility over the five year period with both decreasing by 12.2%. The regional newspaper
with the largest increase in visibility of broad environmental issues was Newsday which showed an 11.8% increase in
visibility of environmental issues.
As was the case with the national newspapers, there were dramatic differences in the visibility of environmental issues
among regional newspapers. The Los Angeles Times demonstrated the highest visibility of broad environmental issues
in 2014, though The Boston Globe had the highest total for the combined five-year period with over three times more
visibility than regional papers in other large metropolitan areas. See chart on following page.
9
Visibility of Broad Environmental Topics in Regional Newspapers
Newspaper
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
5 Year Total
1,696
(38.8%)
8,097
(-10.0%)
Boston Globe
1,885
--
1,634
(-13.3%)
1,660
(1.6%)
1,222
(-26.4%)
Los Angeles Times
1,817
--
1,433
(-21.1%)
1,269
(-11.4%)
1,254
(-1.2%)
1,810
(44.3%)
7,583
(-0.4%)
Chicago Tribune
1,209
--
1,122
(-7.2%)
1,100
(-2.0%)
1,349
(22.6%)
1,263
(-6.4%)
6,043
(4.5%)
Houston Chronicle
1,142
--
1,450
(27.0%)
1,083
(-25.3%)
1,075
(-0.7%)
1,140
(6.0%)
5,890
(-0.2%)
Denver Post
759
--
639
(-15.8%)
1,065
(66.7%)
1,114
(4.6%)
775
(-30.4%)
4,352
(2.1%)
Seattle Times
901
--
727
(-19.3%)
751
(3.3%)
686
(-8.7%)
791
(15.3%)
3,856
(-12.2%)
Tampa Bay Times
857
--
765
(-10.7%)
639
(-16.5%)
570
(-10.8%)
798
(40.0%)
3,629
(-6.9%)
Newsday
714
--
728
(2.0%)
734
(0.8%)
631
(-14.0%)
798
(26.5%)
3,605
(11.8%)
Philadelphia Inquirer
575
--
514
(-10.6%)
520
(1.2%)
555
(6.7%)
546
(-1.6%)
2,710
(-5.0%)
Kansas City Star
622
--
493
(-20.7%)
402
(-18.5%)
439
(9.2%)
546
(24.4%)
2,502
(-12.2%)
10,481
--
9,505
(-9.3%)
9,223
(-3.0%)
8,895
(-3.6%)
10,163
(14.3%)
48,267
(-3.0%)
Regional Newspapers Total
Alternative Newspapers
Nine alternative weekly newspapers were also included in the study. Overall, there was a nearly 9% decrease in visibility
of environmental issues among the alternative weekly newspapers included in the study. There was a dramatic decrease
of more than 23% in total visibility in 2012, followed by a 4.8% and 13.2% increase in 2013 and 2014 respectively.
Visibility of Broad Environmental Topics in Alternative Weekly Newspapers
Newspaper
Seven Days
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
5 Year Total
116
--
147
(26.7%)
141
(-4.1%)
112
(-20.6%)
156
(39.3%)
672
(34.5%)
Santa Barbra Independent
141
--
133
(-5.7%)
71
(-46.6%)
145
(104.2%)
160
(10.3%)
650
(13.5%)
Indy Week
127
--
108
(-15.0%)
83
(-23.1%)
84
(1.2%)
80
(-4.8%)
482
(-37.0%)
Santa Fe Reporter
83
--
105
(26.5%)
69
(-34.3%)
65
(-5.8%)
82
(26.2%)
404
(-1.2%)
Salt Lake City Weekly
75
--
76
(1.3%)
51
(-32.9%)
46
(-9.8%)
26
(-43.5%)
274
(-65.3%)
Metroland
40
--
49
(22.5%)
46
(-6.1%)
40
(-13.0%)
41
(2.5%)
216
(2.5%)
Chicago Reader
62
--
53
(-14.5%)
25
(-52.8%)
23
(-8.0%)
49
(113.0%)
212
(-21.0%)
The Stranger
37
--
26
(-29.7%)
37
(42.3%)
40
(8.1%)
33
(-17.5%)
173
(-10.8%)
Philadelphia weekly
22
--
7
(-68.2%)
18
(157.1%)
12
(-33.3%)
15
(25.0%)
74
(-31.8%)
703
--
704
(0.1%)
541
(-23.2%)
567
(4.8%)
642
(13.2%)
3157
(-8.7%)
Alternative Newspapers Total
10
U.S. vs. Foreign Newspaper Coverage
The study looked at the visibility of environmental issues in 22 newspapers. Of those, three were
considered nationally read newspapers, ten were
considered regional newspapers and nine were from
industrialized English speaking countries (three each
from the UK, Canada and Australia). This allowed
for a comparison of the visibility of environmental
issues between U.S. and foreign newspapers.
When considering broad environmental issues, on
average U.S. newspapers mentioned one of the
broad topic areas 1,226 times in 2014, while foreign papers mentioned the same topics an average
of 2,220 times— 81% more frequently. While it is
true that very high visibility in the UK newspaper
The Guardian may have skewed the average for
the foreign newspapers, it is also true that some of
the U.S. newspapers had significantly lower topic
visibility than all of the foreign papers included in
the study.
In 2014, international newspapers
included in the study had a level of
environmental topic visibility that
was 81% higher than U.S. newspapers analyzed.
U.S. and Foreign Newspaper Coverage of Broad
Environmental Topics in 2014
Rank
Newspaper
● US Newspaper
Stories
● Foreign Newspaper
1
2
3
The Guardian
New York Times
The Australian
5,183
3,139
2,968
--
International Newspaper Average
2,220
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Washington Post
Sydney Morning Herald
The Age
Daily Telegraph
Toronto Star
Los Angeles Times
Boston Globe
Globe and Mail
Vancouver Sun
Chicago Tribune
2,200
2,147
2,049
1,917
1,886
1,810
1,696
1,502
1,410
1,263
--
U.S. Newspaper Average
1,226
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Houston Chronicle
The Independent
Newsday
Tampa Bay Times
Seattle Times
Denver Post
Philadelphia Inquirer
Kansas City Star
USA Today
1,140
914
798
798
791
775
546
546
433
11
Network Television
As with many other types of news media, there were relatively minor variations in visibility of environmental issues in
network TV programming between 2010 and 2013, followed by a dramatic increase in 2014. Prior to 2014 the number of
stories mentioning broad environmental issues did not increase or decrease by more than 5% from the previous year, but in
2014 the increase was 56.5%. All four networks showed an increase in environmental visibility in news programming over
the four year period, but the size of that increase varied significantly from network to network. ABC news showed the smallest increase of 0.4%, while CBS news mentioned broad environmental issues 148.6% more in 2014 than it did in 2010.
CBS also had the highest visibility of environmental issues both in 2014 and over the five year period. PBS had the lowest
visibility of environmental issues of the networks, however this does not represent a fair comparison as PBS has only one
news program (PBS Newshour) compared to several news programs for each of the other networks.
Visibility of Broad Environmental Topics in Network Television
Network
CBS News
Number of Stories (% Change )
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
5 Year Total
183
--
186
(1.6%)
203
(9.1%)
233
(14.8%)
455
(95.3%)
1,260
(148.6%)
NBC News
255
--
221
(-13.3%)
197
(-10.9%)
188
(-4.6%)
264
(40.4%)
1,125
(3.5%)
ABC News
227
--
211
(-7.0%)
210
(-0.5%)
148
(-29.5%)
228
(54.1%)
1,024
(0.4%)
PBS Newshour
78
--
108
(38.5%)
120
(11.1%)
126
(5.0%)
141
(11.9%)
573
(80.8%)
Total
743
--
726
(-2.3%)
730
(0.6%)
695
(-4.8%)
1088n
(56.5%)
3,982
(46.4%)
Cable News
Over the five year period, there was little change in total visibility for the three cable news channels included in the
study. However this five year trend masks the volatility that occurred on a year-to-year basis. Total visibility declined by
about 12% in 2011 and 2012 and this downward trend was reversed with a 4.3% increase in 2013 followed by a steep
increase of 23.7% in 2014.
CNN consistently had the highest visibility of environmental issues and the highest total for the five year period while
MSNBC had the lowest total visibility over the five year period and in 4 of the five years (In 2013 Fox News had the
lowest visibility). Interestingly MSNBC had the highest gain in visibility over the five year period increasing by more than
60%, and despite having the highest visibility, CNN had the largest percentage decline, with visibility dropping by 18.6%
between 2010 and 2014.
Visibility of Broad Environmental Topics in Cable News
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
5 Year Total
1,153
--
956
(-17.1%)
834
(-12.8%)
879
(5.4%)
938
(6.7%)
4,760
(-18.6%)
FOX News
440
--
461
(4.8%)
343
(-25.6%)
288
(-16.0%)
448
(55.6%)
1,980
(1.8%)
MSNBC
321
--
268
(-16.5%)
296m
(10.4%)
369
(24.7%)
514
(39.3%)
1768
(-16.5%)
1,914
--
1,685
(-12.0%)
1,473
(-12.6%)
1,536
(4.3%)
1,900
(23.7%)
8,508
(-0.7%)
Network
CNN
Cable TV Total
12
Online News
People rely more on online and digital news sources than ever before, and is the only news platform that showed growth
in a recent survey by Pew Research Center4 and it was the second most commonly used news platform only after television news. Given the continued growth of online and digital news, it could be argued that digital coverage of environmental news will be the most important factor affecting public knowledge of environmental issues.
Online news was tracked for several sources that are available through LexisNexis (washingtonpost.com, CNN.com,
usnews.com, MSNBC.com). However, the data from several of the online news sources appeared anomalous, which
dramatically fewer stories than expected for several sources and extreme volatility from year to year for others. Conversations with both LexisNexis staff and staff at some of the online news organizations to try to identify the cause of this
apparently anomalous data suggested that at least some of the news sources had difficulty uploading content to LexisNexis at certain times during the five year period studied. As a result the data from the online news sources was deemed to
be unreliable and was not included in this report. However as discussed above The Project for Improved Environmental
Coverage recognizes the role online news plays in educating the public about the environment and is currently exploring
other options to track trends of environmental coverage for online and digital media.
International News
To compare trends in visibility of environmental issues in U.S. news media to coverage in international newspapers a total
of nine newspapers were also reviewed from other industrialized English speaking countries (three each from Canada,
Australia and the UK). As discussed previously, in 2014 the average foreign newspaper mentioned environmental issues
in 81% more stories than the average U.S. Newspaper. Interestingly, while National U.S. newspapers saw an increase in
visibility of environmental issues of more than 13% and regional U.S. newspapers saw only a slight decline of 3% over the
last five years, the international newspapers included in the study saw a net 26% reduction in visibility of environmental
issues. While visibility of environmental issues in these foreign newspapers increased by 5% in 2014, there was a decrease in visibility in every other year with the largest decline of 19.3% occurring in 2012. Only two of the 9 international
newspapers saw an increase in the visibility of environmental issues over the five year period. The largest such increase
was The Toronto Star with a total increase of 18.6% and The Australian showed the larges decrease in visibility over five
years with a net decrease of 47.6%. The Guardian had the most stories mentioning environmental issues over the five
year period, with 133% more issue visibility than the average for international newspapers tracked.
Visibility of Broad Environmental Topics in International Newspapers
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
5 Year Total
4,988
--
4,317
(-13.5%)
4,351
(0.8%)
4,377
(0.6%)
5,183
(18.4%)
23,216
(3.9%)
The Australian
5669
--
5,281
(-6.8%)
3,160
(-40.2%)
2,586
(-18.2%)
2,968
(14.8%)
19,664
(-47.6%)
Sydney Morning Herald
3,675
--
3,458
(-5.9%)
2,104
(-39.2%)
2,212
(5.1%)
2,147
(-2.9%)
13,596
(-41.6%)
The Age
3,455
--
3,044
(-11.9%)
1,739
(-42.9%)
2,016
(15.9%)
2,049
(1.6%)
12,303
(-40.7%)
Daily Telegraph
2,503
--
2,229
(-10.9%)
2,784
(24.9%)
2,521
(-9.4%)
1,917
(-24.0%)
11,954
(-23.4%)
Vancouver Sun
1,807
--
1,856
(2.7%)
1,828
(-1.5%)
1,702
(-6.9%)
1,410
(-17.2%)
8,603
(-22.0%)
Globe and Mail
2,053
--
1,616
(-21.3%)
1,326
(-17.9%)
1,433
(8.1%)
1,502
(4.8%)
7,930
(-26.8%)
Toronto Star
1,590
--
1,368
(-14.0%)
1,249
(-8.7%)
1,222
(-2.2%)
1,886
(54.3%)
7,315
(18.6%)
The Independent
1,252
--
849
(-32.2%)
834
(-1.8%)
949
(13.8%)
914
(-3.7%)
4,798
(-27.0%)
26,992
--
24,018
(-11.0%)
19,375
(-19.3%)
19,018
(-1.8%)
19,976
(5.0%)
10,9379
(-26.0%)
Newspaper
The Guardian
International
Newspapers Total
4
Pew Research Center. “Trends in News Consumption: 1991-2012.” Sept. 27, 2012. Trends in Visibility of Environmental Issues in the U.S. News Media
13
Conclusion
News represents an essential source of public information about the environment, and the large increase in coverage of
environmental topics in 2014 is undoubtedly a good thing. The two media platforms with the broadest reach (Network
Television and National Newspapers) were also the only media categories that showed an increase over the five year period.
Some news organizations such as CBS news, New York Times, PBS Newshour and MSNBC show quite significant increases in
the visibility of environmental issues, though many others such as CNN and USA Today had substantial decreases over the
five year period. The overall positive trends are encouraging, but on a whole, environmental coverage still averages about
1% of headlines, which is disproportionately low in relation to the impact it has on everyone’s daily lives.
While some in the news industry argue that they must
There are news organizations we can
be mindful of increasing viewers and subscribers, there
are many examples of profitable and growing news
look to as leaders in prioritizing enviorganizations that are excelling in environmental coverronmental coverage and new models
age proving that the two are not mutually exclusive. In
show promise to help improve visibility
fact, the younger generations that many news organizations are seeking to attract are more concerned
of these issues
about the environment than older generations5.
Environmental issues affect and are affected by many
other topics that the public is very concerned about such as public health, international relations, the economy, national
security, politics and public policy—issues that already receive lots of news coverage. Increasing environmental coverage
and integrating coverage of environmental issues into stories covering these other topics and relating it to how it affects
people’s lives could in fact, be part of a strategy to reach new audiences.
While the data from 2014 show signs that the visibility of environmental issues is now increasing after declining steadily between 2010 and 2013, there is no question that coverage of environmental issues remains disproportionately low
compared the impact it has on people’s lives. Fortunately there are news organizations we can look to as leaders in
prioritizing environmental coverage and new models to distribute environmental content (such as partnerships between
legacy media and independent/nonprofit news organizations) which show promise to help improve visibility of these
issues. Organization such as the Project for Improved Environmental Coverage, The Society of Environmental Journalists,
the Metcalf Institute and others continue to provide new resources, tools and training to help journalists cover environmental issues. There are more resources available than ever before to assist journalists reporting on environmental
issues (and even more being developed), making it easier than ever for news organizations to prioritize environmental
coverage.
It is too early to tell if the jump in visibility of environmental issues in 2014 is a short term spike, or the beginning of a
long term trend and more research will be needed in the coming years to continue to follow trends in visibility, quantity and quality of environmental news. The Project for Improved Environmental Coverage will continue to provide this
research in the coming years, which in addition to tracking broad industry trends, can be used by news organizations to
track progress over time and compare themselves to their peers in the industry.
5
http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/millennials-environment-climate-change
14
Limitations
This study was designed to track the frequency that key environmental issues were mentioned by various news organizations. While multiple studies show that the frequency an issue is mentioned is an important factor affecting public
perceptions about the relative importance of an issue, this is the only factor that was tracked in this study. This research
can only determine the number of stories mentioning an issue and cannot, for example, determine how many stories
provided in depth coverage of an issue or just mentioned the issue briefly while focusing primarily on another topic. The
analysis further cannot comment on the tone or quality of the news stories. Finally the analysis cannot comment on the
prominence of the articles discussing environmental issues—for example, there was no differentiation made between a
news story that appeared on the front page of a newspaper and one that was in a different section.
This study is also limited by the quality of the search terms used to track various environmental issues (See Appendix II for
detailed search terms). An article about one of the issues tracked would not be counted in this study if it did not include
one of the search terms. Conversely, an article that does not mention the topic could be counted if it did include one of the
search terms. A great deal of effort was put into creating search terms with a goal of including all articles that may mention
each topic, but excluding stories that do not. Search results were reviewed to ensure that articles that were not mentioning
the targeted topic were minimized. Despite these efforts there are likely numerous stories counted for a specific topic that
did not mention it, while at the same time other stories that mentioned the topic that were not included. However, it is
assumed that these errant stories are a small fraction of the results for each news organization and occur at approximately
the same rate for each news organization, since the same search terms were used for each. As a result we are confident that
the numbers included throughout this report represent the best possible estimate of the stories mentioning each topic and
provides an accurate means to compare coverage of various environmental issues across news organizations.
Finally, this study is limited by the content and sources available on LexisNexis. LexisNexis does not provide access to
archives of every news source, so it is not possible to analyze all prominent news organizations within a media type. Additionally, conversations with LexisNexis staff revealed that not all news sources provide all of their content to LexisNexis.
For example, some news outlets will only provide original content by staff writers, and/or exclude op-eds, content from
newswires and/or articles written by freelance journalists.
Appendix I Methodology
Selection of News Sources
This study sought to track visibility of environmental issues in 37 news source between
2010 and 2014. As discussed in the previous section the results only include 33 sources because 4 online news sources
were eliminated because the data was believed to be unreliable. The news sources tracked were grouped into belonged
to one of 10 media groups: national newspapers, regional newspapers, network TV news, cable TV news, online news,
radio news, news magazines, nonprofit news, alternative weekly newspapers, and international newspapers.
A variety of factors contributed to the decision as to which news sources to include in the study¸ key among them the
prominence of the news organization and the availability of searchable archives in Lexis-Nexis.
National newspapers were considered to be papers that were frequently read across the country and included the
publications with the largest national subscriptions, including USA Today, The New York Times and The Washington Post.
Based on the number of subscriptions and geographic reach, The Wall Street Journal potentially could have been included in this group, but was excluded since it tends to focus more narrowly on economic and business news.
The regional newspapers were selected by taking the newspaper with the largest subscription from each of the ten
standard federal regions of the United States. If the largest paper in a given region was not searchable in Lexis-Nexis, the
second largest paper from that region which was searchable in Lexis-Nexis was substituted and the process was repeated
until a paper from that regions that was accessible in Lexis-Nexis was found.
A similar process was repeated for alternative weekly newspapers comparing subscriptions of members of the Association of Alternative Newsmedia to what was searchable in Lexis-Nexis. Only 9 weekly alternative newspapers were included, because there was one federal region that did not have any Alternative weeklies that were searchable in LexisNexis.
Appendix
A1
All three network television stations that carry morning and evening news programing (ABC, CBS and NBC) were included
in the study as well as PBS which has a nightly new program (PBS Newshour). And for cable news the three channels with
the largest audiences (CNN, Fox News and MSNBC) were included in the study.
Data was collected for several online news sources, but this data was excluded from the report because it was not believed to reflect the actual coverage of environmental topics as is discussed in detail in the anomalies section.
NPR was the only prominent national radio news programing available in LexisNexis and Newsweek was the only prominent national news magazine available.
High Country News and Mother Jones were the only know nonprofit news sources included in LexisNexis (several other
nonprofit news sources were searched and revealed not to be included, but it is not possible to search only for nonprofit
news sources. It is therefore possible that other nonprofit news sources were available in LexisNexis but were not identified and searched for by PIEC staff)
The international newspapers were selected by taking the three largest non-tabloid newspapers that were available in
LexisNexis for the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia.
Search terms
Search terms were selected with a goal of including as many possible words and phrases that could
potentially be used when discussing each topic, while excluding terms and phrases that could potentially be used when
discussing other issues. Once initial search terms were created a the results were reviewed to see if other potential
search terms could be identified, and to remove or modify search terms that appeared to cause irrelevant results. A full
list of search terms appears in appendix II.
Data Collection
Once search terms were finalized a “power search” was conducted using the search terms that
had been created, and included all the sources for a given media type (i.e. all the regional newspapers). Searches were
repeated five times with the date set for each calendar year included in the study (2010-2015). LexisNexis provides an
option to view results by source which, when selected displays the number of stories from each source. The number of
stories from each news sources was recorded for each year and the process was repeated for each topic. LexisNexis limits
the number of results displayed to 3,000. In cases where more than 3,000 results were returned, periods of less than one
year searched (i.e. four months at a time, and the results were added together to get the totals for each one year period.
A2
Appendix II Search Terms
Note: Body prior to parentheses means the body of the article was searched. This prevented stories from returning
based on content outside the body of the article such as tags by LexisNexis or related articles.
W/n (where n is a number) means that the words appear with n words of each other. For example carbon w/5 atmosphere would return articles that have the word “carbon” within 5 words of “atmosphere” (i.e. …releases carbon into
the atmosphere”).
Environmental Topic
Search Terms
Climate Change
Body (“climate change” or “global warming” or “greenhouse gas” or
“greenhouse effect” or “atmospheric carbon” or (carbon w/5 atmosphere)
or (carbon w/5 emissions))
Fresh Water Quality / Scarcity
Body ((drought w/20 water or rain or dry or river or lake) or “water scarcity” or “water quality” or “wastewater” or “runoff” or “dissolved oxygen”
or “fish kill” or “groundwater pollution” or “groundwater contamination”
or “water pollution” or “algal bloom” “acid rain”) and NOT election or vote
or voters or poll
Renewable Energy
Body (“wind power” or “wind energy” or “wind turbine” “solar power” or
“solar energy” or “solar panel” or “solar panels” or “solar electric” or photovoltaic or “hydropower” or “hydroelectric” or (geothermal w/5 energy or
power) or “tidal power” or “tidal energy” or “renewable energy”)
Ocean Health
Body (“overfishing” or “ocean health” or (ocean w/5 pollution) or “ocean
acidification” or “coral bleaching” or “coral reef bleaching” or (fish w/5
decline) or (fisheries w/5 decline) or (fisheries w/5 collapse) or (plastic w/5
ocean) or (“garbage patch” w/5 ocean) or (gyre w/5 ocean) or (“garbage
patch” w/5 Atlantic) or (“garbage patch” w/5 pacific) or (“dead zone” w/5
ocean or lake or river or bay or water) or (coral w/5 collapse))
Agriculture/Food Systems/
Food Security
Body ((Pesticides w/5 health or sick or ill or illness or cancer) or GMO
or “genetically modified” or “agricultural runoff” or (environment w/5
farming) or (environment w/5 agriculture) or (environmental w/5 agriculture) or (environmental w/5 farming) or (drought w/5 farming or farm
or agriculture) or “Organic farming” or “organic produce” or (organic w/5
food or fruit or farming or agriculture or vegetables) or (“local food” w/5
environment or transportation or movement or carbon or CO2 or Climate
or “global warming”) or CSA or “community supported agriculture” or
“industrial agriculture” or “family farming” or “CAFO” or “concentrated
animal feeding operation” or “food security” or (genetic w/5 food or corn
or rice or wheat or soy or soybeans) or “pollinator decline” or (bee w/5
collapse or decline) or “colony collapse disorder” or “urban farming”)
Appendix
A3
Body (“toxic substances control act” or TSCA or (pesticide or pesticides or
toxic or toxins toxin or chemical or chemicals w/3 exposure or exposed) or
(toxic w/3 chemicals or ingredients or materials) or (asbestos or arsenic or
dioxin or dioxins “fire retardants” perchlorate or pesticides or mercury or
bpa or pcbs w/5 health or sick or illness or cancer or disease))
Deforestation/Habitat Loss
Deforestation or “habitat loss” or “habitat destruction” or (habitat w/5
fragmentation) or (habitat w/5 degradation)
Biodiversity
Body (Biodiversity or extinction or (“endangered species” w/5 list or
listed or designated or classified) or “genetic diversity” or (ecosystem w/5
collapse) or “ecological collapse” or (species w/5 loss or decline) or (ecosystem w/5 loss or decline) or (biome w/5 loss or decline))
Air Pollution
Body (air w/5 pollution or “particulates” or “sulphur dioxide” or “nitrogen
dioxide” or “volatile organic compounds” or “VOCs” or (lead w/5 air) or
smog or (mercury w/5 air) or “air quality”)
body(“environmental justice” or “environmental discrimination” or “environmental racism” or (“environmental impacts” or “chemical exposure”
pollution w/5 of minority or “low income” “disadvantaged” or “marginalized” or “communities of color” or “poor communities”))
Coral Bleaching
Body(coral or corals or reef or reefs w/5 bleach or bleaches or bleached or
bleaching)
Wind Power
Body((wind or windmill w/5 power or energy or turbine or electricity or
electric or electrical) or windfarm or “wind farm” or “wind-farm”)) and not
(Outage or outages or (down or downed w/5 line or lines or “power line”
or powerline or powerlines or “power line” or “power lines” ))
Deforestation
Body(deforestation)
Energy Efficiency
Body((energy or electricity or gas or oil or “fossil fuel” or “fossil fuels”
or fuel or fuels w/5 conserve or conserves or conservation or efficient or
efficiently or efficiency) or “fuel economy” or “energy star”)
A4

Trends in Visibility of Environmental Issues in the U.S. News Media

Transcription

Similar documents

How to increase engagement, improve productivity, and align

News2You online newspaper - T-Room

A golden opportunity to A golden opportunity to

Visibility

33 Series Sweeperweb

Wheel Packaging Standard 2011

BRIGHT HEADLIGHTS

Why PPM Software Fails and How to Succeed With Enterprise Work Management

NetPod Application-Aware Network Performance Management Solution