Watching Fox News Can Be Hazardous to Your Facts

authordefault
on

In mid December, you may recall, Media Matters exposed an email from Fox News editor Bill Sammon instructing his reporters to โ€œrefrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question.โ€ It was no surprise that Fox was guilty of misrepresenting the science on climate changeโ€”anyone who has watched the channel cover the subject has seen thisโ€”but it was nevertheless appalling to find the goal so blatantlyย stated.

But thereโ€™s been less discussion of a finding that closely accompanied this revelation. In a survey late last year, Stanford political psychologist Jon Krosnick found that more frequent Fox viewers were significantly less likely to trust climate science and climate scientists than those who donโ€™t watch the channel, or who watch it less.

We donโ€™t know, based solely on this reported association, what kind of causal chain weโ€™re dealing with here, or if there even is one. Itโ€™s possible that watching Fox makes people doubt, but itโ€™s also possible that those who doubt anyway gravitate to Fox, an ideologically congenial news outlet forย them.

However, it strikes me as pretty likely that at least in part, the coverage is driving the skepticism. Indeed, still more research by Krosnick backs up thisย idea.ย 

In a 2009 experiment, Krosnick showed study subjects a series of videos about climate changeโ€“ two in which a mainstream scientist discusses global warmingโ€™s existence and two in which a mainstream scientist discusses its effects. Then, in the case of one video but not the other for each pair, an interview with a climate skeptic was included at the end. ย Very simple study design, and results unequivocal: Those who saw the skeptic were less likely to think scientists agree about global warming, less likely to want the problem addressed, etc. (See the figure accompanying this post for one of theย results.)

Need I add that Fox features a lot ofย skeptics?

Going back half a decade or more, Iโ€™ve been criticizing media โ€œbalanceโ€ on scientific topics where there is a strong consensus within the scientific world itself.ย And Iโ€™m hardly the only one: It was the concerns of scientists that made me want to write about this problem in the first place in Columbia Journalism Review.

Ever since then, Iโ€™ve taken it for granted that misleadingly โ€œbalancedโ€ media coverage of climate change leads viewers to be less accepting of the mainstream scientific consensus. And that was certainly a reasonable assumptionโ€“but itโ€™s fair to say that based on the research discussed above, itโ€™s more reasonable thanย ever.

Sad to say, when it comes to the misinformation environment out there, our longstanding fears seem more thanย justified.

Related Posts

Analysis
on

The celebrity investor pitched โ€˜Wonder Valleyโ€™ with no committed investors, no Indigenous partnership, and about 27 megatonnes of projected annual emissions.

The celebrity investor pitched โ€˜Wonder Valleyโ€™ with no committed investors, no Indigenous partnership, and about 27 megatonnes of projected annual emissions.
on

City Council OKs private equity firmโ€™s purchase of Entergy gas utility, undermining climate goals and jacking up prices for the cityโ€™s poorest.

City Council OKs private equity firmโ€™s purchase of Entergy gas utility, undermining climate goals and jacking up prices for the cityโ€™s poorest.
on

With LNG export terminals already authorized to ship nearly half of U.S. natural gas abroad, DOE warns build-out would inflate utility bills nationwide.

With LNG export terminals already authorized to ship nearly half of U.S. natural gas abroad, DOE warns build-out would inflate utility bills nationwide.
Analysis
on

We reflect on a year of agenda-setting stories that charted the political influence of fossil fuel interests in the UK and beyond.

We reflect on a year of agenda-setting stories that charted the political influence of fossil fuel interests in the UK and beyond.