Climate Progress discusses an interesting article by Eric Pooley, who has been managing editor of Fortune, national editor of Time, Time’s chief political correspondent, and Time’s White House correspondent, where he won the Gerald Ford Prize for Excellence in Reporting. Pooley recently analyzed the past 15 months of media coverage of climate change. Among his conclusions:
"for most reporters covering [the Lieberman-Warner climate bill] story, the default role was that of stenographer–presenting a nominally balanced view of the debate without questioning the validity of the arguments, sometimes even ignoring evidence that one side was twisting truth... The media’s collective decision to play the stenographer role actually helped opponents of climate action stifle progress."
"Mainstream news organizations have accepted the conclusions of the IPCC but have not yet applied those conclusions to the economic debate. The terms of that debate have been defined by opponents of climate action who argue that reducing emissions would “cost too much.” So the battle has been fought over the short-term price of climate action and its impact on GDP, while overlooking an extremely important variable, the long-term costs of inaction and business as usual."
In short, he concludes that the media's willingness to report information without verifying its accuracy has helped opponents of climate action stifle progress. It's an interesting article.