DeSmog

Stanford Study Confirms That “Balanced” Media Stories Quoting Skeptics Mislead The Public

authordefault
on

Providing climate skeptics a voice in “balanced” mainstream media coverage skews public perception of the scientific consensus regarding climate change, leaving viewers less likely to understand the threat of climate disruption and less likely to support government actions to address global warming, according to the results of a Stanford University research effort

The Stanford researchers probed the impact on public understanding of climate change when media coverage features a climate skeptic alongside a climate scientist.  Media stories featuring only a mainstream climate scientist “increased the number of people who believed that global warming has been happening and that humans have caused global warming.”

However, when media stories also include a climate skeptic, ostensibly to add “balance” to the story, the result is a “significantly reduced” number of people who understand the issue and endorse government action to address the problem.

“Watching a skeptic decreased perceptions of consensus among scientific experts, and this decreased perception of consensus led respondents to be less supportive of government action in general and of cap and trade policy in particular,” the researchers found.

According to the study conducted by Stanford’s Woods Institute For The Environment:

Watching media coverage featuring a skeptic made people:

  • Less likely to believe that scientists agree that global warming has been happening (Figure 1 – pdf)
  • Less certain that global warming has been happening (Figure 2 – pdf)
  • Less likely to ascribe high personal importance to the global warming issue
  • Less likely to believe that global warming will be bad for people (Figure 3 – pdf)
  • Less likely to believe that global warming is a very serious issue
  • Less likely to support more government action to deal with global warming (Figure 4 – pdf)
  • Less likely to support a cap and trade system to limit greenhouse gas emissions (Figure 5 – pdf)

The researchers note that the video clips used in the study featured only one skeptic.  “Nonetheless, respondents generalized from a single skeptic to scientists more generally, perceiving less agreement in the scientific community broadly,” they found.

“Our findings suggest that balanced news coverage may have been at least partly responsible for discrepancies between the American public and the scientific community on issues of climate change,” according to the Stanford researchers.

Anyone who doubts that misinformation can trump facts and the best science available should take a hard look at this Stanford study.

Related Posts

Both private and institutional investors have poured billions into Eni's "green-labelled" bonds, under terms and conditions that enable it to continue to fund carbon-emitting activities.

Both private and institutional investors have poured billions into Eni's "green-labelled" bonds, under terms and conditions that enable it to continue to fund carbon-emitting activities.
on

Tickets at the event in Chicago cost up to $50,000 for the chance to have dinner with the Reform UK leader.

Tickets at the event in Chicago cost up to $50,000 for the chance to have dinner with the Reform UK leader.
on

Corrosion issues in a deep monitoring well were discovered in March, raising concerns that early issues could be a sign of major problems to come as CCS and monitoring wells age.

Corrosion issues in a deep monitoring well were discovered in March, raising concerns that early issues could be a sign of major problems to come as CCS and monitoring wells age.
on

When questioned by DeSmog at an Edmonton conference Tuesday, the Alberta premier falsely blamed wind and solar for electric grid troubles.

When questioned by DeSmog at an Edmonton conference Tuesday, the Alberta premier falsely blamed wind and solar for electric grid troubles.