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 Trends in Visibility of Environmental Issues in the U.S. News Media 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) Trends in Visibility of Environmental Issues in the U.S. News Media 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%) Trends in Visibility of Environmental Issues in the U.S. News Media (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 Health Environmental Policy/Government Deforestation/Habitat Loss Biodiversity Sustainable Community Design/Planning Land Use/Land Use Chang Air Pollution Environmental Justice 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. Trends in Visibility of Environmental Issues in the U.S. News Media 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%. Project for Improved Environmental Coverage 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 Number of Stories (% Change) 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. Trends in Visibility of Environmental Issues in the U.S. News Media 9 Visibility of Broad Environmental Topics in Regional Newspapers Newspaper Number of Stories (% Change) 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 Number of Stories (% Change) 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 Project for Improved Environmental Coverage 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 Trends in Visibility of Environmental Issues in the U.S. News Media 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 Number of Stories (% Change) 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 Project for Improved Environmental Coverage 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 Number of Stories (% Change) 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 Project for Improved Environmental Coverage 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. Trends in Visibility of Environmental Issues in the U.S. News Media 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 Environmental Health 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”) Environmental Justice 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”) Trends in Visibility of Environmental Issues in the U.S. News Media A4
© Copyright 2024