A new report from Internews’ Earth Journalism Network (EJN) and Deakin University, “Covering the Planet: Assessing the State of Climate and Environmental Journalism Globally,” documents urgent challenges confronting climate and environmental journalists across the globe, including 39% experiencing threats as a result of their work; and almost two-thirds feeling obliged to use climate skeptics as sources for “balance.”
The report, Covering the Planet: Assessing the State of Climate and Environmental Journalism Globally, is based on a survey of 744 journalists and editors in 102 countries and in-depth interviews with 74 journalists in 31 countries. The study asked how journalists conduct their climate and environmental reporting – and what they require in order to do it better, as the deadlines for international treaty commitments fast approach. This is the first truly global – and potentially the largest ever – investigation of the state of climate change and environmental journalism, incorporating the voices and insights of journalists and editors from around the world. Read The Guardian’s coverage of the report.
A REPORT FOR INTERNEWS’ EARTH JOURNALISM NETWORK BY: Gabi Mocatta, Shaneka Saville, Nicholas Payne, Jerry Lai, Lova Jansson, Kristy Hess Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia
Key findings of this study
Journalists perceive that coverage of climate change and the environment has increased over time, mainly due to the increase in problems related to environment, and, to a lesser extent, due to increasing public interest.
• Journalists reported overwhelmingly (82% affirmative) that climate and environmental stories now have more prominence – relative to other subjects – than a decade ago.
• Journalists reported in interviews, however, that the volume of coverage of climate change is still not commensurate with the seriousness of the problem.
• Journalists said a health frame was how they were most likely to approach their climate and environmental coverage (70%). Other key themes related to the environment that journalists reported on were deforestation (58%); water and sanitation (58%); water pollution (57%); government policy (56%); and plastic pollution (53%).
• Journalists noted overwhelmingly that a lack of resources limits their coverage of climate and environmental issues (76%). •
The concept of anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change or climate science.
Most journalists adhere to professional norms like objectivity, seeing this as the core of their profession. Few journalists said they would advocate for particular positions or policies on climate or the environment in their role.
• Journalists in some countries are threatened because of their work and feel they have to self-censor. 39% of journalists are sometimes or frequently threatened because of their work and the same percentage of journalists has self-censored when covering climate and environment-related issues.
• Threats to journalists come mainly from those pursuing illegal activities in relation to the environment.
Climate and environmental reporting is also complicated by misinformation.
58% of journalists surveyed said that misinformation had increased in the last decade. The source of that misinformation was overwhelmingly social media (93% of journalists observed this). • To increase their capacity to report on climate change and environment, journalists report the top five priorities for assistance as being: more funding for in-depth journalism (79%); in person training and workshops (75%); fellowships to attend conferences (72%); more access to relevant data (67%) and better access to subject experts (60%).
In the survey and interviews, journalists agreed that the work of media support NGOs was crucially important to their climate and environmental reporting. Many journalists said that they would not be able to report on climate or environment without this assistance.
• There is a tension between journalists’ desire for NGO funding to cover climate/environment, and their need for freedom and independence in their work.
• Journalists prefer NGO funding not to be tied to particular subject matter: they would like to be free to cover the climate and environmental topics that are most locally relevant for their audience.
• Journalists did report in the survey and interviews that they had seen changes as a result of their work. This was mostly related to their audiences (and included a perception of better public understanding). 29% of journalists reported government policy change as a result of their work.
Journalists are focusing on climate and environmental problems as well as their solutions. 72% of journalists said that they reported problems and solutions roughly in equal balance.
Summary of recommendations
For funding organizations • Funders should make more support available for journalists covering climate change and the environment. • Funders should work with journalists and newsrooms for a focused approach and longevity of funding. • Funders should consider journalists’ diverse training needs in different country contexts. • Funders should enable journalists to cover the stories they deem most locally relevant. • Funders may need to develop a more nuanced approach to ‘objectivity’ and ‘advocacy.’ • Funders should be realistic when it comes to asking journalists to assess impact. • Funders should avoid donor influence on environmental news coverage, and the perception of it
For newsrooms • Newsrooms should encourage some journalists to specialize in reporting on climate change and the environment. • Media outlets should publish and broadcast more climate and environment stories and make them more prominent. • Newsrooms should encourage collaboration and knowledge sharing between journalists: all stories are climate stories. • Newsrooms should consider collaborating with climate and environment news specialist organizations. • Newsrooms must help journalists understand misinformation, its origins, and how to avoid it. • Media must work to protect journalists’ physical, legal and digital safety.
For journalists • Journalists must focus on making global environmental issues locally relevant. • Climate and environmental journalism should cover solutions as well as problems. • Climate justice perspectives should be highlighted in climate change reporting. • Journalists need to consider their own, and their media outlet’s position on the spectrum between ‘objectivity’ and ‘advocacy’. • Journalists should not provide a platform for sources that deny climate science. • Journalists need to build their knowledge on attribution science. • Journalists need to work together to ensure climate/environment issues suffuse more reporting. • Journalists need to make clear humans’ dependence on the natural world.
Recommendations for funding organizations
Funders should make more support available for journalists covering climate change and the environment: Media support organizations could prioritize supporting journalism on these subject areas given the urgent nature of climate change and environmental issues. More coverage of climate change and environment are crucial to amplify the salience of these issues for audiences. Misinformation also thrives where accurate information is insufficient.
- Funders should work with journalists and newsrooms for a focused approach and longevity of funding:
NGOs need to assist news outlets and individual journalists in the longer term to build capacity and work toward sustainability. Multiyear funding initiatives can build capacity better than more widespread, but short term approaches.
- Funders should consider journalists’ diverse training needs in different country contexts:
Training needs vary from subject-specific information (especially attribution science, how to access data, how to identify and distinguish between mis/ disinformation, and climate justice perspectives), to education on professional norms (use of balance), to in-person workshops to enable networking and collaboration. Training is needed in both high income countries and LMICs
- Funders should enable journalists to cover the stories they deem most locally relevant:
NGOs may fund journalists to cover stories in a particular subject area, determined by funder interests and goals – however, making funding unconditional may assist in giving the most crucial local stories priority. Recommendations for funding organizations
- Funders may need to develop a more nuanced approach to ‘objectivity’ and ‘advocacy’:
Many journalists well understand how to navigate the fine line between advocating for their communities and for policy action, and journalistic objectivity. A requirement not to advocate should not be a condition of funding climate and environmental journalism.
- Funders should be realistic when it comes to asking journalists to assess impact:
Not all stories can make a demonstrable impact, and making impact a condition of funding may lead to journalists choosing “lower ambition” issues in order to be able to demonstrate change.
- Funders should avoid donor influence on environmental news coverage, and the perception of it:
Individual newsrooms and journalists need to know and disclose their funders to avoid potential and perceived conflicts of interest.
What do journalists need to help them report more effectively?
As noted in the section above, more funding is an absolute priority, and an enabler, for the work of reporting in climate change and the environment. When asked ‘What do you and journalists in your country need to increase capacity to report on the environment and climate change?’ 80% of survey respondents cited the need for more funding. This was closely followed by the need for in-person training and workshops (75%). At the other end of the scale, those factors considered the least necessary by respondents were more media freedom (36%), more interest from audiences/ the public (35%), and better safety when working (34%). While it is alarming to consider more than one-third of respondents do not feel safe enough to do their best work, it is nevertheless worth highlighting that concerns over funding and training far outweigh issues of safety or media freedom among this survey cohort.
Many interview participants were also quick to emphasize the need for greater funding and resources—both in terms of a living wage that enables journalists to remain in the industry, as well as funding to cover the costs associated with quality reportage. It is crucial to underscore, then, how interlinked job security and a media outlet’s viability are.
The report
“Covering the Planet: Assessing the State of Climate and Environmental Journalism Globally,”