Just. Welcome to Feature of Journalism, a podcast from the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at the University of Oxford.
I'm Federica Kabini, the head of Leadership Development at the Institute.
This is a special series of our podcasts, and it's dedicated to our digital news report.
2022. Over seven episodes, we, we're diving into the most comprehensive piece of research on news consumption around the world.
In this episode of the series, we're joined by Dr. Craig Robertson,
postdoctoral research fellow at the Institute and part of the digital news report team for the report.
Craig As looking at how audiences engage with news around climate change, undoubtedly one of the most defining issue of our time.
We'll look at how interest varies across the world.
What sources of information people prefer and attitudes towards news organisations taking a more active role in the climate coverage.
Craig, welcome to the podcast. Thanks for having me.
Firstly, what do you think makes climate change a tricky issue for NEWSROOM to cover?
Is there is always seem to be a more immediate story that takes priority.
I think there's a there's a few things that make it tricky. And this is just from my point of view as a researcher.
But one issue is just how large and complicated the story is, so it can be difficult to tackle head on.
We're talking about a process that is playing out over time, that's affecting many different things and which can actually be very hard to explain.
So and also the causes are multifaceted for climate change and the effects are multifaceted.
So it's hard to put all that into a short news piece.
And in the process of explaining greenhouse gas emissions, their effect on climate to the implications for global ecosystems is a pretty large task.
And I think another reason is difficult to cover. And this links to what you said is that the story plays out gradually over time.
And this can mean that climate change doesn't quite fit in with so-called news values.
So these are the kind of unwritten rules of journalism, the features of stories which make them interesting or worth covering.
So news values might include things like immediacy or novelty or timeliness.
You cover a house fire because it's immediate and they're in front of you or a protest
because it's a sort of visible demonstration of people's anger and frustration.
But climate change doesn't always have that kind of immediate face. Temperatures rise gradually.
Ecosystems are impacted gradually. So the effects take time, and there aren't always those visible and obvious and immediate things to focus on.
That's unless there's a big fire or floods related to climate change, then there's something that you can point a camera at.
But at the point that there's a big forest fire flood, that's actually a bad thing.
It's too late because at that point, things have already gotten pretty bad.
You need to cover the causes and the trends and the underlying science,
but that stuff in some ways can always be pushed aside until the next week or the next month,
because there's another story like a political scandal or a court case that takes a more immediate focus.
But arguably, climate change always needs that focus on it because it's such a big story and it won't go away.
But all this relates to sort of the third element I'll mention and why it's tricky to cover climate change.
And that's the audiences you do need to cover all of the causes, the trends, the underlying science.
But it can be difficult to get audiences interested in that.
Things that they can't necessarily see and things that are very complicated, that which play out over time.
And things that are also, quite frankly, depressing and scary and difficult to understand.
So one click through line for digital news report this year is that people are tuning out to the news
more and more because of the stories that are playing out are depressing or difficult to understand.
So for newsrooms, it's tricky to get audiences interested in this topic because it is so big.
It's it's depressing, it's scary. Yeah.
So that's sort of one thing that that's absolutely the perfect sort of segue way to the next question.
So let's, let's talk about the audiences. The digital news report gauges audiences behaviour in 46 markets around the world.
What variation do we see in interest in climate change between these countries?
So we see some pretty large variations. And it's it's kind of interesting to see how they are grouped by different regions.
So if you look at interest in climate change news, it's highest in several markets in Latin America, Southern Europe and Asia.
So, for instance, in our survey, the highest levels of interest we find are in Greece and Portugal.
So countries in southern Europe as well as in Chile and the Philippines and these markets,
around half of the people say they are interested in climate change news.
But then we can contrast these with the stark differences we see in northern and western European countries and places like Norway or France.
We find pretty low levels of interest. So only a third of people in these countries say they are interested in climate change news.
And then we have the country with the lowest level of interest, which is the United States,
where only 30% of people say they're interested in climate change news.
And we'll get to the reasons behind that in a moment. Yeah.
What could explain these variations? So when I looked at the data, one of the difficult things I had to figure out was why it looked the way it did.
So as researchers, we're always looking for patterns in the data and for explanations.
So when I looked at the large variations in interest in climate change news and the groupings of countries,
I had to sit back and think why it looked the way it did.
Why were Greece and Portugal and Chile amongst those with the highest interest?
And why were Norway, France and the US grouped together down the bottom?
And I'll concede that there they're not perfect explanations.
There are some very nuanced and complicated reasons for different levels of interest in different countries.
So it might be how climate change is covered or whether it's covered at all to how much of a
political or social issue it is if it is a social or political issue in that country at all.
So, you know, for instance, if climate change is uncovered very much, people might express a bit more interest in the topic.
Whereas if they feel like it's cover too much, people might express less interest in the topic.
Or if climate change isn't a very polarised or political issue.
People might be open to hearing about the topic. Whereas if it's a public, political or very polarised topic, people might tune out to it.
Like in the United States. So these are the possibilities, and we can't necessarily point to one reason or another in certain countries,
or based on this data and this research, there'll be different reasons in each country.
But one factor I did come to and which sort of cuts across all the markets is how much each country is being affected by climate change.
So in these countries where we see higher levels of interest, we see that these countries have been impacted in recent years by pretty bad things.
There's been wildfires in Greece and Portugal and there's drought in Chile.
These aren't the only countries to experience bad things.
The US has had pretty frequent and bad forest fires in recent years and their interest in climate change seems to be low.
But my working theory is that people will express more interest and pay more attention when bad things happen.
So we're pretty visual species. We respond to stimuli, we respond to our surroundings.
So when we can see in our own countries, in our own backyards,
that bad things are happening like fires or floods or droughts, and we can link them in our minds to climate change,
then I think people express more interest and more openness to the topic because they see that climate change is real in their in their backyards.
You mention the link with climate change being a polarised or a political issue,
and one of the things you look in your chapter is how political orientation correlates with individual interest in climate change news.
What did you find? Yeah.
So this is one of the key points which actually accounts for some of the differences we see in places like the US and Australia.
So these countries have lower levels of overall interest in climate change news,
but they're also countries, as I say, which had experienced some pretty bad things in recent years.
So each year we expect to see large bad forest fires in the US and Australia.
But these countries don't fit in the pattern of my theory of people being more interested in countries where bad things happen.
And when I looked at the data, what I found was the explanation was politics, polarisation.
So in both the US and Australia, climate change is arguably quite a political and polarising topic.
And if we break down people's interest in climate change news by their political views, we can kind of see what's going on in both countries.
There is extremely low interest in the topic amongst people on the right.
So conservatives in the US, for example, are almost completely uninterested in the topic.
And then people on the left are as about interested in the topic as people elsewhere in other countries.
But it seems to be that the very low interest amongst people on the right, the Conservatives,
which is driving down the overall level of interest across the country, so their low level of interest drags down the overall average.
And if we look at political discourse in the US around climate change, for instance, we can kind of see why this might be happening.
And you see this in all the countries you look at.
Now, the interesting thing is it's not the case everywhere.
So there are some countries where there's no major left rights, political differences at all.
And this may be because climate change isn't such a political or polarising issue in these countries yet.
Or maybe the climate change isn't discussed as a major issue at all, so it hasn't had the chance to become polarised.
But now we don't always see the same kind of left right polarisation in other countries like we do in the US or Australia.
If we look at the sources of information the people pay much attention to when it comes to climate change news.
What are these sources and what do you think is the reason why people look at these specific sources?
Yeah. So beyond people's interest in the topic, we also looked at where people said they got their information or news about climate change.
We gave people a number of options to choose from.
So we got major news organisations, politicians, regular people, influencers and celebrities, documentaries and a few other options.
So we gave this list to people and asked them where they got their climate change news from, if they got climate change news at all.
And interestingly, a source which came out on top across markets and age groups was documentaries, TV and film documentaries.
And this was above major news organisations and also smaller or alternative news organisations.
Another reason why I think documentaries were above news organisations.
I think this comes back to us being a visual species again. So these documentaries aren't necessarily always about climate change.
Maybe they have an environmental message, or because they're about animals or the environment.
People take them to be like implicitly about climate change,
but they have climate change associations and I think people remember them or pay
attention to them because they have good stories and they have good visuals.
So you follow an emotional narrative and you see the animals environments and the
documentaries are memorable and engaging and impactful so people learn from them,
and next week they are also sometimes emotionally impacted by them.
So they resonate with people and people remember them.
David Attenborough is also a very popular person and people think about him when they think about climate change or environmental issues.
So the end of the day,
I think that people are more just more likely to remember and be impacted by an episode of Blue Planet or a documentary or something like that,
than they are to remember a news article that they read in the newspaper or saw online.
So those highly produced documentaries are memorable and they have resonance.
A couple of other interesting things.
I'll also note we can see in our data just the sheer number of people, particularly on the political right, who said,
I don't pay attention to any sources for climate change news, so they don't pay attention to the topic at all.
And again, this is particularly the case in the US and Australia, but not the case in places like Chile or Portugal.
And then we see the much higher levels of engagement with celebrities and influencers amongst younger people.
They're not the most popular source for information amongst younger people.
That's still documentaries and major news organisations.
But younger people are sometimes two or three times more likely to get climate change news from celebrities, influencers and activists online.
Climate change is one of those issues where the scientific consensus is so
overwhelming that some people feel journalism shouldn't engage in both sides.
What does our research say about people's attitude to impartiality around climate change news?
Yeah. So we also in our survey asked people in all our markets how they think journalists should cover climate change as a topic.
So this could be to take a clear position in favour of climate change action.
So taking a position saying we should do something or this could be a position saying we should do nothing or be against climate change action,
or this could be a position to reflect a range of views and let the public decide what to think.
So we put this to our respondents and we did find some pretty big differences across countries.
So in places like Chile or Portugal, we have like we've mentioned so far, people tend to be in favour of journalists taking a positive stance.
So they are more in favour of more okay with journalists not being impartial to advocate for changes or solutions.
And this may be because political divides around climate change are so stark in these countries as they are in the US or Australia,
or because the negative effects of climate change are being felt.
So people see the importance of taking action or taking a stance and that translates into them maybe being in favour of journalists taking a stance.
But on the other hand, in places like the US, Norway and Germany, we see people favouring impartiality.
So more people, particularly those on the right, want both sides covered.
They want to be able to make up their own minds about climate change after being given a range of views on the topic.
So part of this difference comes from the very strong views of people on the right.
Again, they are driving down some of the overall country averages and sort of levelling things out.
It's a political and politicised and polarising issue.
So people want both sides told in these countries.
And I think part of the difference might also be the expectations around impartiality, especially in places like Germany or Norway,
where they have expectations of impartiality from public broadcasters talking about these kinds of topics.
Interestingly, the political divide is sort of the same we found last year in the 2021 digital news report where people
on the right in particular wanted both sides of the story told while people on the left were mark,
with journalists taking one point of view, taking a stand on an issue.
And then last year, we also saw how views on impartiality split by age.
And we find the same thing here again. So younger people are more in favour of journalists taking a stand on climate change,
advocating for positive action, whereas older people are more in favour of the both sides or impartial reporting.
Keeping this in mind,
do you think there are any pitfalls in newsrooms taking a more active role campaigning stance when it comes to coverage from news?
I think there are benefits and pitfalls with any potential stances taken.
So on the one hand, taking a stance down the middle doing that,
both sides impartial partial reporting might risk people thinking that you're out of touch with scientific reality.
So there is a scientific consensus and coming across like you're questioning that or playing it down the middle might not sit well with some people.
On the other hand, taking a clear stance in favour of action risks alienating those people in the public who aren't quite on board with that.
So it risks putting off those older or more conservative audiences who want impartiality or not advocacy.
But this is the line I think newsrooms have to walk,
and maybe sometimes someone will say this issue is important enough that they have to take a stance and
maybe some of those in the audience will be brought along and be convinced while others might be put off.
But what I do think is important, though, at the end of the day,
is for newsrooms to really think about who they want to reach and how they want to reach them.
So older people and those on the political right are very important and very politically active parts of the population.
Their participation is arguably needed if there's to be action on climate change.
So it's a question of how to bring in that audience, not drive them away,
and also how to serve those audiences who want newsrooms to take a more active stance.
It's a difficult task, especially when the issue becomes political and polarised, but it's sort of the line you have to walk.
On this thing of becoming the issue becoming politicised.
Could this be a more of a problem in places where the issue is more polarised?
Polarised? Yeah, as I say, it's more difficult when the issue is politicised and more polarised.
It's hard, but audiences are polarised on the issue.
So in the US you've got a large contingent of people who are completely dismissive of climate change or the issues or concerns around it.
So it's maybe not top of the agenda for them, and that's also kind of viewed as a left leaning issue.
So journalists taking a clear stance will ramp up against that.
But I think if the evidence is clear and the facts around climate change point of one direction, you just sometimes you kind of have to report that.
And then maybe those audiences will eventually come around or come along with you.
But again, as I say,
I think you have to consider audiences specifically and then make sure that you're thinking about how to reach them and engage them,
even if they are tuned out to the story or they think it's a left leaning issue or whatever they think it is.
You have to think very clearly and deliberately how to reach them in engagement, and I think there are strategies to do that.
You've mentioned documentaries before and we've seen the success of television documentaries you mentioned or even the Netflix movie Don't Look Up,
which is essentially an allegory or a satire about climate change and the world.
And we've seen how these demonstrate that you can tell stories about the issues in engaging ways that appeal to a mass audience.
Do you think there's anything newsrooms can learn from the report and these examples on how to enhance the storytelling around climate change?
Yeah. John, the cap is an interesting example. So it's not a documentary, obviously.
It's a movie which is told a story about climate change around politics, around the issue in an engaging way.
So to use comedy and satire.
And I think those elements are kind of disarming and helps tell the story of how climate change is politicised and had resonance with people.
I think because it connected with something. Many people feel that we seem to be ignoring such a big, big issue, but what can we learn from it?
And I guess from the documentaries as well, I think it's about narratives and it's about emotions.
So facts and figures are very important. So they are key to the story.
But there are only so many facts and figures that people can take.
At the end of the day, sometimes we'll do tune out at some point and that's even me.
And I'm a numbers person. I do tune out at some point when there's too many facts and too many figures.
So what I think sometimes is good to hook people and what draws the men as and what makes things memorable impactful are stories.
So people need narratives. So maybe there's something to learn from documentaries or even from Don't look
at the movie that people need clear stories and narratives to grasp on to,
and then they need something that's more emotionally engaging and seems less dry.
So that's not to say that all news reports should be dramatic narratives and emotional tales.
You do need the fundamentals of the reporting. You need the hard science, you need the data, you need the facts.
But I do think there's some more room there for engaging storytelling.
Craig, thank you so much for joining on the podcast and helping understand such a complex issue.
Thanks for having me. Our guest today was Dr. Craig Robertson, postdoctoral research fellow at the Institute.
Thank you all for listening to this episode of Digital News Report 2022 Podcast Series.
You can catch up on the other episodes on Spotify or Apple Podcasts.
And if you want to read the report in full, you can find it online.
A Digital News Report about August 20, 22.
And if you don't want to miss any news from the Institute,
you can subscribe to our weekly newsletter by clicking the link on our Twitter bio or on our homepage.
This was the future of Journalism. A podcast by the Rocket Institute.
I'm forgetting a Cherubini and Rebeck's soon.