Stephen Schneider, a professor of Biological Sciences at Stanford University, speaks with New York Times Science Editor Andrew Revkin during a Web video conference Wednesday at the 19th Annual Steamboat Weather Summit held at the Steamboat Grand Resort Hotel. Revkin was the speaker for a session titled "How the Media Covers the Climate Change Issue."

Photo by Matt Stensland

Stephen Schneider, a professor of Biological Sciences at Stanford University, speaks with New York Times Science Editor Andrew Revkin during a Web video conference Wednesday at the 19th Annual Steamboat Weather Summit held at the Steamboat Grand Resort Hotel. Revkin was the speaker for a session titled "How the Media Covers the Climate Change Issue."

Global warming happens today

Advertisement

Video

Weather Summit

This week Steamboat Ski and Resort Corp is hosting its 19th annual Weather Summit.

This week Steamboat Ski and Resort Corp is hosting its 19th annual Weather Summit.

— That's the headline New York Times Science Editor Andrew Revkin says you will never see in his newspaper.

If it were that simple for the media to report on global warming and climate change, Revkin likely would not have been invited to speak to a group of television meteorologists at the Steamboat Grand Resort Hotel on Wednesday.

More than 30 people are attending the 19th annual Weather Summit, hosted this week by Steamboat Ski and Resort Corp. The conference attracts meteorologists working for some of the largest TV markets in the country, including The Weather Channel and CNN. A variety of scientists, researchers and other experts present information during the morning sessions, while in the afternoons, conference attendees produce pieces for their home stations. With a Steamboat Springs backdrop, the segments are either beamed back to the stations to be played later, or a satellite truck enables live broadcasts.

The subject of global warming is coming up frequently in those broadcasts, because the schedule for this year's Weather Summit is packed with discussions about climate change.

"It's more the focus this year than it's ever been before," said Glen Gerberg, a program coordinator for the Weather Summit. "It's about helping these people to understand the best way to communicate climate change."

Revkin, who has been reporting on the environment for The Times since 1995, was unable to attend the conference in person, so he spoke with attendees using Web video conferencing. His session was titled "How the Media Covers the Climate Change Issue."

In some ways, Revkin said, it is unreasonable to think that media outlets alone should have to shoulder the responsibility of keeping people informed about climate change issues, because of challenges such as a lack of on-the-spot timeliness. In journalism lingo, the stories lack a "news hook."

"You'll never see a day when you pick up the New York Times and the headline says 'Global warming happens today,'" Revkin said. "Climate change rarely has a news hook."

Small space, big story

Another hurdle for print and broadcast media is the limited amount of column space or broadcasting minutes to explain the basics of climate change, Revkin said.

"You have this issue of starting from bedrock for every story," he said. "To write an effective story, you need a lot of room."

Revkin said the media is getting a lot of the blame for "failing to move this (global warming) story forward."

Revkin himself receives the criticism despite writing 400 stories related to global warming since 2000. He said maybe the stories just are not getting the prominent placement that some people think they deserve.

"I really can't blame my editors for doing their jobs," Revkin said.

CNN meteorologist Rob Marciano cited another challenge that journalists face when tackling complex issues such as global warming. Present a fact that goes against one of the popular environmental movements, and Marciano said the backlash can be extreme.

"You get crucified as something political that you may not be," he said. "Controversy is good, but you put your career at risk. That's the struggle that we have."

- To reach Matt Stensland, call 871-4247

or e-mail mstensland@steamboatpilot.com

Comments

thecondoguy1 6 years, 8 months ago

"global warming a non-news event", no kidding the earth has been warming for millions of years, any kid with a high school education knows that, "career at risk", more the issue for the people who profit by the science and pontificating, then idiots exploiting the obvious for personal recognition, al gore, solution, everybody stop breathing for one hour a day, that will help.................

0

Slapper 6 years, 8 months ago

i am one who feels global warming is real a view shared by any credible scientist. I found this interesting take on why efforts should be taken right now. 9min long but goes quickly.

http://oakcreekforum.blogspot.com/2008/01/bit-different-perspective-on-why.html

0

steamboatsconscience 6 years, 8 months ago

hey sbore why are you here bs ing when as the preeminent, all knowing and invincible climatologist of Steamboat Springs you should be telling all these lesser experts everything you know? oh yeah, YOU WEREN'T INVITED! why dont you just go anyway I'm sure with your wit, charm and vast knowledge of regurgitating other people's information you can get them all to bow down to your views don't forget to bring your unabriged version of Wikipedia.

0

thecondoguy1 6 years, 8 months ago

sbvor, wow, you are older than I thought, yes the planet is 4.5 billion years old and began as a massive molten ball of fire, so you are correct it has been in a cooling trend. and thank you for the comprehensive referrances and links, including the Wikipedia, (though probably not the most objective, but none the less valid in the mix of information). not everybody wants to be enlightened, who would al gore have to impress with his farming operation utilizing a low emission yak, while flitting around in a old jet blowing soot by the ton? lol at all you do.............., keep up the good work.

0

Slapper 6 years, 8 months ago

I quit reading anything you post some time ago sbvor. It's gotten to the point I will not even twist your posting name.

The fact this issue is not discussed is disturbing. The question needs to be asked of all the candidates where they stand on reality and if they are willing to put reality first in making decisions.

Study: Of Over 2,000 Sunday Talk Show Questions to Candidates, Only Three on Global Warming. Democracy Now addresses this issue in this short piece. http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/10/study_of_over_2_000_sunday

0

bluntman 6 years, 8 months ago

QUOTE:

So-called "Liberalism", like all other forms of totalitarianism, can ONLY survive in an ABSOLUTE intellectual vacuum.

i always wondered as to why capitalism could possibly have survived for as long as it has. now i know, thanks for the enlightenment.

0

thecondoguy1 6 years, 8 months ago

slapper ok, ok, the video was very cute, the guy needs to cut back on the Monster energy drinks, it states right on the can, no more than 3 per day. we all have to do are part, and be responsible no doubt, but you said it goes by quickly, well it doesn't go by quickly, it goes by in nine minutes, nine minutes is nine minutes, part of the problem is the al gore idiots confuse nine minutes quickly, with 4.5 billion years quickly, that's BILLION, no doubt where there is smoke there is fire, but is't a awful big ocean to stir with a spoon. we will adapt or go extinct, that's life,,,,,,, but I don't think I will buy a Hummer anytime soon.....

0

twostroketerror 6 years, 8 months ago

So our children may only know -33.5 instead of -35 up here on the pass? Oh the horror.... You think thats bad, wait 'til the magnetic poles flip, that'll some chaos worth watching. What do the candidates plan to do about it? It may be the deciding factor of my vote.

0

steamboatsconscience 6 years, 8 months ago

twostroke The poles will be flipping on Dec 21, 2012, so that will be after the next election, not this one, so they wont have to think about it . sbore So-called "Liberalism", like all other forms of totalitarianism, can ONLY survive in an ABSOLUTE intellectual vacuum. ok from your beloved wiki totalitarianism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalita... Totalitarianism is state regulation of nearly every aspect of public and private behavior. Totalitarian regimes or movements maintain themselves in political power by means of secret police, propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, personality cults, regulation and restriction of free discussion and criticism, single-party states, the use of mass surveillance, and widespread use of terror tactics.

liberalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism Liberalism refers to a broad array of related ideas and theories of government that consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal. Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. Different forms of liberalism may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for a number of principles, including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy, and a transparent system of government. kind of opposite views dont ya think? you are the one who is in an intellectual vacuum. a legend in your own mind. would love to see the look on your face when them poles switch! ROTFLMAO!

0

steamboatsconscience 6 years, 8 months ago

Jonah Goldberg, another legend in his own mind, the one who coined the phrase. one neocons opinion.

was reading this review of Jonah Goldberg's upcoming tome, Liberal Fascists. Its very complementary. I haven't read the book - I don't think its come out yet, and its not like anyone has sent me a complementary copy.

So I'll rely on reviews. And a complementary review - one that gets mentioned as such by Goldberg himself, is presumably a fair place to start.

What Goldberg is arguing is evident from the title of his book - the true fascists are liberals. But he goes further than that... the Nazi is short for National Socialist, and Benito Mussolini considered himself a socialist. (As an aside... the folks who buy into this argument have a conniption when its pointed out that Hitler considered himself a Christian rather than the atheist they make him out to be.) And of course, here in the US, FDR is the obvious example of liberal fascism.

But that then raises the obvious issue... if everyone from Stalin to Mussolini was a fascist, who exactly wasn't? The monarchists, who felt the state, through the king and nobility should call all the shots? How very unfascist. Perhaps the industrialists and captains of industry - but didn't Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy, to name the two most prominent examples of fascism (even by Goldberg's argument, presumably) have a "big corporations working with the state" type policy? What European movements of the 1920s to the 1940s, to name a prominent period, can't be "shown" to be fascist by Goldberg's definition?

But maybe its just Europe. Buncha damn foreigners anyway. Here in the US, no doubt, we have some good Americans. Not fascists. Now, since FDR is a big fascist, clearly we're talking people who opposed FDR. Could it be Hoover - who "repatriated" (i.e., expelled) American citizens of Mexican descent? (Doesn't that sound suspiciously like the Volk thing the Nazis were spewing, coupled with Mussolini's profound nationalism?) The America First people who opposed war with Germany and saw it as Jewish plot?

0

steamboatsconscience 6 years, 8 months ago

So to repeat... is there any movement of any size in Europe or the US in the 1920s to 1940s, on the left or the right, that cannot be described as fascist using Goldberg's definition? The best I could come up with: some of the libertarians, most of the anarchists, and a good percent of the residents of mental institutions. My bet is that if I think long enough, I could come up with reasons why, under Goldbergian logic, they'd be considered fascist too...

And perhaps that's the point.... the reviews ends with this, which Goldberg highlights when linking to it:

"We are all fascists now," he concludes. Disagree if you must, but go out and read this brilliant, insightful, and important book.

When a term applies to everything, it means nothing. And Goldberg's goal, apparently, is to make the term fascism become meaningless. And why not? After all, the movement he is a part of has already pulled that stunt off with the term "Fiscal Responsibility."

0

steamboatsconscience 6 years, 8 months ago

sbore you are the on who originally went off topic with your post time stamped January 10, 2008 at 4:55 pm dont really care, you will just cut and paste your standard bs over and over and over and.........................

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.