For the last session, the central topic of debates was “Does journalism adequately represent the uncertainties with regards to the 2-degree limit?” where five groups of participants approached to realize the role of journalists in communication climate change and related uncertainties.
The group of media critiques, naturally, had some reasonable statements regarding the way journalists provide coverage of the issue of 2 degrees target and possible uncertainties related to it. Our position was oriented on the fact that usually journalists, who spotlight the issue, are not fully familiar with scientific specifics and do not deeply see the nature of climate change, its consequences, deep reasons for 2 degrees target, its relevance and possible uncertainties for the definition and realization. Hence, publicists interpret and present information about possible political measures aimed at the control of air pollutions, changes in land use and other essential changes in subjective way through a prism of their own beliefs , attitudes and ideas. Needless to say, that scientific background of 2 degrees target , the reasons led to it, are represented in the compact way not attracting readers attention. The reason of it is that journalism aspires to create platform for debates, conflict in publications, but there is mostly no place for science there. It leads to poor information that can reach audience.
We analyzed a few articles from the famous publishers in Germany as an example of popular source of facts and details for society in the country and found out the gross mistakes in the publications about climate change such as generalization of the facts, simplifying the information and manipulation of readers’ beliefs due to attached facts.
The Important standpoint was that subjective views of the journalists who exactly write articles about the issue of 2 degrees target can confuse and manipulate followers. And finally, articles published in non popular-science media make science more certain and not discussing possible uncertainties. We all have the rights for a full and clear information and it is especially essential in the time when humanity is developing policies for mitigation and adaptation for the rapidly changing natural conditions.
During the discussion, though, there were expressed and discussed rational ideas about better communication between journalists and scientists. There was an ambitious and promising idea offered to make councils of experts checking the new articles revising them.
At the end of this challenging and obviously necessary discussion, all groups and experts came to the conclusion that it is important to connect professionals from science, politics and media for better communication of 2 degrees target and it is necessary to include uncertainties into the discussion as well to make more precise decisions for new policies and give a society maximally trustable information.
Media critiques
