SHOCKER: Fox News Misleads Audience on Climate Change

UCS staff scientist Brenda Ekwurzel takes a red pen to misleading statements in a recent Wall Street Journal editorial. Tim McDonnell/Mother Jones

For indispensable reporting on the coronavirus crisis, the election, and more, subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter.

Brace yourself for some shocking news: a new study on Friday found that the two major publications of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation greatly mislead their audiences about climate change. The Union of Concerned Scientists combed six months of Fox News broadcasting and a year’s worth of Wall Street Journal editorial pages for mentions of the science of “climate change” and “global warming,” then compared each claim to “mainstream scientific understanding” of the topic at hand. Here’s what they found:

Data from Union of Concerned ScientistsData from Union of Concerned Scientists

“Everywhere I go, what I hear quoted back to me as scientific fact is often wrong,” said Brenda Ekwurzel, a UCS staff scientist who presented the study to an audience gathered to discuss the state of climate communication with TIME environment editor Bryan Walsh and Harvard oceanographer James McCarthy. “That, to me, is so discouraging.”

What’s especially creepy about the study is how low the bar is for what constitutes “accurate.” From the study:

Citations deemed to be misleading questioned either the reality of climate change or the fact that recent climate change is largely due human activities, or they advanced other arguments that dismissed established climate science.

In other words, this is quantitative proof that the climate change debate in America is still mired in bickering over whether the problem even exists or not. Here’s the breakdown on the shapes misleading statements took between the two outlets, which together reach an audience of nearly four million: UCSUCS

UCSUCS After releasing the study, Ekwurzel led a group from the New York Public Library science branch to Bryant Park, to stage a mark-up of all the errors in a recent Wall Street Journal editorial, which was roundly rebuffed by the very scientists it quoted. News Corporation has a history of blantantly misrepresenting science, of course. But since, as McCarthy reminded the crowd, “most of the public doesn’t have the opportunity to have a conversation with a scientist on climate change,” findings like these go a long way toward explaining why many elected officials are completely intransigent on climate action.

More MotherJones reporting on Climate Desk

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest