This workshop explores how journalists covering climate change need to maintain a neutral stance and avoid appearing as an advocate or campaigner.
In professional journalism, the goal is to provide evidence-based information and allow the audience to reach their own conclusions.
When covering climate change, evidence-based reporting and technical accuracy is essential. The focus is on weighing evidence, verifying claims, and using precise language.
Reporting on environmental shifts requires a high level of technical literacy. This workshop provides journalists with the tools to investigate environmental changes, evaluate conflicting claims, and present data-driven stories to their local communities.
By focusing on verifiable facts and clear definitions, reporters can avoid the pitfalls of sensationalism and bias.
This workshop is presented in two formats, both using the same source material from Media Helping Media.
The first is a two-hour workshop designed for those who are already familiar with the topic but who would like to deepen their understanding.
The second is a four-hour, half-day workshop for those who are new to the topic. Trainers are invited to select and adapt the format that best meets the needs of those they are training.
For the activity sections of the workshop trainers should source locally relevant material when examples of the topic being covered are needed. The source material for this workshop is covering climate change. We suggest trainers circulate the source to participants material BEFORE the workshop giving them enough time to read and digests the concepts discussed.
Workshop outline 1: Two-hour session
09:00 – 09:45: First session
- Aims: To examine the scientific data regarding atmospheric changes and the principles of reporting impartially and accurately.
- Presentation: Discuss the greenhouse effect as a scientific mechanism. Explain how scientists measure atmospheric composition and the data linking industrial activity to gas concentrations.
Focus on the distinction between reporting on scientific consensus and personal opinion. Introduce the concept of weight of evidence, where journalists give prominence to the most thoroughly researched and peer-reviewed data.
- Activity:
- Scenario: A regional industrial body claims their carbon output is negligible, while a university study suggests a 15% increase in local emissions.
- Participants must draft a news report that presents both viewpoints.
- The text must specify the evidence provided by each side without using loaded terms such as deniers.
- Scenario: A regional industrial body claims their carbon output is negligible, while a university study suggests a 15% increase in local emissions.
- Discussion: How do journalists maintain a neutral tone when sources provide conflicting data? What are the risks of using emotive language in scientific reporting?
09:45 – 10:00: Break
10:00 – 10:45: Second session
- Aims: To apply objective terminology and identify verifiable local angles.
- Presentation: Review the MHM climate change glossary to ensure terms are used correctly. Focus on precision over emotion. For example, instead of saying a situation is terrible, describe the measurable change (e.g., a 20% decrease in annual rainfall). Discuss the importance of attribution – always stating who is making a claim.
- Activity:
- Scenario: A local district is experiencing a prolonged drought.
- Participants must list the data points needed to verify if this is a historical anomaly (e.g., looking at meteorological records from the last 30 years).
- They must identify three information sources (a meteorologist, a local government spokesperson, and a commercial farmer).
- Scenario: A local district is experiencing a prolonged drought.
- Discussion: How can a journalist avoid campaigning while still reporting on significant environmental shifts?
10:45 – 11:00: Final discussion and assignment
- Assignment: Identify a local environmental trend. Write a 300-word report focusing solely on the available data and attributed quotes from relevant authorities.
Workshop outline 2: Four-hour session
09:00 – 10:00: First session
- Aims: Understanding the technical definitions and the history of atmospheric science.
- Presentation:
- A detailed look at the carbon cycle and how human activity (industrialisation, agriculture) is measured against natural cycles (volcanic activity, solar cycles).
- Explain mitigation (efforts to reduce emissions) and adaptation (changing infrastructure to cope with new conditions) as policy options that require critical scrutiny by the press.
- Activity:
- Scenario: The government introduces a new carbon tax on older vehicles.
- Journalists must write an explainer for the public.
- They must explain the scientific rationale given by the government and the economic arguments raised by critics of the tax.
- Scenario: The government introduces a new carbon tax on older vehicles.
- Discussion: Why is it important to understand the technical science before interviewing a politician about environmental policy?
10:00 – 10:15: Break
10:15 – 11:15: Second session
- Aims: Navigating the ethics of avoiding bias.
- Presentation: Discuss the ‘Journalistic Code of Ethics’ regarding accuracy and impartiality. Explore the danger of false equivalence (giving equal weight to a marginal theory as to a widely proven one) versus the danger of bias (ignoring valid dissenting voices).
- Activity:
- Scenario: A scientist claims that current warming is caused entirely by sunspots, contradicting the majority of peer-reviewed research.
- Participants must decide how to cover this.
- The task is to write a short piece that acknowledges the scientist’s claim but places it within the context of the wider scientific consensus, using non-judgmental language.
- Scenario: A scientist claims that current warming is caused entirely by sunspots, contradicting the majority of peer-reviewed research.
- Discussion: When does giving both sides become a disservice to the truth?
11:15 – 11:30: Break
11:30 – 12:30: Third session
- Aims: Reporting on environmental economics and local impact.
- Presentation: Focus on how environmental changes affect the local economy (e.g., insurance costs, property values, trade). This moves the story away from activism and into the realm of hard news and business reporting.
- Activity:
- Scenario: A new dam is being built. Proponents say it will provide green energy; critics say it will destroy local biodiversity.
- Participants must create an evidence table listing the claims of both sides.
- They will then draft a report that focuses on the projected economic and environmental costs/benefits.
- Scenario: A new dam is being built. Proponents say it will provide green energy; critics say it will destroy local biodiversity.
- Discussion: How can journalists ensure they aren’t being used by interest groups on either side of the climate debate?
12:30 – 13:00: Final discussion and assignment
- Assignment: Conduct a 10-minute mock interview with a climate skeptic or an environmental activist. The goal is to remain neutral and ask evidence-based questions to both.
Materials needed for the workshop
- Statistical data sets from local meteorological departments.
- The MHM climate change glossary.
- Style guides from major news agencies (e.g., Reuters or AP) regarding environmental terminology.
Assessment
- Objectivity: Did the participant avoid loaded or emotional adjectives?
- Evidence: Did the participant rely on verifiable data rather than hearsay?
- Attribution: Are all claims clearly attributed to a source?
Conclusion
Neutrality in environmental reporting is achieved through rigorous verification and the avoidance of advocacy language. By focusing on the what, where, when, why, who and how of environmental change, journalists provide a valuable service to the public.
