Study Maps the Relationship Between Cable News and Climate Change Perceptions
Surprise, surprise. CNN and MSNBC viewers tend to be more concerned about climate change while Fox News viewers tend to be more doubtful.
A new study finds that Fox News tends to feature guests who doubt the reality of climate change and stories that dismiss the need for action, while CNN and MSNBC tend to feature guests who assert the reality of climate change and the need for action. Interestingly, however, Fox tends to devote more attention to the issue than either CNN or MSNBC.
These differing perspectives are reflected in the views of their respective audiences, the study finds. After controlling for a number of other influences, including political party affiliation, CNN and MSNBC viewers tend to be more concerned about climate change while Fox News viewers tend to be more doubtful.
The study, however, also finds important differences among politically similar viewers, providing evidence that some Republicans may be open to the prospect of action on climate change.
The study “Climate on Cable: The Nature and Impact of Global Warming Coverage on Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC” was conducted by my American University colleague Lauren Feldman and collaborators Ed Maibach, Connie Roser-Renouf (George Mason University), and Anthony Leiserowitz (Yale University).
The study was published online this week at the International Journal of Press/Politics. A PDF of the study is also available at the Climate Shift Project web site where Feldman serves as a faculty fellow.
I previously discussed a conference paper version of the study in the Climate Shift report and elaborate on the study further in this post. I asked Feldman and Leiserowitz to review and comment on a final version of this post and to confirm that the post accurately reflects the study’s findings. Readers are strongly encouraged to download the full study.
EVALUATING CABLE NEWS ATTENTION AND DISCUSSION
Feldman and colleagues began their research by assessing the types of arguments about climate change typically found at MSNBC, CNN and Fox News. Across the three networks, they identified 269 primetime program-hours during 2007 and 2008 that included substantive mentions of “global warming” or “climate change,” retrieving the transcripts of these programs via Lexis-Nexis.
Using quantitative content analysis, two graduate students assessed the climate change-related arguments contained within each program transcript. Below are the classifications that the coders used to categorize the overall tone of discussion in each hour-long transcript:
The types of statements made specifically by the anchor, correspondents, and/or guests during the program hour were also recorded. For each dimension below, the coders assessed whether the statements made “no mention;” made at least one statement “affirming;” made at least one statement “rejecting;” or made statements offering “competing arguments.”
In addition, each guest was rated as being a “climate change doubter;” a “climate change believer;” or “indeterminate.” This allowed for the construction of variables that characterized each hour-long program as featuring “more doubters than believers,” “more believers than doubters,” or an “equal number of believers and doubters.”
For the combined years 2007 and 2008, Feldman and colleagues found that Fox News featured the most stories about climate change. Among the 269 program hours identified, 182 or 68% were at Fox, 66 program hours or 22% were at CNN, and 21 hours or 8% were at MSNBC.
Approximately 75% of the program-hours at the three cable networks occurred in 2007. As the authors note, this attention was likely driven by key focusing events that year including the release of the IPCC report and the sharing of the Nobel Peace Prize by IPCC scientists and Al Gore.
Attention across the networks sharply declined in 2008, in part due to the heavy election coverage at the networks and the limited attention paid to the issue by the major presidential candidates.
As Figure 1 and Figure 5 from the study below indicate, more than 70% of the programs at CNN and MSNBC conveyed that climate change was real and required significant action. Similarly, 80% or more of the programs at the two networks featured more believers than doubters of global warming.
In contrast, at Fox News nearly 60% of programs were dismissive of climate change and the network was far more likely than CNN and MSNBC to feature doubters as guests. [See the PDF of the study for findings on the other measures analyzed.]
The findings for MSNBC and CNN are in line with a past study by Max Boykoff that found that as of 2006, the national trend-setting U.S. newspapers overwhelmingly reflected the consensus scientific view on climate change, a shift from a previous “false balance” approach to coverage. In the Climate Shift report, I used a similar method of analysis as Boykoff, analyzing coverage in 2008 and 2009 at the Washington Post, the New York Times, and CNN.com, finding that 9 out of 10 articles reflected expert agreement on the reality and causes of climate change.
Additionally, Feldman’s findings specific to Fox News are consistent with another study discussed in the Climate Shift report. Analyzing coverage appearing between 1997 and 2007, Australian communication researcher David McKnight tracked the unique tendency by News Corporation-owned newspapers and TV outlets in the UK, Australia and the US to emphasize the uncertainty of climate change in their editorials and commentary.
News Corp outlets such as Fox News, according to McKnight’s study, tended to depict scientific consensus views on climate science as colored by political correctness and a matter of orthodoxy. In contrast, contrarians were typically depicted as courageous dissenters.
Feldman and McKnight’s conclusions are also reflected in the analysis from the Climate Shift report specific to the News Corp-owned Wall Street Journal opinion page. In contrast to the news reporting at the paper which featured consensus views in approximately 8 out 10 articles, the opinion-page tended to be strongly dismissive of the reality and human causes of climate change.
Finally, the findings from a past conference paper by our American University colleague Sol Hart are also consistent with the Feldman et al. analysis of cable news network differences. In this paper using similar measures, Hart analyzed discussion at Fox News and CNN between 1998 and 2004, and found that Fox programs tended to feature a stronger emphasis on scientific uncertainty, Fox anchors were more likely to express doubt than CNN anchors, and that Fox interviewed a greater proportion of dismissive guests.
THE PERSUASIVE AND REINFORCING EFFECTS OF CABLE NEWS VIEWING
As Feldman and colleagues discuss, past research assessing the persuasive effects of news has tended to focus on the role of one-sided messages or coverage. In this research, political campaigns are believed to be persuasive when audiences tend to hear from one candidate but not the other or when a news medium tends to feature one partisan message more strongly over another.
As their content analysis indicates, at CNN/MSNBC there is a strong one-sided outlook offered on climate change that is consistent with expert agreement but that also reflects the position of most Democratic elites. At Fox News, there is a similarly one-sided outlook that dismisses the problem, tends to reject expert views, and reflects the position of most Republican elites.
Given the presence of one-sided messages at these cable networks, past research would suggest that heavier viewing of CNN/MSNBC would be correlated with stronger belief in and concern over climate change. Similarly, heavier viewing of Fox would be correlated with more doubt and dismissiveness.
Yet as Feldman and colleagues also review, past research additionally suggests that the persuasive influence of news can vary by partisanship and ideology. This “biased processing” of information takes place through two related routes.
Partisans tend to choose media that reflect their existing beliefs and attitudes and the choice to consume like-minded media reinforces and potentially increases the strength of these views.
Moreover, when consuming news that offers a counter-attitudinal view, strong partisans will engage in “motivated reasoning,” processing information in a way that defends or reinforces their pre-existing beliefs. The reason is that strong partisans tend to actively argue against information that counters their beliefs and to readily accept information that confirms their beliefs.
The findings on the one-sided nature of coverage at the cable news networks and the past work on the persuasive and reinforcing potential of cable news viewing led Feldman and colleagues to examine two related possibilities in their study.
To the extent that there is cross-viewing of networks, both Democrats and Republicans would be more resistant to the effects of the counter-attitudinal messages emphasized at either MSNBC/CNN and Fox respectively.
TESTING THEIR ASSUMPTIONS
Feldman and her colleagues analyzed cross-sectional, nationally representative survey data collected in October and November 2008 (see study for more details).
The survey featured 2,164 respondents and the range of survey questions allowed them to control for major demographic variables as well as many possible confounds including other forms of media use than cable news; global warming information seeking; and value constructs related to ideology and partisanship such as materialism, environmentalism, religion, egalitarianism, individualism, and approval of modern science.
Their dependent variable estimating belief in and concern over climate change consisted of a combined index of 5 questions that measured:
*In the survey, climate change is referenced as “global warming.”
Their main independent variable of cable news viewing was measured using standard items asking respondents to rate on a scale from “never” to “often” how frequently they watched CNN, MSNBC and Fox News. Because watching CNN and MSNBC were highly correlated and given the similarity in the content of their coverage, for purposes of analysis these two measures were combined into a single measure of MSNBC/CNN viewing.
Partisanship – the key variable that might moderate the influence of cable news – was measured by asking people to self-identify as Democrat, Republican, Independent, other, or no affiliation.
Feldman and colleagues found that after controlling for a diversity of confounding factors, cable news viewing is significantly related to perceptions and the relationship is in the direction expected by way of the one-sided messages featured at the cable networks. [See Table 2 of PDF for full model.]
Specifically, heavier viewing of CNN/MSNBC was significantly correlated with greater levels of concern and belief in climate change while heavier viewing of Fox News was significantly related to more doubts.
Next, they added to their regression model interaction terms, a statistical procedure which allowed them to estimate how the influence of cable news varies by partisanship. In this case, both the interactions between Fox News viewing and partisanship and MSNBC/CNN viewing and partisanship were significant. Yet the precise nature of the interactions was somewhat unexpected.
As depicted in the figure below from the study, Republicans who are heavier viewers of Fox News are more doubtful of climate change than their lighter viewing counter-parts. This finding is consistent with past theorizing that Fox reinforces and strengthens the views of Republicans who are predisposed to be more dismissive of the issue.
Similarly, Democrats who watch Fox News appear to be somewhat resistant to the typically one-sided messages found at the cable network, processing the counter-attitudinal arguments in a way that defends their pre-existing beliefs and opinions on climate change.
Yet notice the relationship in the figure for CNN/MSNBC viewing. Heavier viewing Republicans have higher levels of belief and concern than their lighter viewing counterparts. Think of the relative differences plotted in the figure for CNN/MSNBC viewing as what communication researcher Douglas Hindman calls “belief gaps.” Rather than rejecting the one-sided arguments in line with scientific consensus found at MSNBC/CNN, these two channels appear to have direct persuasive effects on their heavier Republican viewers, closing the partisan gap in beliefs displayed at the left side of the figure.
DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
Feldman and colleagues are careful to emphasize the limitations of their study. Since the analysis is based on cross-sectional data they are not able to demonstrate causality in the observed relationships. Moreover, as they explain in detail, they are not able to completely rule out that Republicans who frequently watch MSNBC/CNN may be less ideologically conservative than their heavy Fox News counterparts and this in part may relate to their results [see Table 3 and pages 18-20].
In addition, they reason that one possibility for the persuasive influence of MSNBC/CNN among Republicans is that on climate change they simply may have less background knowledge and solidified views than Democrats and are therefore limited in their ability to counter-argue against attitudinally inconsistent information. Moreover, they suggest based on past research that Republicans may have a greater tendency towards a “need for closure.” They tend to be less comfortable with ambivalence, and as a result may be more susceptible to persuasion when encountering strong messages on an issue.
Based on the findings relative to the influence of CNN/MSNBC viewing, a key implication they emphasize is that it may be possible to engage Republicans on the issue of climate change with effective messages in support for action. How these arguments are framed will add meaningfully to their success, the subject of research that I am currently working on with Maibach, Leiserowitz, and others. In this research, it is also important to understand how message strategies can boomerang or backfire.
Yet there is another possibility not raised by Feldman and her colleagues that I think merits consideration. The survey was taken in October and November 2008 during a presidential election campaign when Democrats were far more enthusiastic and engaged than Republicans. This context-dependent difference may relate to the results showing Democrats as better able to counter-argue against counter-attitudinal information found at Fox News.
It is also important to understand where Fox News might fit among the range of factors shaping wider public ambivalence about climate change. In this case, as I reviewed in the Climate Shift report and a recent chapter in the Oxford Handbook of Climate Change & Society, factors related to the performance of the economy; the left-right swings in political mood of the country; the visibility of Gore as chief messenger on climate science and policy; the policy dependent nature of perceptions; and the tendency to define climate change exclusively in terms of science or environmental impacts; are all major influences on perceptions that may also link to the influence of Fox News.
Feldman and her colleagues are currently engaged in further investigation of cable news influences using panel data collected during a non-election period, research which is likely to improve our understanding of these processes and have further implications for effective public engagement.
Lauren Feldman, Edward W. Maibach, Connie Roser-Renouf, & Anthony Leiserowitz (2011). Climate on Cable: The Nature and Impact of Global Warming Coverage on Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC. International Journal of Press/Politics DOI: 0.1177/1940161211425410 [PDF]
This study examines climate change coverage on the three major cable news channels and assesses the relationship between viewership of these channels and beliefs about global warming. Evidence from a content analysis of climate change coverage on Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC during 2007 and 2008 demonstrates that Fox takes a more dismissive tone toward climate change than CNN and MSNBC. Fox also interviews a greater ratio of climate change doubters to believers. An analysis of 2008 survey data from a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults finds a negative association between Fox News viewership and acceptance of global warming, even after controlling for numerous potential confounding factors. Conversely, viewing CNN and MSNBC is associated with greater acceptance of global warming. Further analyses reveal that the relationship between cable news viewership (both Fox and CNN/MSNBC) and global warming acceptance is stronger among Republicans than among Democrats. That is, the views of Republicans are strongly linked with the news outlet they watch, regardless of how well that outlet aligns with their political predispositions. In contrast, Democrats don’t vary much in their beliefs as a function of cable news use. This asymmetry suggests that some Republicans, who as a group tend to be predisposed toward global warming skepticism, are less skeptical when exposed to information on the reality and urgency of climate change.
Upvote/downvote each of the videos below!
As you vote, keep in mind that we are looking for a winner with the most engaging social venture pitch - an idea you would want to invest in.
Having these financial life skills can help you navigate challenging economic environments.
- Americans are swimming in increasingly higher amounts of debt, even the upper middle class.
- For many, this burden can be alleviated by becoming familiar with some straightforward financial concepts.
- Here's some essential financial life skills needed to ensure your economic wellbeing.
When it comes to flirting, love meters have nothing on these researchers' findings.
- Flirting is an important part of life. It can be a fun, adventurous way to meet others and develop intimate relationships.
- Many people find flirting to be an anxiety-ridden experience, but science can help us discover principles to be more relaxed while flirting.
- Smiling and eye contact are proven winners, while pick-up lines are a flirty fallacy.
Experts argue the jaws of an ancient European ape reveal a key human ancestor.
- The jaw bones of an 8-million-year-old ape were discovered at Nikiti, Greece, in the '90s.
- Researchers speculate it could be a previously unknown species and one of humanity's earliest evolutionary ancestors.
- These fossils may change how we view the evolution of our species.
Homo sapiens have been on earth for 200,000 years — give or take a few ten-thousand-year stretches. Much of that time is shrouded in the fog of prehistory. What we do know has been pieced together by deciphering the fossil record through the principles of evolutionary theory. Yet new discoveries contain the potential to refashion that knowledge and lead scientists to new, previously unconsidered conclusions.
A set of 8-million-year-old teeth may have done just that. Researchers recently inspected the upper and lower jaw of an ancient European ape. Their conclusions suggest that humanity's forebearers may have arisen in Europe before migrating to Africa, potentially upending a scientific consensus that has stood since Darwin's day.
Rethinking humanity's origin story
The frontispiece of Thomas Huxley's Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature (1863) sketched by natural history artist Benjamin Waterhouse Hawkins. (Photo: Wikimedia Commons)
As reported in New Scientist, the 8- to 9-million-year-old hominin jaw bones were found at Nikiti, northern Greece, in the '90s. Scientists originally pegged the chompers as belonging to a member of Ouranopithecus, an genus of extinct Eurasian ape.
David Begun, an anthropologist at the University of Toronto, and his team recently reexamined the jaw bones. They argue that the original identification was incorrect. Based on the fossil's hominin-like canines and premolar roots, they identify that the ape belongs to a previously unknown proto-hominin.
The researchers hypothesize that these proto-hominins were the evolutionary ancestors of another European great ape Graecopithecus, which the same team tentatively identified as an early hominin in 2017. Graecopithecus lived in south-east Europe 7.2 million years ago. If the premise is correct, these hominins would have migrated to Africa 7 million years ago, after undergoing much of their evolutionary development in Europe.
Begun points out that south-east Europe was once occupied by the ancestors of animals like the giraffe and rhino, too. "It's widely agreed that this was the found fauna of most of what we see in Africa today," he told New Scientists. "If the antelopes and giraffes could get into Africa 7 million years ago, why not the apes?"
He recently outlined this idea at a conference of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists.
It's worth noting that Begun has made similar hypotheses before. Writing for the Journal of Human Evolution in 2002, Begun and Elmar Heizmann of the Natural history Museum of Stuttgart discussed a great ape fossil found in Germany that they argued could be the ancestor (broadly speaking) of all living great apes and humans.
"Found in Germany 20 years ago, this specimen is about 16.5 million years old, some 1.5 million years older than similar species from East Africa," Begun said in a statement then. "It suggests that the great ape and human lineage first appeared in Eurasia and not Africa."
Migrating out of Africa
In the Descent of Man, Charles Darwin proposed that hominins descended out of Africa. Considering the relatively few fossils available at the time, it is a testament to Darwin's astuteness that his hypothesis remains the leading theory.
Since Darwin's time, we have unearthed many more fossils and discovered new evidence in genetics. As such, our African-origin story has undergone many updates and revisions since 1871. Today, it has splintered into two theories: the "out of Africa" theory and the "multi-regional" theory.
The out of Africa theory suggests that the cradle of all humanity was Africa. Homo sapiens evolved exclusively and recently on that continent. At some point in prehistory, our ancestors migrated from Africa to Eurasia and replaced other subspecies of the genus Homo, such as Neanderthals. This is the dominant theory among scientists, and current evidence seems to support it best — though, say that in some circles and be prepared for a late-night debate that goes well past last call.
The multi-regional theory suggests that humans evolved in parallel across various regions. According to this model, the hominins Homo erectus left Africa to settle across Eurasia and (maybe) Australia. These disparate populations eventually evolved into modern humans thanks to a helping dollop of gene flow.
Of course, there are the broad strokes of very nuanced models, and we're leaving a lot of discussion out. There is, for example, a debate as to whether African Homo erectus fossils should be considered alongside Asian ones or should be labeled as a different subspecies, Homo ergaster.
Proponents of the out-of-Africa model aren't sure whether non-African humans descended from a single migration out of Africa or at least two major waves of migration followed by a lot of interbreeding.
Did we head east or south of Eden?
Not all anthropologists agree with Begun and his team's conclusions. As noted by New Scientist, it is possible that the Nikiti ape is not related to hominins at all. It may have evolved similar features independently, developing teeth to eat similar foods or chew in a similar manner as early hominins.
Ultimately, Nikiti ape alone doesn't offer enough evidence to upend the out of Africa model, which is supported by a more robust fossil record and DNA evidence. But additional evidence may be uncovered to lend further credence to Begun's hypothesis or lead us to yet unconsidered ideas about humanity's evolution.
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.