How often have we read “the Main Stream Media don’t ever report climate”? Written by citizens, on the Citizen News Media (CNM) bemoaning the lack of coverage on the MSM. Are we bloggers, this new CNM part of new “supermarkets” of news which are killing off the old “high-street” retailers in the MSM?I was speaking to a journalist last week exploring ways to bring climate into their newspaper, but instead we ended up lamenting the decline of the press and how they no longer have much staff to cover any serious news. They don’t even have a science correspondent any longer let alone anyone to cover minority subjects like climate. So, its now all news by press release – and unless you are a reputable organisation whose press releases don’t need any checking you won’t get coverage. It is not just climate, it is almost any science subject: there is almost no point sending them material.
I love reading about science, so I was pretty horrified that newspapers no longer have much in the way of coverage – not that I would know – as I hardly read a newspaper these days. So, I went to look at the paper on line, and true enough, it had almost nothing about science – unless you count some journalist talking about their latest gadget “uBend” or whatever.
So, I starting thinking of ways to bring back more science into the paper – perhaps I could offer to do some part-time work (it need not be climate – I’m clued up enough on most science to know what’s interesting and worth printing).
However … as I looked through the paper, I realised that nothing was interesting me. It wasn’t just science, it was a whole range of subjects that seemed to be getting no coverage, leaving little but idle chit chat about local issues, celebrities, and things that I felt were pretty dull and boring. I was left with almost no articles to read. No wonder I didn’t buy a newspaper!
But then it slowly dawned on me, that if all the material in the newspaper was gossip, local news and basically all the tittle tattle of who knows who and who knows what locally, that must be what their readers want. Or at least the ones (unlike me) who buy the newspapers.
And what were the subjects missing?
Science, climate, indeed all the “universal” areas of knowledge. I’m sure they used to be there. Indeed some of the very big papers still do cover these in some detail. But the smaller regional papers, have almost completely deserted these “universal” & specialist subjects.
And where do I go to read this material now? To the internet and free to view sites like WattsUpWithThat. I don’t need to buy a newspaper to get my fill of science – so I don’t buy newspapers – and so they don’t cater for people like me.
So, ironically, I think one of the main reasons that the mainstream media are having less and less serious comment on climate, science, etc., is because citizen scientists like us have stolen their thunder.
It’s just simple maths. If perhaps 1 in a 10 million people have the inclination to research and create articles on a subject for free, that is 6 in the whole UK which makes a reasonable selection of opinion. But if the same percentage were inclined to comment on issues there is only a 10% chance of there being someone in Glasgow to blog. There are just too many people willing to blog for free on “universal” subjects like science, climate, environment, religion. So, newspaper are being pushed into the less “bloggable” areas like local material and idle gossip about local “bigwigs”.
And this shows up in the Alexa stats. After talking to the journalist about their blogs, I wondered how a blog like Bishop Hill would compare. It turns out that according to the Alexa stats, Bishop hill run by Andrew Montford on a part time basis (he is a writer!) is more popular the Dundee Courier and Press and Journal both with numerous full time staff serving populations of about 200,000 people.
| Site | UK Position |
| Bishop Hill (climate blogger from fife) | 5,100 |
| Scotsman.com | 809 |
| heraldscotland.com | 2,130 |
| thecourier.co.uk | 7,304 |
| Glasgow Council (glasgow.gov.uk) | 16,256 |
| Scottish.parliament.uk | 21,880 |
Note: I now see that pressandjournal.co.uk figure is wrong. Alexa doesn’t give separate figure for this website.
The only Scottish newspaper to beat this part time climate blogger are the Herald and Scotsman and he is far more popular than both the Glasgow Council or Scottish Parliament.
This just shows that a single blogger, when they appeal to a universal and so global audience can compete with even some of the best funded media outlets.
Indeed, it can only get worse. Because whilst today it is citizen scientists “releasing” news to the world through citizen-science blogs. It is only a matter of time before traditional “science”, particularly in niche areas like climate, begin to realise that they will get far more PR by releasing material to citizen science blogs on the new CNM than it could ever hope to get from the science-deserted MSM.
I can see some “citizen-science” blogs, becoming more and more “mainstream” and much “mainstream” science output becoming more and more tailored to the new Citizen News Media.
The death of the traditional news
Whilst it is obvious that few journalists will have the necessary interest and knowledge to write with any joy about hard edge science full of equations, graphs and technical detail, it seems unlikely that these arts-graduate trained wordsmiths could ever lose their grip over their current mainstay of “who you know” not “what you know”: celebrity gossip, political intrique and general “arty-farty” tittle tattle.
… or will they?
When there is a story about an injunction to stop gossip about someone – what is the first thing we all do? Google it! And where do we find the news? On the social media! There’s always someone who has something to say about this or that celeb. Are the traditional media really any more secure in the “who you know” type of news than they were in the “what you know” type? There are just too many people who “know” this or that person. It is just too easy for them to publish through twitter, facebook etc. It is painfully obvious watching my own children that it will just get worse as all their news now seems to come from Youtube, Facebook, and similar social websites largely from amateur produced material.
So what is the “unique selling point” of the newspapers?
Almost the entire basis of traditional newspapers has been eroded by the internet. In some areas like climate, many traditional newspapers have given up entirely on investigative reporting as it is now far better covered by the “CNM” . Already many politicians find it much better getting publicity bypassing the MSM and going direct to the CNM. Institutions like government, civil servants, university, industry are always much slower to respond to such social changes, but in time, they too will realise that they can’t ignore the CNM and this will inevitably undermine the MSM even further.
So what now is the reason for the MSM? To put it bluntly, why would an advertiser pay for a journalist to write a story when they can find some citizen on the CNM writing one for free? Here’s a few ideasL
- Print media? – for all the benefit of the internet – many still prefer print media. However this is a fast declining market as mobile devices move in, and it is likely to be the mobile uses who are the biggest target for advertisers – not least as adverts can be tailored to individuals.
- TV – PCs are now increasingly being used as TVs and many TVs are now internet enabled. TV no longer has a monopoly and is fast becoming part of the internet.
- Trust & reputation? – bloggers may be able to get the news quicker – but can we trust them?
- Localism? – The internet can be just as local.
- Experience – a depreciating asset.
- Generalism – translating specialist subjects for general consumption.
It’s worse than I thought
I started writing this article, when I realised that the growth in citizen science was the reason for the lack of science coverage (not just climate) in the MSM. I realised that science was an obvious blind spot for the newspapers, but there was no reason other areas would not also decline over time and CNM grew and took over. So, the premise of the article was “citizen science is only the first (least journalist friendly area) and so is a prelude to a wider decline”.
However, I assumed newspapers would have something unique about them that would inevitably keep them alive. But when I look into it, the answer is no! Their biggest assets are public trust and experience. We citizen scientists, know how that trust can be eroded! We only need to look at the BBC’s handling of climate and the 28gate row to know they have lost their position of trust on climate.
I cannot imagine a situation when I would ever look at a BBC for news on the climate. If I do happen to hear, see or read anything on the BBC (which happens less now) – I just assume it is biased and will either ignore it, or go online to find the real story.
So, trust is not an asset any MSM can expect to retain. And, once lost, I doubt it will ever be restored to the same level.
The Supermarket of News
Until recently, there used to be a hardware store in Kirkintilloch (about 7miles from Glasgow). When I used to shop in Kirkintilloch (our nearest shopping area), I might occasionally drop in to see what they had, but to be frank, I could buy everything cheaper elsewhere with more variety. Likewise, there used to be a small shop selling white goods, a grocer, butcher, fish-monger, a small clothes shop, etc.
This is not a bad analogy for the traditional mainstream media. There was a time, when like the small town – people didn’t have much choice about where they shopped, so they went into the one and only local hardware shop and bought that which was available. Likewise, there wasn’t much choice about where we got our news, we just bought the newspaper that was available. Tories – bought the Torygraph, Academics – the Guardian. Those with brains beneath their belt – the Sun, etc.
There is far far more choice.
There are now four local supermarkets within easy reach. One which is open 24/7 and there are no traffic lights on the drive. The supermarkets are far easier to get to, they have almost everything I want, and for those things which they cannot supply (like restringing a double-base bow) – there are specialist shops in Glasgow. There is now nothing in Kirkintilloch which is not easier to get elsewhere.
Instead, I can go to the local supermarket, and for a cheaper price I can find all the traditional things that were being sold on the high-street: Tatty DIY tools, clothes and even furniture. And usually there is even a wider range!
And what has been the biggest change? Instead of going to a shop – where goods were expensive because they had lots of staff in the form of shop-assistants, I now just walk into a supermarket, pick up the goods, and can go through the self-serve without once needing an assistant (although self-serve is still pretty lousy!)
A similar change is happening in the newsmedia. Where once they were “shop-assistant” rich with tailor-made stories, now they are increasingly staff-poor, with many stories lifted direct from press releases.
The supermarkets of the internet
If we look online who are the biggest companies?
- Youtube
- Yahoo
- Amazon
- Blogspot
- WordPress
- Ebay
These are all “ensemble” sites. They do not sell their own product, instead, like the supermarkets, they specialise in taking material from elsewhere and presenting it to the user in one easy to access place.
Now if I want a screw … I don’t go to Kirkintilloch, I don’t even go to the local DIY mega-store, not even the local supermarket – I go to Ebay.
But likewise, if I want news, I don’t go to my local newsagent to buy the Kirkintilloch Herald, nor do I buy the Glasgow Herald, Scotsman, etc., I go to google and search for the specific news area of interest. Or perhaps I might drop in on facebook or twitter to see what the news is there.
But, if there is one place where I really expect to find “the news”, it is on one of the numerous blogs I read … and who provides them … WordPress and Blogspot. Internet sites, now specialising on being a “supermarket” for the CNM of blogs.
These are the people who are killing the traditional MSM!!! These are the new supermarkets of news.
So, next time I read someone saying: “why aren’t the Mainstream Media covering this story?”, I’ll know the real answer: “it’s because you are killed the interest & profits of the MSM in this area, because you are already reading it here and not in the MSM”.
And it can only get worse!
I agree totally with your assessment and I sometimes mock MSM green media by telling them that in a low energy world they’d be the first to be dropped. The newest news is no longer presented by MSM and is often the direct feed from a person on the ground. Some media outlets are better at using this and for instance Sky are far more flexible than the BBC. The Mail is pretty good for a broad taster of the news out there but you often have to look elsewhere for stuff in depth. Why read the news when you can often find a true expert, writing and taking questions on the subject.
Climate isn’t the only scientific issue I follow in detail. I have a keen interest in virology. There are sites out there that translate and document news from foreign languages. They’re always on the look out for the latest development but they also discuss the technical issues at a level people can grasp.
Most MSM stories that have a different look to other outlets are now opinion heavy. While sometimes it’s fun to read opinions that either mirror or counter my own, I don’t set much store by them. I don’t rate the opinion of the BBC’s generic science correspondent above that of someone who lives and breathes a particular subject. On social issues I often rate jounalists worse than the common man, simply because I know what journalists are.
You covered quite a few different areas and you changed your focus a few times. Let me start by what I do with regard to MSM:
I still buy a local newspapers as I still like physically holding it, having a coffee, etc. It is definitely superficial as far as news coverage and I use it mainly to get sports scores and local stories.
Along the same lines, I watch my local TV news show as well as a half hour national news at night. I would say I use MSM as my top level in-the-know first source. However, if I desire details or more in depth reporting, especially for a controversial subject, I hit the Internet and end up at what you term the CNM. Lately though, I have found myself trolling a collection of CNM sites on a fairly regular basis as sometimes stories I’m interested in crop up only in the CNM and are slow to find their way to the MSM (Climategate being an obvious example).
I could ramble for quite a bit on this subject. I’ll just close by stating something you may have missed. The demise of the MSM is clearly being brought about partly by digital and social media access on mobile devices. However, I think another aspect is that the MSM is being recognized as a mouthpiece for one particular ideology and thus any presumption of being objective and non-biased is quickly eroding (or has been for a while). 28gate is a perfect example which is now in the public. Who knows what else has gone on behind closed doors?
In the end, I think I agree with you and this may be an actual media paradigm shift in progress. The next few years will be interesting.
One thing I wonder about is how the CNM can continue with little to no funding?
TinyCO2 & Michael Craig – it was quite a realisation to find that rather than the victim of the MSM, we might be the executioner!
As you might know, for several years I have been sending out press releases to the MSM, and as far as I know only one ever got published. This is astonishing considering I was taking some of the top stories with huge interest which were getting hundreds of thousands of clicks online, and the MSM had not the slightest interest. We handed them major stories on a plate, and they flatly refused to print them.
This just shows how ignorant the Mainstream Media are of the growing power and interest in the Citizen News Media. And instead they continue channelling what is almost exclusively mainstream institutional generated news through mainstream media to … an increasingly disinterested citizenry.
As such Michael Craig’s comment is particularly apt: The MSM is being recognized as a mouthpiece for one particular ideology and thus any presumption of being objective and non-biased is quickly eroding (or has been for a while)
In the past, this citizenry had to put up with what the big corporations and media moguls thought was “news” … today we can ignore them and find what interests us.
I think the result could be almost a two tier society. In the first tier — the citizen news media are presenting news to citizens – almost totally ignored by the MSM. This tier, could develop its own institutions, politicians, etc.
In the other – the old outdated institutional news-media will be tipping their caps to try to keep in with the old large institutions which used to have a monopoly getting their news heard. But the old MSM will be trying to get a share of the BIG-institituon news – which is increasingly irrelevant to the peer-to-peer society most people will inhabit.
At last I have ferreted out the truth of “Scottish” “Sceptic”, he does not like the truth being exposed about his deceitful ways. Rather than attempting to show that I am wrong (I was not wrong, which is why he deleted my posts) he just censors what I have to say. Well done, you are now up there with wattsuphisbutt with your censoring of scientific facts which do not support your vision of reality.
How can you sleep at night knowing that you are spreading so much mis-information?
Ian, I think we’d get on better if you discussed the subject of the article. The problem with personal attacks is that they tend to escalate irrespective of who is right or wrong. So please no personal attacks.
My attacks are not personal. I showed that your comment about “no increase in temperature” for the past 15+ years was wrong. I posted a link to the actual data which showed how wrong you were. Since you do not like to be shown wrong you deleted my post. Do you consider showing actual factual data to negate your misinformation to be a personal attack? I don’t and I’m sure the majority of intelligent and educated viewers of your blog concur. The other post you deleted also showed that you were wrong in other areas you trumpet.
Did you ever consider that your submissions to the MSM were so full of errors like your posts here that a simple fact check sent them straight to the dustbin?
No you did not. You showed that if someone trawls the data they can cherry pick it until they show warming. That doesn’t prove anything except there’s no real certainty on how to measure global temperature.
But that is a totally side issue as the the only temperature data that matters – when talking about whether a prediction works – is the one which was predicted to rise. As I have said numerous times and you seem to totally deny is that this has not shown warming for 15+ years.
Your approach is akin to placing a bet on a horse race and then saying when it loses: “but I meant to bet on the other horse that won, so please can I have my money now”.
No you can’t! You lost! That official figure of surface temperature did not warm.
What trawling? I choose the years you listed as showing no warming 15, 16 and 17. I even used the data from UAH whose authors have claimed “no warming” to Congress.. You are the one who is subjecting me to personal attacks when you delete my comments showing how wrong you are. Typical of an AGW denier but not of a true sceptic. You have certainly shown your true colours in your responses to my providing actual data to show how your opinions and guesses are so wrong. As the saying goes, “anyone is entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts”. i showed that your opinions were false and provided back up to illustrate this, some thing you never seem to do. You just rattle off any old rubbish and your followers just lap it up and nod their heads in unison. When someone challenges you on your “opinions” you get all huffy and delete their comments.
So you get to name what is the “official figure of surface temperature ” What a laugh, what you actually mean is “I picked the data set which showed the lowest warming”. For those interested I assume he is using HadCrut3 (since superseded by HadCrut4) data since it shows the least warming but it still does show warming all be it at a lower rate.
RSS shows the longest pause (17 years), followed by HadCRUT3. UAH is actually the shortest, probably due to less warming in the early part of the series. But they are all now showing a pause. It is said that the models allow the possibility of a pause but this isn’t the first, it’s the second. Since 1950 there has been no warming for more than 50% of the time. To regain credibility the modellers need to make some new predictions and for a time frame shorter than 30 years to assess them. eg the ‘pause’ will have to end by… or the models are invalidated. There should also be an indication how many non warming years would also invalidate the models. eg is warming 50% of the time compatible with the models?
You linked to a film about a paper and this new paper which attempts to create a new dataset which you have got all excited about.
Which is totally pointless because I’ve always used HADCRUT myself even back in 2008 when I first highlighted that the climate wasn’t warming as predicted and the Met Office predictions were failing : http://scottishsceptic.wordpress.com/2014/01/14/the-global-warming-scam-2008/
(P.S. thanks – it was time I resurrected “the Global Warming Scam”)
I’m not sure we can properly talk about “invalidating” models which have never been valid and able to predict climate. Surely the null hypothesis is that the models are invalid – so there is no change, no action so there is no process of “invalidating” – they just are invalid. Not until they have made at least one correct prediction, could they be considered potentially valid, and therefore their state can change to invalid.
The first time the IPCC produced a testable prediction (with upper and lower limits) was in 2001 when they said between 1.4 and 5.8C warming by 2100. Since then, there has not been a single period of climate measurement (if using 10 years) in which their prediction has been valid.
The models have never been valid.
TCO2 the reason RSS show less warming is that they are using an old satellite (NOAA-15) for their data. This satellite has a decaying orbit and it appears as if they have not been applying a proper correction factor. Christie and Spencer use newer data (NASA Aqua AMSU) and show quite a bit of warming. There is no doubt in any reasonable persons mind that the earth is still warming. The rate of increase is slower than the average over the past 30 years but scientists have a good idea as to why this is so. Solar irradiation is a bit lower because of sunspot cycles, PDO has been in a negative phase for some time and there is increased aerosols over Asia.
It also needs to be pointed out that individual model runs do in fact show pauses or lower trends. What gets plotted and discussed are ensemble runs where, of course, everything is averaged out.
Please note that there is no pause in warming, it is still occurring, all be it at a lower rate. This will no doubt be reversed in time. Energy going into the oceans is going in at a steady rate.
Ian, yes there has been a pause. I may not have been the first to use the term, but back around 2008 I used it to describe a change in the gradient of warming from that seen between 1970-2000 to that so close to zero that it was clearly and unarguably different.
In 2008, the test of the “pause” was whether the temperature since the first IPCC prediction in 2001 of between 1.4-5.8C was being achieved.
Obviously readings will vary month-to-month, so no definition of “the pause” could ever be that it had to be precisely zero C and anything higher was warming and anything lower was cooling.
As such, my original definition of “the pause” was any sustained period much closer to zero than to the lower bound of the IPCC estimate of 1.4C/century from 2001 onwards.
So, the test for this is anything less than 0.07C/decade since 2001.
Instead, you are obsessed with finding a dataset that isn’t cooling. But even if you can find one dataset, this doesn’t mean the temperature has not “paused” because pause means “stopped” not “reverse”.
So as a simple rule of thumb – if more than half the dataset are currently cooling, then it is indisputable that we are currently in a pause.
“There is no doubt in any reasonable persons mind that the earth is still warming. The rate of increase is slower than the average over the past 30 years but scientists have a good idea as to why this is so.”
If some politician got up on TV and said: “the official figure may suggest that the economy is in recession, but ‘There is no doubt in any reasonable persons mind that the economy is booming. The rate of increase is slower than the average over the past years but economists have a good idea as to why this is so.'”
I think you like everyone else you would laugh that politician off the broadcast: “Please elect me … the economy is booming … it is just currently hidden”.
It is precisely for this reason, that when we talk about whether it is “warming”, “cooling” or “in pause”, that we scientists use current data and not any supposed “hidden effects” which belong in the realm of politics & not science.
“This will no doubt be reversed in time.”
This statement indicates faith in a dogma which allows a person to process contradictory data in a self rational manner.
Only in a deluded “sceptics” mind will a short period of slower warming be construed as a pause or “no warming”. You lot remind me of Humpty Dumpty in Through the Looking Glass:
Yes “sceptic land” is a very unreal place to be.
Oh the grand old duke of york, he had 9700 men (3% couldn’t fill in the survey), he march them up to the top of the hill … and … they are still there, (That’s what happens if you won’t admit the only way down from the top of a hill is down).