Frequent but Accurate: A Closer Look at Uncertainty and Opinion Divergence in Climate Change Print News

ABSTRACT

The prevalence of uncertainty and opinion divergence frames in climate change news reporting has generated concerns about the misrepresentation of scientific consensus. We first develop reliable, valid, and more nuanced measures of often-conflated types of uncertainty and opinion divergence frames. Then we analyse the co-occurrence combinations of those distinct types of opinions, sources, and topics in mainstream climate change news stories between 2005 and 2015. Results indicate that while uncertainty and opinion divergence frames are indeed frequent, once clearly distinguished, they in general accurately reference non-scientist sources (e.g. government officials) and topics that do not have a scientific consensus (e.g. the severity of climate change effects).

KEYWORDS:

• Climate change
• reporting
• framing
• uncertainty
• controversy
• scepticism
• disagreement

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Lauren McGrath for her dedicated and valuable assistance in data collection. This study evolved from a paper presented at the 2016 National Communication Association convention, where it received many productive critiques

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID

Ronald E. Rice http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6374-7860

Notes

1. The full codebook is available from the authors. However, to clarify the distinctions among the core types of opinion divergence – disagreement, controversy, and skepticism – we provide key portions of the operationalizations used for identifying the types in Table 2. An example of each appears in Table 1, and a general example of overall coding appears in section 4.2.5.

Opinion divergence: expressions of divergence or difference in opinions between sources or other entities. There are five characteristics of opinion divergence that we will use to differentiate them.

First, the number of sources, which refers to the number of distinct entities that are referenced as having the opinion divergence. Second, the nature of the sources themselves—distinct individuals (named or anonymous), groups (formal, such as “EPA,” and informal, such as “conservatives”), or even ideas (environmentalism) or information sources (“the media”). Third, the duration of the opinion divergence, which refers to how long the divergence has lasted or is expected to last. This can range from very brief (less than a few months or, if not specified —when reconciliation is foreseeable within a few months) to prolonged (often, opinion divergence is indefinite and reconciliation is unforeseeable). Disagreement does not have to be going on at the time of the article. It can refer to a disagreement that was in the past and has since been resolved (very common, since resolution may be a characteristic of many disagreements). Controversy does not have to be going on at the time of the article. It can refer to an extended, over-time controversy that has ended. (e.g. “Throughout the 1990s … ”).

Fourth, the detail of the opinion divergence, which refers to the degree to which the divergence is about the intricate details of an issue. Thus, more detail signifies that the opinion divergence is not about the fundamental assumptions or tenets of an issue, but rather is about the more particular details. Conversely, less detail signifies that an opinion divergence is about the fundamental assumptions. Fifth, the breadth of the opinion divergence, which refers to the degree to which the topic of divergence is broad or even unspecified. Thus, wide breadth signifies that the opinion divergence is not clearly bounded in one particular facet of a general topic, and may be applicable to multiple facets simultaneously. Conversely, narrow breadth signifies that the opinion divergence is clearly specified to a particular aspect or subtopic of the broader issue.

Note: Detail and breadth are not identical characteristics, although they are related. A topic of opinion divergence could be at a low detail (about fundamental assumptions) and wide breadth (not focused on one facet). An example of this would a debate of anthropogenic cause vs. natural variation. Conversely, a topic of opinion could be low detail but narrow breadth (about very specific elements of an issue). An example of this would be a debate about whether current measurement methods are capable of determining anthropogenesis. Note: as always, keep in mind that these criteria are guidelines that steer your best judgment, while also using the training examples and considering the possibility of anomalies that may satisfy most but not all of the criteria for this opinion type.