Framing Copenhagen

Copenhagen. Nopenhagen. Hopenhagen. Which term works for you?

The U.N. Climate Change Conference is nearing the end of its 12-day run. It has received some mainstream media coverage, but not nearly as much as you might expect for a conference that is dealing with the future of our very existence. According to Agenda Setting Theory, the media tell us what to think about, not how to think about it. According to Framing Theory, the media tell us what to think about AND how to think about it.

Let’s see WHAT the major TV news networks think we should be thinking about – and maybe HOW to think about those topics. As of noon, Wednesday, Dec. 16, here’s what I found as their top-of-the-page, lead photos and stories on their homepages.

ABC News: We need to know that the husband of missing Utah woman is the lead suspect in her disappearance. A photo and story about Senator Joseph Lieberman and his influence on the health care reform legislation had been the top story minutes ago. Next major story: Tiger Woods. Where is the story about the climate summit? Eight sections down under “Science & Technology” is a link to a story about Schwarzenegger and Gore speaking at the summit. Oh, and there’s a story about the tiff between Schwarzenegger and Palin over whether humans cause climate change and which governor has/had a better track record on addressing the environment.

CBS News: This network believes we need to know that Tiger Woods has been voted AP Athlete of the Year. Under “Hot Topics,” the 9th link was to a story about the 40,500-ton carbon footprint being made at the climate summit. Gotta really look for it.

CNN: The lead photos and stories at noon were about a British Airways strike and about a modern-day Huck Finn traveling on the Mississippi River. Really? On the left under “Latest News Link,” the #3 story is about 250 people being arrested at the climate change summit. The #1 story? Tiger Woods.

Fox News: A large photo showed police confronting protesters at the summit. Links took you to several other stories, including a story about the internal conflict among delegates and the fact that the Danish climate minister had resigned so that her boss, the higher ranking Danish prime minister, could take over as leader of the summit. There was also a link to a nonscientific survey, showing that 98% of those who chose to respond to Fox’s online survey believe that “With the U.N. climate conference in disarray and its president resigning,” [hear the framing?] President Obama should not sign any agreements in Copenhagen without first getting Congress’s approval. Shortly after 1 p.m., the climate photo was gone (although the story links were still at the top of the page). Instead, there was a photo of a father whose son was sent home from school for drawing a picture at school of Christ on a cross.

MSNBC: This network, too, emphasized the conflict between the police and the protesters, but its photo was a closeup of an shouting protester, not the police. The headline was “Climate Talks Stumble as Protests Turn Violent.” The accompanying article discussed the change in leadership at the summit and contained brief synopses of some of the major issues confronting delegates. Helpful.

So only Fox and MSNBC gave the summit top billing, and both emphasized the news of the protests – an important piece, but only a piece, of the whole story.

In my early morning stupor, I decided to watch CNN to see how the climate conference was going. Between 7:30-9:30 a.m., the conference protests were mentioned twice: at about 8:08 a.m. and again at 9:06 a.m. – both times for about 10 seconds. So we know how important CNN thinks the climate change conference is to us as consumers of news.

If it weren’t for bloggers (e.g., Mother Jones, Florida Climate Alliance, etc.), I wouldn’t know about some of the issues being addressed or the events taking place.

Shame on you, news media. I know you define your job as finding the “news” you think most important to your readers/viewers. But please, you need to help the rest of us by putting into context the importance to our very survival of addressing climate change … now. Give the story priority. Explain its complexities in easy-to-relate-to terms. Interview REAL experts. Take back your role as the Fourth Estate.

U.N. Climate Conference: A Well-Kept Secret

Many years ago while waiting for the school bus, I commented to an elementary school classmate that finally the big night had arrived. For what? she asked. For what? Well, the World Series, of course, where my beloved Brooklyn Dodgers were playing the hated New York Yankees. (The Dodgers won, by the way.) I thought everyone knew about – and cared about – the World Series. It was an eye-opening experience for my 8-year-old self that not everyone cared about the same things I did.

We’re facing a similar scenario in this country regarding the United National Climate Change Conference, which began Dec. 7 in Copenhagen. Those of us who have been active in the “environmental movement” (or “life-survival activities”) have been anxiously awaiting the summit, hopeful that world leaders will take strong action to combat climate change. Certainly “everyone” knows the purpose of the U.N. summit, right?

However, a November 2009 Harris Poll of U.S. Americans showed that about 70% of the respondents were not even aware of the topic of the conference. How could that be? In a January 2009 survey the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press found that of 20 possible “top priority” public policy issues, U.S. respondents rated the environment in 16^th place and global warming in the 20^th or last place. The top three issues were the economy, jobs and terrorism.

In at speech given at the Florida State University School of Law on Dec. 1, Frank Loy, U.S. Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs from 1998 to 2001, said that “In the United States, in contrast to every other country, our appreciation of the urgency [of addressing climate change] is at a totally different level.”

To make matters worse, the same November 2009 Harris Poll found a drop of 20% – from 71% to 51% – in just the last two years in the number of U.S. Americans who believe global warming is caused primarily by humans. The researchers’ interpretation was that more U.S. Americans seem confused as to whether humans are responsible for the dramatic rise in carbon dioxide, which is identified as the cause of global warming.

It’s not surprising that many U.S. Americans are confused about the realities of climate change. And the mainstream media certainly haven’t helped. The journalistic guideline has been to assume there are two “equal” sides to an issue – ignoring the fact that one “side” may be significantly more valid than the other. So, the rule dictates, if you quote someone “in favor of” climate change, then you must quote someone “opposed to” climate change ... as if “the facts” about climate change were something you could be in favor of or oppose.

Many of us want to believe scientists have the key to solving our problems, and yet we’re often confused by what we’re told (think about recent recommendations regarding whether women of a certain age need to have regular mammograms). And then there’s the story out of the University of East Anglia (dubbed “Climate-gate” by conservative commentators and repeated on all media outlets). In case you missed the story, thousands of stolen e-mails from the Climatic Research Unit at the UEA were posted on the Internet. The e-mails contain references to “tricks” and other activities that global warming deniers have said prove climate change isn’t real. Bad form, CRU. As FoxNews.com frames the issue, “There is no precedent for so many academics engaging in coordinated efforts to distort research for political ends.”

Scientists need to make the peer-review process more transparent and help us nonscientists understand why they are so convinced climate change is real. The media can help as well, and some networks are trying. On last night’s evening news, NBC carried a major story in its feature titled “A Perfect Storm” about how much of Bangladesh is under water as a result of rising tides caused by global warming. CBS carried a similar story about the Maldives Islands, where officials are making plans to desert the likely-to-be-submerged islands and move everyone to another country on higher ground.

Fox News, on the other hand, has been focusing on why it believes the mainstream media have ignored the CRU story (head’s up: they haven’t), analyzing the carbon footprint of the U.N. summit (which it has dubbed “Carbonhagen”), predicting the formation of a “new world economy” to address climate change (translated as “Watch out, U.S., we’re being taken over by other countries!”), and that the rise in sea level is “the greatest lie ever told."

Even CNN’s Campbell Brown is hosting a show tonight titled “Global Warming: Trick or Truth?” We’re told to “Tune in to Campbell Brown tonight for a look into the science, skepticism, and secrets surrounding global climate change.”

It’s a clever title, but it frames the issue of climate change as factually questionable. No wonder people are confused!

But even if you can’t understand all of the science of climate change, just think of melting glaciers, rising sea levels, increased intensity of droughts and forest fires, increased health problems – especially in low-income communities – as a result of poor air quality and other forms of pollution, and so on. The EPA just released a statement publicly linking greenhouse gases to public health, which many people have been saying for years.

Something IS happening to our planet. So what is causing the disconnect between what we “see” and what we “feel”? Why is it that “if the facts don’t fit the frame, it’s the facts that are rejected, not the frame”?

A story published Dec. 7 on NPR.org quotes psychologist Kari Marie Norgaard of Whitman College in Walla Walla, Wash., as saying that the reason we don’t or can’t accept the critical nature of climate change is that “… as people start to feel overwhelmed by the scope of the problem, they simply turn away from the topic. It's a form of denial, she says. ‘We just don't want to know about it, so we are actively distancing ourselves from it or trying to protect ourselves from it.’”

At the FSU conference I mentioned earlier, one participant – and international student working on her doctoral dissertation – said she’s studying why U.S. Americans can’t seem to grasp the seriousness of climate change. Her conclusion: We haven’t figured out yet that climate change is and will affect us … and not just people in other parts of the world.

I suspect the reason also has something to do with our history as a relatively new nation, our Manifest Destiny, so to speak, of being “right” and “privileged” to do whatever it is that we do … because, of course, we’re right. And change is scary.

So hang onto your hats. The ride is sure to be exciting. Let’s just hope it ends as safely as possible for humankind.

Pollution Lobby vs. Lobby for Truth

President Obama announced today that he would be attending the U.N. Climate Change Conference this December in Copenhagen on his way to accepting his Nobel Prize in Sweden. Well, it's about time that he decided to go.

It will be interesting to see how climate change deniers discuss the meaning of his upcoming visit. Jim Tankersley, in his blog "The Swamp," wrote:

Obama's attendance carries political risks at home, where his energy and climate bill has bogged down in the Senate behind health care, and where critics figure to pounce if he fails to lead the world to a climate agreement. Republicans in particular are mindful of Obama's trip to Copenhagen earlier this year, when he lobbied unsuccessfully for Chicago's bid to host the 2016 Summer Olympics.

So watch for connections between the two Copenhagen visits -- regardless of whether they are really related. If you frame Obama as a failure, then you would see his lack of success in securing Chicago as the host for the Olympics as proof he doesn't know how to get things done. His return to Copenhagen probably will be framed as further proof of his failure as a leader.

On the other hand, the fact that Obama is going to the U.N. Climate Conference is proof, to those who frame him as a strong leader, that he's taking his rightful place on the world stage and helping shape world energy policies.

Let's see what happens. Tonight, I got an idea of what we can expect.

On CNN's "The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer," host Suzanne Malveaux asked her guests -- Democratic strategist James Carville and Republican strategist Ben Stein -- what they thought the president could do "on this issue" being address in Copenhagen.

Carville said "not very much." He said he hoped that "talk radio and the Pollution Lobby were right that global warming is not a problem and 940 peer-reviewed scientific articles are wrong. That's about all we can hope for." Talk radio and the Pollution Lobby, he added, were winning the battle to persuade the American public -- including Congress -- that climate change is not a real threat.

Ben Stein reframed the argument by saying: "Calling the people who want to keep Americans free to use the kind of energy they want to use 'the Pollution Lobby' is a wild smear ... It's not the Pollution Lobby. It's the Lobby for the Truth. The truth is that the global temperature peaked around 1998. It has not gotten any hotter. In fact, it has gotten cooler. The truth is ... ." And he continued to share other "truths" that deny the reality of climate change, saying "...the whole thing about fighting global warming may be based on a false premise."

Stein was brilliant in his framing. He referred to Americans being "free" to do whatever they want to do ... which means "Government, keep your hands off my business!" When Carville tried to provide proof of the existence of climate change as presented by 940 or 958 or 950 peer-reviewed scientific articles (the number kept changing), Stein responded that there was a "cabal" of peer reviewers "determined to suppress information that challenges the conventional wisdom about climate change."

Carville wasn't as effective as Stein in framing his arguments. It's a shame Carville is often called upon to present the liberal or progressive case in televised debates.

Suzanne Malveaux pointed out that Americans are divided on whether global warming is really happening. She quoted an ABC News-Washington Post poll from Nov. 12-15 that among Democrats, the number who believe global warming is real has dropped from 92% to 86% since March 2006, a time when President George W. Bush was denying global warming was real. Among Republicans, the number has dropped from 76% to 54%, and among independents, the number has dropped from 86% to 71%. This is scary. Still, the majority in this study believe climate change is real.

But here is where Malveaux -- and other journalists -- failed us. Rather than bringing up facts from reputable scientists about the existence of global climate change, she hid behind the journalistic sense of "fairness" by saying, "Well, we could debate whether this [global warming] is real or not ... ."

For real?

Framing theory tells us that the media not only tell us what to think about; they also tell us how to think about it. In an effort to be "fair," many mainstream journalists are, by default, telling us that climate change is not real -- despite what the facts are.

Framing Global Warming/Global Climate Change

Welcome to my blog, "PR Goes Green." In this blog, I plan to combine my two passions: teaching public relations principles and practices that can foster ethical communication; and working toward solutions to global climate change.

Public relations is all about relations with publics -- Whom do we interact with? What do they want/need? How can we best meet their needs and those of our clients? How can we inform, persuade and move our publics to act?

One theory that will influence my discussions is framing, or how verbal and nonverbal cues shape the way we think about and respond to various issues. One of the leading theorists of framing is linguist and cognitive scientist George Lakoff of the University of California at Berkeley.

Here's an example of framing. The term "global warming" accurately reflects the fact that the AVERAGE temperature of the earth has risen between 1.2 and 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit over the last century, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. To come up with the "average" means that some temperatures have actually dropped while others -- such as the temperature in the Arctic -- have doubled. The steep rise in greenhouse gases (and thus, the earth's temperature) corresponds to our increased use of carbon fuels to heat and cool our homes, run our vehicles, and operate our businesses ... linked to the impact of the Industrial Revolution.

Those are the facts.

But how you understand those facts varies, depending upon your "frame." If you believe global warming is real and that the current rise in the earth's temperature is caused primarily by humans, then the facts would confirm your belief. And it makes sense, therefore, that humans must change their behavior to address global warming.

However, if you believe global warming is hogwash, that the extreme rise in global temperature is simply a cyclical event for which humans have not played a role, then you would look at the facts differently. Cool weather last summer in New York City would be proof that global "warming" cannot be real. And if weather changes are cyclical, then changing human behavior would be more than pointless; it would be misguided and would bankrupt our world.

How can people look at and respond to the same set of facts so differently? According to the Frameworks Institute, "if the facts don't fit the frame, it's the facts that are rejected, not the frame."

This is one reason some people choose to use the term "global climate change" rather than "global warming," even though the terms technically mean something different.

Cooler-than-usual summers in New York and lack of snow in January in Minnesota could be examples of "climate change," even if you don't buy into the concept of global warming.

Once someone says the words "global warming" (or even if people THINK you are saying "global warming," even if you are saying "global climate change"), your brain starts filling in the pieces:

Global warming/climate change = It's real; it's caused by humans; and we must change our ways to counteract dangerous consequences.

Global warming/climate change = It's false; it's cyclical; and changing our behavior is not only unnecessary, it's also dangerous.

I hope you will join me as I explore global climate change from the perspective of a public relations educator and professional.