Shannon McEnerney | April 6, 2010
 |
| Photo by Heather Brogden |
| UNLV’s Susanna Priest spoke on the impact of media messages on climate change Monday in the IMU. She described how people’s perceptions of science are different from those of other topics presented in the media. |
So University of Nevada Las Vegas professor and guest speaker Susanna Priest’s presentation Monday on “Understanding the impact of media messages about climate change” was relocated from the building to a cooler room in the Indiana Memorial Union.
There, Priest ventured into a discussion on climate change and her ongoing research focusing on how media messages impact the public’s opinion and attitude toward climate change.
Due to economic constraints, there is less and less coverage for all forms of journalism, but particularly science, said Priest, who teaches and conducts research at UNLV’s Hank Greenspun School of Journalism and Media Studies and edits the journal Science Communication. Health journalism is stronger than science journalism, she said, partially because it is recognized that most people want to read about health, and while people do want to read about science, there is a political aspect involved that is not as prominent with health coverage.
It is easier to report on health because there is no one in Congress disagreeing or not believing that saturated fats are bad for you. With health coverage, there seems to be more of an agreement of what is healthy or not, she said.
“All science is politics,” Priest said, citing elected officials’ degrees of differing opinions on topics such as stem-cell research. With climate change, it’s a similar concept. Scientific evidence is necessary, and sometimes with science, the best evidence is simply that something exists, Priest said.
Because of journalistic commitment to objectivity, there isn’t enough reporting on the scientific consensus on climate change.
“Very few [scientists] do not believe climate change is happening,” Priest said. There are certain ethics involved in representing the few “naysayers” to contrast with the vast majority of scientists who believe climate change is a big problem and is happening.
Scientists, Priest said, have the same way of thinking that if people are given the right facts, they will come to the same conclusion as the scientific community.
But, this isn’t always the case.
“There is a ton of evidence that suggests knowledge alone does not change behaviors,” Priest said. “The problem is not just science education.”
Attitude is rarely a function of scientific facts, and Priest said she is interested in the 98 percent that cannot be predicted by one’s knowledge on facts.
“Getting the facts straight is not necessarily going to change anyone’s opinion,” Priest said.
For this, Priest gives the example of Hurricane Katrina and the deciding factors that influenced people to leave their homes. Reasons for leaving were not influenced by whether residents knew the storm was going to be bad, because everyone knew this from media reports. Instead, Priest said that most people could bring themselves to leave only when someone knocked on their door, a family member came, or a friend called to say that it was time to leave.
“Interpersonal communication is in fact more powerful than media communication,” Priest said. For Hurricane Katrina, it took a neighbor knocking or someone calling to motivate the act to leave from danger.
The media, Priest said, is in the role of legitimizing or delegitimizing movements for change.
 |
| Photo by Heather Brogden |
| In her research, Priest found that people didn’t want to evacuate during Katrina based solely on media warnings. Instead, they needed to hear from peers, friends and family. |
For climate change, Priest said she proposes a move from “public understanding” to collective action, from “what might be wrong” to how to fix, and from “what we don’t know” to what we have to do.
There is also the persuasion theory for fear appeals, which Priest said has been more important for the health community than the scientific community, but the same dynamics extend across both.
“Without fear, there may be no reason to act,” Priest said. But too much fear is not a good thing, unless it accompanies a sense of self-efficacy and a message of what we can do, she said.
“We have control over our behaviors, we don’t have to give up our lives because of particular fears,” Priest said.
Priest showed a graphic of the globe on fire as it rests in the palm of a hand.
We need to move from that image, Priest said, to an image less dramatic.
“The earth is kind of dying, but not that quickly and dramatically,” Priest said, showing a kinder image depicting the same message, with the earth as a thermostat and the message of control.
“We have control over climate change,” Priest said. “People need to see others taking action. We all feel helpful as individuals because we are helpless, but we can collectively take action that will make a difference.”
Questions? Comments? Email the Web editor.
