SHOCKER: Fox News Misleads Audience on Climate Change

UCS staff scientist Brenda Ekwurzel takes a red pen to misleading statements in a recent Wall Street Journal editorial. Tim McDonnell/Mother Jones

Brace yourself for some shocking news: a new study on Friday found that the two major publications of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation greatly mislead their audiences about climate change. The Union of Concerned Scientists combed six months of Fox News broadcasting and a year’s worth of Wall Street Journal editorial pages for mentions of the science of “climate change” and “global warming,” then compared each claim to “mainstream scientific understanding” of the topic at hand. Here’s what they found:

Data from Union of Concerned ScientistsData from Union of Concerned Scientists

“Everywhere I go, what I hear quoted back to me as scientific fact is often wrong,” said Brenda Ekwurzel, a UCS staff scientist who presented the study to an audience gathered to discuss the state of climate communication with TIME environment editor Bryan Walsh and Harvard oceanographer James McCarthy. “That, to me, is so discouraging.”

What’s especially creepy about the study is how low the bar is for what constitutes “accurate.” From the study:

Citations deemed to be misleading questioned either the reality of climate change or the fact that recent climate change is largely due human activities, or they advanced other arguments that dismissed established climate science.

In other words, this is quantitative proof that the climate change debate in America is still mired in bickering over whether the problem even exists or not. Here’s the breakdown on the shapes misleading statements took between the two outlets, which together reach an audience of nearly four million: UCSUCS

UCSUCS After releasing the study, Ekwurzel led a group from the New York Public Library science branch to Bryant Park, to stage a mark-up of all the errors in a recent Wall Street Journal editorial, which was roundly rebuffed by the very scientists it quoted. News Corporation has a history of blantantly misrepresenting science, of course. But since, as McCarthy reminded the crowd, “most of the public doesn’t have the opportunity to have a conversation with a scientist on climate change,” findings like these go a long way toward explaining why many elected officials are completely intransigent on climate action.

More Mother Jones reporting on Climate Desk

WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

payment methods

WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate