“In the current global situation Every story is a climate story.” This is the message of the international Earth Journalism Network (EJN), an environmental organization that acts as a bridge between billionaires and journalists.
A report by researchers at Deakin University in Melbourne, Australia, reveals key facts about the nonprofit institution that claims to reach “virtually every region of the world” and offer financial support, training and mentoring to thousands of reporters.
According to the EJN’s website, it is supported by international organizations such as the European Commission and the United Nations, national ones such as the US State Department, and some of the country’s biggest names, such as Rockefeller and Bloomberg. There is also no shortage of organizations such as the controversial Tides.
“Covering the Planet: Assessing the State of Climate and Environmental Journalism” is, according to its authors, a groundbreaking report as it is the first “truly global” study of environmental and climate change journalism.
After interviewing hundreds of journalists, the magazine offers analysis and possible solutions for reporting, revealing key points about what it expects from journalists in exchange for green funding. “Every story is a climate story.”
A profession in crisis, an opportunity for green money
That journalism is facing a funding crisis is an undeniable reality of the profession. Since the advent of the internet, advertisers have abandoned newspapers in favor of other digital media such as social networks, and print media circulation has plummeted. This is something that environmental organizations can exploit, the report says.
However, journalists who have benefited from it admit concerned about how this external money will affect their independenceA reporter from Brazil acknowledged that the funding goals of environmental organizations influence the choice of topics to be covered: “Why did we cover Amazon so much? Because it was important, but also, because the financing is available.“
The same journalist points out that thanks to this international funding, a “bubble” of media has been created that depends on it to keep flowing. In another part of the report, the researchers recommend that donors give journalists more freedom to decide on the topics they cover, because often NGOs provide funds to “cover a specific topic area, is determined by the interests and objectives of the donors.“
Another example can be found at the end of the report, where journalists are advised to “emphasize ‘justice perspectives’ in reporting on climate change.”
It also warns: “Responsibility for causing and responding to climate and environmental damage is not evenly distributed around the world. Journalists should consider the different responsibilities and climate justice perspective in their reporting on climate change.”
Activist journalism
The report also questions the role of reporters, admitting that environmental journalists are often viewed as activists by their colleagues and arguing that both the possibility and need for objectivity have been questioned.
In its final recommendations to reporters, the report urges them to “consider their own position and the position of their media organization on the spectrum between ‘objectivity’ and ‘advocacy.'” It also argues that “each journalist should consider their own position on objectivity in journalism versus advocacy for action.” It says activism and objectivity are not necessarily “mutually exclusive.”
Millionaire donors are also advised to ignore objectivity: “The commitment not to lobby should not be a prerequisite for funding climate and environmental journalism.”
The report aims not only at the professional pursuit of objectivity, but also recommends silencing dissenting voices“Journalists should not provide a platform for sources that deny climate science,” it says bluntly.
The study calls it “worrying” that there are reporters who strive for “balanced” reporting. About 62 percent of respondents said they included statements from sources who are “skeptical” that climate change is caused by humans or “climate science.”
“It is well known, for example, that journalistic ‘balance’ can be problematic when reporting on highly polarizing issues such as climate change.”
While the authors ask journalists to question the objectivity at the end of the report, they give them an answer in the summary:
“In the current global situation, every story is a climate story – and each story, individually and collectively, has the potential to address the threats facing our shared planetary habitat,” it says in the summary.
