<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div class="header-image"><a sl-processed="1" href="http://enjeuxenergies.wordpress.com/" title="Enjeux énergies et environnement" rel="home">
</a>
</div>
<div id="primary" class="content-area">
<div id="content" class="site-content" role="main">
<article id="post-9045" class="post-9045 post type-post status-publish format-standard hentry category-non-classe">
<header class="entry-header">
<div class="entry-meta">
<a sl-processed="1" href="http://enjeuxenergies.wordpress.com/2014/04/07/fox-news-was-accurate-on-climate-science-just-28-percent-of-the-time-in-2013-thinkprogress/" title="18:10" rel="bookmark"><time class="entry-date" datetime="2014-04-07T18:10:58+00:00" pubdate="">2014/04/07</time></a><span class="byline"> par <span class="author vcard"><a sl-processed="1" class="url fn n" href="http://enjeuxenergies.wordpress.com/author/enjeuxenergies/" title="Voir tous les articles par EnjeuxEnergies" rel="author">EnjeuxEnergies</a></span></span> </div>
<h1 class="entry-title">Fox News Was Accurate On Climate Science Just 28 Percent Of The Time In 2013 | ThinkProgress</h1> </header>
<div class="entry-content"><p><a sl-processed="1" href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/04/07/3423224/cable-news-accuracy-climate-science/">http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/04/07/3423224/cable-news-accuracy-climate-science/</a></p>
<h1><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal; font-size: medium; ">By </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal; font-size: medium; "><a sl-processed="1" href="http://thinkprogress.org/person/kvalentine/">Katie Valentine</a></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal; font-size: medium; "><a sl-processed="1" href="https://twitter.com/intent/user?screen_name=KatieRValentine"><img src="http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/themes/tp4/images/bird_blue_16.png" alt="bird_blue_16.png"></a></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal; font-size: medium; "> on April 7, 2014 at 12:01 p</span></h1><p>None of the three major cable news networks have a perfect record on
portraying climate science, but Fox News was the most innacurate of all
in 2013, according to a new report.</p><p>The <a sl-processed="1" href="http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/cable-news-coverage-climate-change-science.html">report</a>,
released Monday by the Union of Concerned Scientists, looked at
segments on the cable networks’ prominent evening and weekend programs
that mentioned “global warming” or “climate change” in 2013. Researchers
found that segments on MSNBC were the most accurate, with just 8
percent of the segments containing misleading statements about the
science behind climate change. CNN was next in terms of accuracy, with
30 percent of segments containing misleading statements, and Fox was
last, with 72 percent of segments containing misinformation or
misrepresentations of climate science.</p><p><img src="http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/UCS-report.jpg" alt="UCS report"></p><p>CREDIT: Union of Concerned Scientists</p><p>The nature of the misleading statements differed from station to
station, with CNN’s inaccuracy growing from debate guests who doubted
certain aspects of climate science, such as the relationship between
climate change and extreme weather. Fox hosts and guests, on the other
hand, would more often accuse climate scientists of hiding or
misrepresenting data, and were also more likely to state outright that
climate change was not occurring. Accurate coverage of climate science
on Fox came primarily from Special Report with Bret Baier and The
O’Reilly Factor, and despite being the least-accurate of the three
networks according to the report, Fox’s 28 percent accuracy rating is an
increase from a <a sl-processed="1" href="http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/media-climate-science-event-0340.html">2012 UCS report</a>, which found that Fox was accurate just 7 percent of the time.</p><p>MSNBC contained misleading coverage from the opposite side of the
spectrum, with hosts sometimes overstating how fast sea levels are
rising or making links between things that aren’t yet scientifically
known, such as climate change’s effects on tornadoes.</p><p>Aaron Huertas, science communications officer at UCS, told
ThinkProgress that the differences in accuracy among the networks were
largely a result of sourcing. When CNN did have accurate coverage, they
relied on federal and academic scientists, with their misleading
coverage coming mostly from debates that featured ideological guests.</p><p>“For CNN, I was surprised to see so many segments in which people
were still arguing about whether or not climate science is valid,”
Huertas said in an email. “The basic science on climate change is as
clear as the science linking smoking to lung disease; there’s no reason
to have debates about whether or not that science is valid, even if
there are still some people who reject the science for ideological
reasons.”</p><p>The report focused on accuracy of coverage, but it also uncovered
another discrepancy among the cable networks: MSNBC covered climate
change more often than CNN or Fox did. The report noted 132 MSNBC
evening and weekend segments that mentioned climate science in 2013,
while Fox had 50 segments mentioning climate science and CNN had 43.
Huertas said that Chris Hayes’s two shows on MSNBC had nearly as many
segments that discussed climate science as all the CNN shows looked at
by the report. But Huertas said ultimately he was more interested in
whether the networks got climate science right when they did mention it
than how much they covered it in total. When a network covers climate
science but does so inaccurately, it can be just as unhelpful as not
covering it at all — a point illustrated by the news of last week’s IPCC
report, which Fox <a sl-processed="1" href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/04/02/3421636/fox-news-ipcc/">covered for more than 5 minutes</a>(compared to CNN’s one minute, eight seconds) but which it called a waste of time.</p><p>“We can disagree — heartily — on how to respond to the facts, but
reality is reality,” Huertas said. “CNN could host more debates about
policy and drop debates on established science. Fox News could do more
to differentiate between political opposition to climate policy and
rejection of climate science. MSNBC has proven it can cover nuanced
science accurately, so it could do more to curtail the occasional
segments in which hosts or guests overstate the effects of climate
change.”</p><p>CNN, MSNBC and Fox News did not respond to ThinkProgress’ request for comment in time for publication.</p></div></article></div></div></body></html>