Survey: More Fox News, more climate doubts

Climate science doubts increase the more you watch Fox News, finds a survey.

The survey results follow news this week from a leaked memo that a Fox News managing editor instructed reporters to note doubts about global temperature increases last year, and a University of Maryland study found that Fox News viewers were "significantly more likely" to believe falsehoods about the economy, political votes and climate science.

"The more Fox News you get, the less likely you are to trust scientists," says Stanford public opinion expert Jon Krosnick. The November survey of 890 people found that, "more exposure to Fox News was associated with less endorsement of the views of mainstream scientists about global warming, and all of these relationships are statistically significant."

A U.S. National Academies of Science series of reports this year surveyed the climate science evidence to conclude that worldwide: "Temperatures have already risen 1.4°F since the start of the 20th century—with much of this warming occurring in just the last 30 years—and temperatures will likely rise at least another 2°F, and possibly more than 11°F, over the next 100 years," according to the report. "Most scientists agree that the warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, have increased significantly since the Industrial Revolution, mostly from the burning of fossil fuels for energy, industrial processes, and transportation."

But in the survey, viewers who watched 30 days a month of Fox News were more likely to see things differently compared to those who didn't:

• Among non-viewers, 82% believed that the Earth's temperature has been rising. Among frequent Fox News viewers, only 63% agreed.
• Among non-viewers, 85% who understood that temperatures were rising believed that the increase "is caused mostly by things people do or about equally by things people do and natural causes." Among most frequent Fox News viewers who did, 60% similarly agreed that people played a role.
• Among non-viewers, 80% said they trust scientists on the environment, while 53% of the most frequent viewers did.

"Obviously, the numbers can't tell you what is causing the relationship," Krosnick says, but he noted the smooth decline in agreement with scientists corresponds neatly to the number of days spent watching Fox News. About 32% of survey respondents were watchers of Fox News Channel, a cable network available in more than 100 million households nationwide. Most likely, psychology experiments suggest a mixture of people selecting news that agrees with their views and allowing their views to be shaped by the news they receive might explain the effect, Krosnick suggests. "More than half still viewed climate as serious in all cases, regardless," he added.

Fox News owner News Corp., has not replied to a request for comment on the survey results.

"This is more than just noise, a lot of people and a lot of influential political figures are getting their information from Fox News," says media expert Max Boykoff of the University of Colorado, speaking of the leaked memo news. "I would tend to see it as a sign that advocacy journalism is reigning supreme."

The memorandum from an editor telling reporters to note doubts about the temperatures recorded since the 1880's is an example of "false balance" in reporting, says journalism professor David McKnight of the University of New South Wales. In a new Journalism study, he reports that analysis of News Corp. news outlets from 1997 to 2007 shows they, "largely denied the science of climate change and dismissed those who were concerned about it." Says the study:

"In this 'balanced' framework, scientific findings could appear controversial since guests spoke according to political beliefs. No special expertise was needed to debate a political issue, simply two people who happen to disagree. By contrast, seeing the issue as one involving scientific expertise meant employing the methods of traditional journalism which stipulate that journalists seek out 'authoritative sources' to conduct such a debate. It was as if the link between tobacco smoking and cancer was still being debated by a medical researcher and a lobbyist in the pay of the tobacco companies and the resulting debate regarded as 'balanced'."

By Dan Vergano