A Call for Level Heads Only in Climate Change Discussions
January 13, 2014
Perhaps the false equivalence that has pervaded the media for years now is finally on the way out. The Guardian raises the issue in its article, “Should Newspapers Ban Climate Deniers Like Reddit’s Science Forum?” Written by one of the moderators of r/Science, chemist Nathan Allen, the piece explains why the normally free-speech-loving site chose to ban climate change deniers in that forum, and why other sources should do the same. Whether you agree or disagree with the move, the brief article is worth a read.
Allen begins by describing the science forum as largely a space for academics, with attendant norms like the citation of peer-reviewed research and a basic level of decorum. Some threads, however, attracted a much less civil sort of commenter, most especially anything having to do with climate change.
Allen writes:
“Rather than making thoughtful arguments based on peer-reviewed science to refute man-made climate change, contrarians immediately resorted to aggressive behaviors. On one side, deniers accused any of the hard-working scientists whose research supported and furthered our understanding of man-made climate change of being bought by ‘Big Green.’ On the other side, deniers were frequently insulted and accused of being paid to comment on reddit by ‘Big Oil.’ After some time interacting with the regular denier posters, it became clear that they could not or would not improve their demeanor.”
That’s because those commenters are “true believers,” as Allen calls them, so devoted to their misinformation that they are unwilling to even tolerate, much less consider, another (better supported) point of view. Moderators realized that the only way to facilitate civil discourse was to, after a warning, ban dogmatic climate deniers. The backlash was lower than they expected, and the result was a vast improvement to the forum’s tone. Now, the distinct lack of paranoia and delusion makes way for productive discussions between scientists and non-scientific folks honestly trying to understand this complex issue.
What does this change at Reddit’s Science forum have to do with newspapers and other media? Allen writes:
“Like our commenters, professional climate change deniers have an outsized influence in the media and the public. And like our commenters, their rejection of climate science is not based on an accurate understanding of the science but on political preferences and personality. As moderators responsible for what millions of people see, we felt that to allow a handful of commenters to so purposefully mislead our audience was simply immoral. So if a half-dozen volunteers can keep a page with more than 4 million users from being a microphone for the antiscientific, is it too much to ask for newspapers to police their own editorial pages as proficiently?”
No. No, it is not too much to ask. And, by the way, the problem is far from limited to editorial sections. My father always told me to “consider the source” of any information. In fact, that was once a common adage. Why, in pursuit of a warped concept of “objectivity,” do so many publications refuse to follow that advice?
Cynthia Murrell, January 13, 2014
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, developer of Augmentext
Comments
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
