January 10, 2023 at 8 a.m... during rush hour at Praterstern, Austria's largest traffic circle: Forty scientists from Austrian universities emphatically demanded effective climate protection from the Austrian government. They explicitly expressed their solidarity with the "Last Generation" and their peaceful protest actions and demands. Along the way, the "climate stickers" began to stick themselves to the access roads of the traffic circle.
Are scientists now mutating into left-wing activists? And the media too, when they report more and more on ecological crises and the justification of civil disobedience? What does this do to trust in their neutrality and impartiality? Is their professional ethos in danger? We have collected a few voices that give the all-clear and suggest exactly the opposite.
Both researchers and media professionals most often ask themselves this question when it comes to the public impact of their activities and statements. In recent years, there has been an intense and exciting discussion about the role of science and journalism in social change.
The Scientists Rebellion movement argues that scientists should first and foremost fulfill their role as citizens of civil society. Due to their expertise and privileged access to knowledge, they even bear great social responsibility. In view of the urgency, the movement calls for researchers to draw attention to the ecological crises through civil society actions in addition to imparting knowledge. There are no limits to these actions, except that they should be peaceful, such as a lecture on mobility in the middle of a busy road.
The fact that science is committed to social change is nothing new. In the 1950s, Albert Einstein and others drew attention to the great danger of nuclear weapons. In the 1960s and 70s, many scientists were strong drivers in the protests against the Vietnam War. Women's suffrage and the expansion of better social systems might not have become a reality without activists from the scientific community. A quote attributed to Nobel Prize winner Marie Curie sums it up well:
I am not concerned with what has been done. I am interested in what needs to be done.
Climate journalism is not activism... period.
Journalist Andrew Freedman named 2022 as the year in which "we all become climate reporters". Major English-language media outlets such as ABC News, CNN, the Washington Post and the New York Times have already "recruited" climate reporters, and many other media outlets are increasing their coverage of ecological crises and developing new constructive formats, including in German-speaking countries.
Nevertheless, the media pointing out solutions and reporting more on positive developments and success stories is still somewhat unusual and also unfamiliar - both for readers, viewers, etc. and media professionals. In surveys conducted by the ARD research service, journalists report that they are afraid of being perceived as too uncritical and activist, or of not being taken seriously enough, and they also hear this criticism from within their own ranks. It does not correspond to the mainstream of (predominantly negative) reporting, but is considered an essential part of being able to solve the ecological crises.
Christopher Schrader, author of the book "Talking about climate", beats critics at their own game by making use of an important basic principle of good journalism, namely that you can only report objectively and neutrally if you are not part of the problem. As far as the global ecological crises are concerned, we are all in the middle of it. We are both causing and being affected. In order to remain true to this basic principle, journalists should write about solutions, as this is the only way to remove themselves from the problem(Klimafakten.de)
The authors of the Climate Code - a guide to effective and appropriate climate reporting - go one step further. They say that reporting on the ecological crises and solutions is simply not activism... period. This new journalistic orientation is necessary. They also point out that journalism is only responding to the needs of media consumers. Because they crave constructive and solution-oriented information that gives them hope and orientation.
Christopher Schrader sees the responsibility of journalists in relation to activism somewhat differently. He is convinced that they do not lose any journalistic credibility if they act and report in a more activist way. Quite the opposite: journalists need to participate in civil society processes if they want to save their credibility. Because this has been steadily declining for several years.
There is a need for action ...
... a phrase that is very popular with politicians when problems that fall within their area of responsibility are on the newsroom agenda and they have to make a statement. But very often they don't actually take action.
It may be atypical for scientists to take to the streets and for the media to suddenly justify the protesters' demands instead of reporting on the traffic jams at protests. But decades of political passivity are forcing them out of their research labs and newsrooms, demanding a language that cries out.
Working with civil society for a better future? This is not a threat to credibility, but is bitterly necessary in order to tell idle politicians what to do!
