January 10, 2023, at 8 a.m. … during rush hour at Praterstern, Austria’s largest roundabout: Forty researchers from Austrian universities strongly called on the Austrian government to take effective action on climate protection. In doing so, they expressly expressed their solidarity with “Last Generation” and its peaceful protests and demands. Meanwhile, the “climate gluers” began gluing themselves to the access roads leading to the roundabout.
Are scientists now turning into left-wing activists? And what about the media, as they report more and more on environmental crises and the justification for civil disobedience? How does this affect trust in their neutrality and impartiality? Is their professional ethics at risk? We’ve gathered a few perspectives that give the all-clear and suggest exactly the opposite.
Both researchers and journalists most often ask themselves this question when it comes to the public impact of their work and statements. In recent years, an intense and fascinating discussion has emerged regarding the role of science and journalism in societal change.
The Scientists’ Rebellion movement argues that scientists should first and foremost fulfill their role as citizens of civil society. Given their expertise and privileged access to knowledge, they bear a significant social responsibility. Given the urgency of the situation, the movement calls on researchers to draw attention to ecological crises through civil society actions in addition to sharing knowledge. There are no limits to these actions, except that they must be peaceful—such as a lecture on mobility in the middle of a busy street.
It is nothing new for the scientific community to advocate for social change. In the 1950s, Albert Einstein and others drew attention to the grave danger posed by nuclear weapons. In the 1960s and 1970s, many scientists were key drivers of 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 laureate Marie Curie sums it up well:
I don't dwell on what has been done. I'm interested in what needs to be done.
Journalist Andrew Freedman declared 2022 to be 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 had already “recruited” climate reporters. Many other media outlets increased their coverage of environmental crises, and new, constructive formats are emerging, including in German-speaking countries.
Nevertheless, it remains somewhat unusual and unfamiliar for the media to highlight solutions and report more on positive developments and success stories—both for readers, viewers, and others, as well as for media professionals. In surveys conducted by the ARD Research Service, journalists report that they fear being perceived as too uncritical or activist, or not being taken seriously enough, and they also hear this criticism from within their own ranks. It does not align with the mainstream of (predominantly negative) reporting, but is considered an essential component for resolving ecological crises.
Christopher Schrader, author of the book *Talking About Climate*, beats critics at their own game by invoking a key principle of good journalism: that one can only report objectively and neutrally if one is not part of the problem. When it comes to global environmental crises, we are all right in the thick of it. We are both the cause and the victims. To remain true to this fundamental principle, journalists would have to write about solutions, because only then can they remove themselves from the problem (Klimafakten.de)
The authors of the Climate Code —a guide to effective and appropriate climate reporting—go a step further. They argue that reporting on environmental crises and potential solutions is simply not activism… period. This new journalistic approach is necessary. They also point out that journalism currently caters only to the needs of media consumers. For they crave constructive and solution-oriented information that gives them hope and direction.
Christopher Schrader has a slightly different view of journalists’ responsibility when it comes to activism. He is convinced that they do not lose any journalistic credibility at all by taking a more activist approach to their reporting. On the contrary: journalists must get involved in civil society processes if they want to preserve their credibility. After all, that credibility has been steadily declining for several years.
… a phrase that’s very popular among politicians when issues within their purview make the news and they’re called upon to comment. But all too often, they don’t actually take action.
It may be unusual for scientists to take to the streets and for the media to suddenly start justifying the protesters’ demands instead of reporting on the traffic jams caused by the protests. But decades of political inaction are forcing them out of their research labs and newsrooms; it demands a voice that cries out.
Working with civil society to build a better future? That’s not a threat to credibility—it’s absolutely essential to call out the inaction of politicians!
