We asked about climate change coverage and got 15,000 responses
Give us hope. Show more solutions and less doom and gloom. When we asked Stuff readers about media coverage of climate change, the chorus of voices implored us to help them see a path to a viable future. In June, we surveyed our audience as part of our ongoing Quick! Save the Planet project and received a stunning 15,248 responses. Here, we have distilled seven key themes that emerged. Being about how the media covers climate change, these findings are obviously relevant to journalists. But more than that, they're a valuable impression of general sentiment about climate change. First, we should declare a few caveats. This was a self-selecting survey, not a scientifically robust poll. It constitutes the views of Stuff readers motivated enough to answer a survey, and so is likely skewed to the extremes of passion. We're treating the survey as indicative, not definitive. But the scale of the response about 15 times more than we'd dared hope for speaks to depth of feeling. To calibrate the survey against the population, we asked for demographic, geographic and political details. The largest group of respondents came from Auckland, followed by Wellington then Christchurch. Perhaps predictably, Green voters were over-represented. Of those who specified which party they voted for at the last election, 36 per cent said National (compared to 44.4 per cent at the election), 32.5 per cent said Labour (compared to 36.9 per cent), 19.2 per cent said the Greens (compared to 6.3 per cent), and 5.2 per cent said NZ First (compared to 7.2 per cent). Asked to rate on a five-point scale how important climate change is as an issue, 50 per cent gave the maximum value. Interestingly, there was a correlation between age and alarm with the youngest the most concerned. The survey wasn't a glowing report card for journalists. Asked how well the media cover climate change, on a five-point scale where 1 was terribly and 5 was superbly, only 51 per cent rated us 3 or above. Stuff 's coverage fared better, with 59 per cent rating us 3 or above, even though only a third of respondents were already familiar with Quick! Save the Planet . The 15,000 respondents expressed a healthy variety of views, but recurring themes emerged. All quotes below are directly from survey respondents. Relentlessly negative news about the horrors of climate change can make some people despair and then switch off. "If people think it's overwhelming and hopeless, they will do nothing." Our coverage of the impacts of climate change both in the future and already being felt should be unstinting. But to avoid inducing overpowering climate anxiety, we need to balance the bleak forecasts with constructive stories that offer hope. "Gloom and doom scenarios rarely lead to action, although I do agree it is essential to inform about the catastrophic future scenarios. People seem to be inspired by examples of 'good climate behaviour' stories." "Show stories of mainstream New Zealanders (lawyers, nurses, builders, doctors, teachers, office workers) who are making real and meaningful changes in how they live. Who don't fit the mould of 'hippy', and who everyday people can relate to." "Increase attention to tangible things we/the govt could be doing to make a positive change. Be solutions-focused, rather than focusing on how bad things are." Repeatedly, respondents said they wanted to hear success stories about individuals changing their lifestyles, new technologies being developed, innovative community projects, corporations meaningfully reducing their emissions, politicians taking the problem seriously. Insistent and realistic reporting both of the challenge and of plans to combat it without sugarcoating or greenwashing could foster a sense of urgency without alarmism or hysteria. "We need everyone to know how huge and desperate the crisis is, which means lots of coverage everywhere. Message needs to get through in hard blunt stark ways. But also we need a little bit of hope or we'll all give up and go off the deep end." "More positive information and less doom and gloom. If it's so bad, why bother? I may as well go out and get a 5L V12 Ferrari now and burn as much petrol as I can while I still have the chance!" Many respondents wanted pointers on how they could personally make a difference, from lifestyle changes to wielding their power as a consumer and a voter. "What concerns me ... is my apathy. Evidence shows me I should be worried, but I feel bombarded by info and powerless to make a real personal change." "A sense of self-efficacy is critical to avoid people being 'paralysed' by fear into inaction." Positive examples of Kiwis like them taking action could counter the feeling of being a "helpless bystander". "Role modelling is essential to affect changes in behaviour." Respondents also wanted reporting that made climate change feel tangible. "Selfish as it is, how this will burden my life," said one respondent, when asked what would make coverage more relevant. We should detail both the hip-pocket consequences of a changing climate and the effect individual choices have on the planet. "Make it appeal to the lowest common denominator: money. How is it going to affect my daily spend? My fuel prices? My way of life?" "[Demonstrate] in everyday terms what the impacts of our actions are having on climate change. For example, how many metres of polar ice melt as a result of one person taking a commercial flight". "We all get that the planet is warming, human activities are driving it, and it's going to lead to more extreme weather and higher sea levels, but for your average person these seem like distant, intangible effects. There's a need to translate this into things that people can feel have a tangible impact on their lives to give a sense of urgency." Citizens can reduce their own carbon emissions, but that only makes a small difference in the scheme of things, many respondents said. Keep the focus on what companies, local authorities and the government are doing or, just as importantly, what they're not doing. "Cover the need for systemic action rather than individual, consumer-focused coverage." "Do a more proactive job of holding politicians to account for their words, policies, and lack of actions." "More coverage needs to focus on what large companies are doing to contribute to climate change. It's great that we as individuals can all make small changes but it's really the industries that need to make a move if we're going to save our planet." Respondents asked to be armed with information that would help them vote and shop sustainably. Even if each individual or household could only have a minuscule impact on New Zealand's emissions, collectively they could pressure the big emitters and key decision-makers. "Who are New Zealand's big emitters, and are they making big bucks from polluting the atmosphere?" "[Tell me] groups I should avoid working with due to their lack of climate policy. Individuals I shouldn't vote for due to lax climate policy." Primary industries make up 54 per cent of New Zealand's greenhouse gas emissions . Some respondents felt farming was a sacred cow left unchallenged for too long. "Especially in New Zealand the impact of animal agriculture is ignored. The dairy industry in particular horrendously affects the environment and I would like to see some transparency in reporting such details." But others felt farmers copped too much of the blame for emissions and didn't receive enough credit for taking strides toward sustainability. "Farmers only ever get pilloried in the media. How about some pieces demonstrating the concerted efforts of the rural sector to adapt?" Regardless of blame, farmers couldn't be ignored. " More sustainable farming stories would be good. Would show others that it can be done and there are changes all farmers can make to reduce their carbon footprint." "It's important for the rural community to feel that they can be part of a positive solution, when the future of agriculture looks very different to today's farming types. We're all in this together." Coverage of climate change should reflect the scale of the threat, respondents said. "The media should be treating this like World War III. We are under attack from ourselves." Many called for greater prominence for climate stories on Stuff and in our newspapers. "Front and centre every day but using a constructive tone and language." Have a robust dedicated section collating coverage but don't bury stories there, respondents said. Climate references should infuse our coverage, helping readers see issues through that lens to "challenge the false sense of business as usual". "Air NZ opening new routes? Ask them about climate impacts. Government building new roads? Ask them about climate impacts. KiwiBuild building thousands of new homes? What are the climate impacts?" And words matter. Many respondents said it was time to intensify the language we use to frame stories and to describe it as a mainstream issue, not the domain of "greenies". "Stop calling it climate change (passive) and call it a climate crisis, climate emergency, and global heating instead of global warming." "Veganism gets mocked for idiotic reasons when it does provide many answers to the impact on the environment." "Honestly, the biggest issue is that something that should be bipartisan is used for political point scoring. Depoliticise the coverage of this catastrophe. The fact that we still let politicians dress this up this as still 'greenies' vs hard working farmers for example is embarrassing." Climate change stories can be a word soup of acronyms and complex concepts where the IPCC and the ETS meet GHG emissions and AGW. The survey revealed the need for a much greater level of climate literacy. Respondents asked us to use simple language and visual storytelling through infographics and charts. "Folk don't understand the simple science. Not their fault, it never gets explained in a simple way." "Gentle education of the causes in practical terms with no finger pointing would likely reach more people." There was also an appetite to hear more directly from scientists and to see their research especially the evidence of local effects. "Get the public to trust science. Get cut-through from scientists that people can understand, make it simple and unequivocal." Fear of the world their descendants would inherit motivated some respondents. "My newborn has woken me up to the crisis!" "Paint a picture of what life will be for our children and grandchildren, if we do nothing." Many asked us to chronicle life in 2050 the near future in climate terms explaining how climate change could affect everything from food supply to immigration to housing. "[Show] the kind of planet the children of today will inherit if we fail to reduce emissions e.g. unsurvivable temperatures in some parts of the world, millions of displaced people, crop failures, species extinction, coastal cities under water, unsurvivable storms, uninsurable property. I think people need to be shocked into making change and so they need to realise the full implications for future generations of our modern lifestyles." "Write about what a NZ girl born this year can expect her life to be like and what her children's life will be like. ... My first granddaughter was born this year and I am scared for her." This survey will inform how Stuff covers the climate crisis. We will introduce new features and storytelling formats; pursue particular article ideas pitched by respondents; evaluate how we angle and frame our coverage; and boost the prominence we give to climate change stories. Quick! Save the Planet aims to make the realities of climate change feel urgent, tangible, and unignorable. Heeding this survey's valuable feedback from Stuff 's audience will help us get the message though. Some respondents used the survey to deny the scientific consensus that climate change is real and caused by human activity. Many objected to Stuff 's refusal to give airtime to climate change denialists , accusing us of abandoning our journalistic principles by not giving "balance" and showing "both sides". Balance is an integral journalistic principle. It's relevant when there are competing views that have merit for instance, on the best ways to adapt to or guard against climate change. But matching fact with fiction isn't balance. When we write about global air travel, we don't quote Flat Earth Society members who deny the planet is round. Fake balance which puts reality on level pegging with nonsense is dangerously unethical. The evidence for the existence of human-caused climate change is overwhelming. This is not a good faith debate of two equivalent sides. As the saying goes : you are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.