And that tiny fraction is in spite of a massive campaign by “free market” ideologues to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt about global warming through propaganda. The tactics used in this campaign are extremely similar to those used by tobacco-industry funded groups to spread doubt about the health danger of cigarette smoke. In fact, some of the scientists who participate in the global-warming-doubt campaign are familiar names, having formerly been on the payroll of R.J.Reynolds tobacco company.

The only reason there’s “debate” about global warming is the deliberate, well-orchestrated, propaganda campaign. There’s your story. Start investigating.

For clarification, are you saying the ratio’s of evolution to creationism believers is similar to round and flat-earth believers? Yikes! That could start a holy war. Very strong sides and “research” out there on evolution vs. creation, and seems extremely difficult for a journalist to try to determine weight to give each side. While the global warming issue seems more one-sided, aren’t there still a lot of unknowns? Here’s an example of what can happen when journalists give too much weight to one side on global warming issue.
http://www.nationalcenter.org/TSR032204.html
http://www.nationalcenter.org/TSR032204.html

You make a very good point about journalists role to research and educate themselves on topics before covering them. But the fast pace of local TV News these days, doesn’t really allow reporters the luxury of doing any in-depth research before covering a story. And environmental issues/stories are often tied around a local, unplanned event.
With the variety of stories TV journalists cover, it seems they’re forced to be a Jack of all trades–master of none. Would it be better for them to stay away from environmental issues unless given appropriate time to research and educate themselves?
I know on the issue of global warming, the last thing I would want to do is add to the danger.
-Dave D.

Striving for “balance” in reporting on the issue of global warming is nothing more than abdication of your responsibility to investigate in sufficient depth to ferret out the truth. Your first responsibility as a journalist is to educate yourself on the topic.

Here’s a start: every national science academy from every nation in the world supports the viewpoint that global warming is real, man-made, and dangerous. If you give equal time to so-called “skeptics” then you’re adding to the danger.

You bring up a very good point that I never thought of. What if the story that is being written about has a smaller opposition view and how much time or content should be devoted to this view? I think if some stories have a low opposition rate, than maybe the story isn’t worth promoting.

But I do think in today’s journalism world, journalists would get a far better reputation if all stories centered 50-50 reporting time. Of course this means there would be far less content devoted to the advocacy side of the story or stories would be that much longer to create room for the opposition side.

Maybe stories should be longer and more indepth – educating the public isn’t a bad thing and that is what a journalist is for, is it not?

Christine W.