
'Climate change contrarians' receive 49% more media coverage than scientists - happy-go-lucky
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/climate-change-contrarians-receive-49-per-cent-more-media-coverage-than-scientists-us-study-finds
======
sawaruna
It seems like the 49% is when taking into account a wide variety of sources,
including random online magazines and blogs. When using "mainstream media",
the coverage drops to 1%. The fact that they get even 1% more (or equal for
that matter) coverage is still dumb but at least it's not as bad as 49%.

From the paper:

>Here we show via direct comparison that contrarians are featured in 49% more
media articles than scientists. Yet when comparing visibility in mainstream
media sources only, we observe just a 1% excess visibility, which objectively
demonstrates the crowding out of professional mainstream sources by the
proliferation of new media sources, many of which contribute to the production
and consumption of climate change disinformation at scale.

>Together, these results show that CCCs derive a comparative visibility
advantage from non-scientists gaining attention in peripheral non-mainstream
media sources. Conversely, the observed parity between CCCs and CCSs in
mainstream media sources may reflect media writers seeking journalistic
balance when reporting on CC. Indeed, we find that every select-30 media
source has provided CCC significant visibility, thereby increasing CCC
authority and credibility (see Supplementary Fig. 4). The disproportionate
visibility of CCCs, even in mainstream media sources, is reminiscent of early
contrarian efforts that leveraged the U.S. Federal Communications Commission
Fairness Doctrine to obtain equal press time.

