Why The Huffington Post Doesn’t Equivocate On Issues Like Global Warming

Posted on

"Why The Huffington Post Doesn’t Equivocate On Issues Like Global Warming"

Image by JD Lasica

by Justin Ellis, via the Nieman Journalism Lab

Huffington Post wants gobs of traffic. It also want reader engagement. But there are some things it just won’t do — like equivocate on whether climate change is real.

HuffPost Science recently featured a story on former astronauts and scientists upset with NASA’s position connecting carbon dioxide to climate change. It’s not new to see sides clash on the issue, and any editor knows it’s a debate that will predictably spill over into the comment thread on a story. HuffPost Science senior editor David Freeman offered up this question at the end of his piece: “What do you think? Is NASA pushing ‘unsettled science’ on global warming?”

One problem: The question violated one of the Huffington Post’s editorial policies. Not long after the piece was posted an editor’s note replaced the question, saying in part:

We’ve removed the question because HuffPost is not agnostic on the matter. Along with the overwhelming majority of the scientific community (including 98% of working climate scientists), we recognize that climate change is real and agree with the agencies and experts who are concerned about the role of carbon dioxide.

“The way the call for engagement was raised was as if we’re somehow agnostic about the reality of climate change,” Arianna Huffington told me.

Huffington framed the incident for me as one of editorial policy. But this isn’t a simple case of clashing stylebooks, of one outlet favoring the Oxford comma and another leaving it out. This is something more akin to a policy position: Within the editorial confines of HuffPost, issues like climate change and evolution are settled, Huffington told me. That doesn’t mean divergent viewpoints aren’t welcomed, she said — just that on certain issues the reporting won’t offer up a false equivalency.

“Where truth is ascertainable, we consider it our responsibility to make it very clear and not to — in the guise of some kind of fake objectivity, the media often pretend that every issue has two sides and that both sides deserve equal weight,” Huffington said. “That’s not the case, and that’s not our editorial stand.”

Traditionalists might find the idea of a mainstream, general-audience news organization staking out these kinds of stances in news stories radical. Huffington doesn’t see it that way, saying that traditional media spends far too much time trying to provide balance on issues that are, within certain facts and other data, settled. For her journalists, she said, that means doing reporting that assesses facts and doesn’t “pretend that the truth is supposed to be found in the middle,” she said.

“Editorially, we train our editors and reporters to basically not buy into what Jay Rosen calls the ‘View from Nowhere’ journalism,” she said. “We see our role more as doing everything we can to ferret out the truth, rather than be a kind of Pontius Pilate washing our hand of the possibility of truth.” That’s evocative of NPR’s new ethics guidelines, which make a similar distinction:

In all our stories, especially matters of controversy, we strive to consider the strongest arguments we can find on all sides, seeking to deliver both nuance and clarity. Our goal is not to please those whom we report on or to produce stories that create the appearance of balance, but to seek the truth…If the balance of evidence in a matter of controversy weighs heavily on one side, we acknowledge it in our reports. We strive to give our audience confidence that all sides have been considered and represented fairly.

Along with HuffPost’s internal editorial guidelines, this incident also demonstrates the value of comments and engagement to its brand. (Huffington told me the site had 7 million reader comments last month.) After all, this wasn’t about anything in the body of Freeman’s work — just his call-to-engagement question to readers.

Huffington Post standards editor Adam Rose told me they quickly added the editor’s note on Freeman’s story because they wanted to be transparent with readers about their editorial process. Instead of offering up a reworded question, they wanted to make it clear why the story had been changed. “I think it’s important that our readers know that and can trust that,” he said. “I think by being direct it develops a sense of trust with our readers who understand that we are not equivocating on the issue of climate change.”

The story’s racked up more than 3,300 comments and counting — not an unusual number by HuffPost standards but not an insignificant one either. Rose said he, Freeman, and Huffington were pleased with the quality of the conversation in the comments of the story.

This is where HuffPost’s stance on climate science and other issues has a practical element: The site is placing a marker to let readers know where it stands. Huffington says readers appreciate that kind of honesty and will reward news organizations for it. “Because we are clear about where we believe the truth lies, I believe we elicit a richer kind of response from our readers,” she said. It also helps in moving stories forward. The site already has a follow-up story to Freeman’s piece by reporter Lucia Graves that found that none of the former NASA personnel who signed the climate change letter actually worked in climate science.

Elevating the level of online comments is a fairly decent, if not constantly shifting, goal, but Huffington sees the editorial guidelines as promoting something broader. “To be able to see clearly where truth lies on one side or the other, as it happened in this particular instance, is not to abandon objectivity — it’s to, in fact, embrace a higher standard of journalism,” she said.

Justin Ellis is an assistant editor at the Nieman Journalism Lab. This piece was originally published at the Nieman website and was re-printed with permission.

« »

11 Responses to Why The Huffington Post Doesn’t Equivocate On Issues Like Global Warming

  1. SecularAnimist says:

    Justin Ellis wrote: “evocative of NPR’s new ethics guidelines”

    Unfortunately, NPR continues to “equivocate” on the reality of global warming every day — when they bother to mention it at all.

    • Ozonator says:

      I just said no to NPR. They were very selective with “This comment has been removed because it did not meet the NPR.org Community Discussion Rules.” and failed to do their homework.

  2. John Tucker says:

    As much as I complain when I am there about other stuff I must admit they are pretty good about spreading the word on climate change unequivocally.

    I worry though about all climate sites that they spend so much time on the basics getting people up to speed from a defensive position new ideas and corrections are avoided out of fear.

    CNN is another story – you’d expect them to be better than HP – Not so. Today a headline reads : “Himalayan glaciers buck global warming” ( http://www.cnn.com )

    The story itself is about more moisture making it up higher and in a isolated case, causing mountain glaciers at high elevations to seemingly grow slightly. Entirely consistent with climate change – but that didn’t stop the person that writes the headlines.

    • Mulga Mumblebrain says:

      For some time now, probably a few decades, ideological conformity has been rigorously enforced in the MSM. Whereas in the past journalists were often Leftwing, even radical, those types have long ago been purged. The oligopolisation of the MSM into fewer and fewer hands, of increasingly febrile Rightwing brainwashers makes ideological conformity absolutely essential to a ‘successful’ career. This sort of distortion is absolutely commonplace, and will not change.

  3. EDpeak says:

    Glad they changed it (maybe glad, maybe not, it may give a straw man ‘complaint of unfairness’ to the skeptics…it should not have been posted in the first place)

    But am I the only one seeing the (more than) half glass that’s empty, namely, how the heck does an organization with a progressive background like HP have someone in Senior Editor position who asks the “question” whether we really know that Anthropogenic Global Warming is real?

    What does it say about HP that this is the very poor judgement of the person they hire?

    Next up, their domestic affairs editor will ask, “what do you think readers, should beating wife’s with a narrow stick have been abolished?” and “is the science of evolution really true?” by a Science editor?

    I’ve avoided them since their tabloidization (Hollywood gossip, etc) and AOL but few peeks I’ve taken there suggest what you’d expect, they are far from the progressive old self and will likely slide further down, down, as the profit imperative takes stronger hold. Very sad.

  4. Some European says:

    Great! I’m happy the civilized outrage led to a (re)affirmation of their pro-science position, and set a precedent.
    HuffPost definitely scores some good points with this move.
    What is keeping other media outlets from make similar declarations?

  5. Sasparilla says:

    Nice to see this description. It would certainly be good if this type of stance becomes something the media start feeling public pressure to migrate towards.

  6. VBobier says:

    Ah yes, No wonder I like the HP more than any other Newspaper, they want the Truth to be told as their not in the business of publishing fiction.

  7. Tom King says:

    Like many others, I ditched HP for exactly the reason they are now pretending didn’t happen. Their climate change reporting was focused on selling the controversy, not the facts. It was only a few months ago that they ran articles about avoiding the next ice age. Sorry AOL, errr Arianna, once fooled twice shy.

  8. I think it’s the media’s responsibility to, where-ever possible, separate fact from fiction. This is especially true when it comes to issues that involve public safety. And climate change is most certainly a public safety issue.

  9. Deech56 says:

    Yet they feel free to publish vaccine denial pieces.