Research among experienced environmental journalists reveals a shift since 2000 in their view of "balance," as an element of objectivity. They now advocate a "weight of evidence" approach where stories reflect scientific consensus.
27 pages, via online journal, This study explored whether satire (an emotional blend of humor/indignation) can minimize the emotional tradeoffs researchers have documented for humorous appeals about climate change. Using a sample of U.S. young adults, we conducted a 2 (humor: present/absent) × 2 (indignation: present/absent) + 1 (control) experiment in which we manipulated a climate change segment from Jimmy Kimmel Live! Our evidence suggests that it is possible for a late-night host to affect young adults’ climate change risk perception and behavioral intentions under certain conditions. Moderation analyses indicated that avoiding humor helped close the partisan gap in risk perception between Republicans and Democrats.
17 pages, via online journal, Sarcastic content is prevalent in online social media, although little research has explored its effects. In this study, we examine how exposure to one-sided versus two-sided sarcastic perspectives on climate change shapes beliefs about climate change. We find that exposure to one-sided messages that use irony to deride those who believe that climate change is a hoax (presented in The Onion) raises belief certainty in and perceived risk of climate change for those who do not already believe climate change is an important issue (N = 141). The two-sided message (presented by The Weather Channel) does not show any effects.
