SoylentNews

-- OriginalOwner_ [tinyurl.com] writes:

from the science-or-mendacity dept.

The Center for American Progress reports [thinkprogress.org]

Just how accurate is your go-to news outlet on climate and environmental coverage? That’s a question that Climate Feedback, a group that uses scientists to review news articles similar to the way they’d review a research paper, wants to answer.

Last week, Climate Feedback announced the Scientific Trust Tracker [climatefeedback.org], a feature that will track news outlets' accuracy on climate change, one scientist-reviewed story at a time. Right now, the Trust Tracker has preliminary data for five outlets: The New York Times, Mashable, the Washington Post, the Telegraph, Forbes, and the Wall Street Journal. Climate Feedback's community of scientific reviewers--which include actively-publishing scientists specializing in climate change, ocean acidification, sea level rise, and other related topics--has reviewed and annotated articles from these outlets, pointing out their strong and weak points. Taking these reviews into account, the Trust Tracker creates a "reliability index" for news outlets' climate coverage.

[...]So far, the Wall Street Journal has fared most poorly in its treatment of climate change. Of the four articles that Climate Feedback scientists reviewed from WSJ, all were dubbed "flawed" with "low" or "very low" scientific credibility. Two of the articles were op-eds by prominent climate confusionist [thinkprogress.org] Bjorn Lomborg, who has long criticized many efforts to mitigate climate change as useless or too expensive.

[...]Other outlets have fared better. Four Mashable articles--all by Andrew Freeman--have been reviewed by Climate Feedback scientists, and none were found to be objectionable.

As more and more articles are reviewed by scientists, the Scientific Trust Tracker's data will become more and more comprehensive, [said Emmanuel Vincent, founder of Climate Feedback].

Original Submission