Science Writers and Communicators of Canada - Our world is changing. Our journalism needs to change too.

Log in

Our world is changing. Our journalism needs to change too.

31 Mar 2026 9:25 PM | Anonymous member (Administrator)

By Jax Jacobsen • April 1, 2026

Commentary/Op-Ed

Now that scientists have determined we have surpassed the suggested Paris limit of 1.5 C, it is clear that we are currently in a climate emergency.

Climate scientists around the world have determined that our best hope of remaining within a livable, 1.5 C global warming increase has now been breached, far earlier than the globe was projected to reach this point. Every country — and Canada is no exception — has been buffeted by severe storms and deadly wildfires, causing billions of dollars in damage and disrupting infrastructure, transport and people’s daily lives.

(Pixabay via Pexels)

Yet, when national and local media groups discuss pressing issues of the day — such as the need to diversify export partners and further diversify the Canadian economy — we’re shown articles and reports pushing for Alberta pipelines, with little to no mention of the climate impacts if these pipelines were to be built.

For science journalists and communicators, it is no longer possible to pretend that climate concerns can be ignored or put to the side, even on stories that do not appear directly linked to climate.

Approaches, before and now

It has been a difficult transition for many journalism and communication groups to incorporate this new reality into their previous understanding of ‘objectivity.’ For years, media groups employed the standard ‘both sides’ approach, ensuring that every assertion made about climate change and global warming was met by pushback from climate skeptics. Failing to provide these opposing arguments on this scientific reality was seen as, at best, abdicating journalism’s position as an unimpeachably unbiased observer, and at worst, climate activism.

There has been a slow movement away from this stance, solidified by the near-unanimous perspective of climate scientists that climate change is both human-driven and occurring at a rapid pace.

In 2018, after years of criticism, the British Broadcasting Corp. (BBC) officially developed a guidance statement for its journalists, accepting the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s finding that climate change is indeed human-made, according to reporting from Carbon Brief (1). The BBC guidance also specifically rejects the need to include climate skeptics in coverage to achieve balance, in regards to reports on whether climate change is happening or that it is human-made. However, the 2018 guidance did say climate skeptics could be quoted when discussing the speed of climate change or how governments should address the issue.

Closer to home, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) issued climate-related guidance on coverage in 2021(2).

“Climate change will define every aspect of our lives and those of generations to come,” CBC Editor-in-Chief, Brodie Fenlon, wrote in the 2021 note (3).

The CBC said it would make climate change a coverage priority at all levels (local and national), and designated climate change as a national beat. It also vowed to create a dedicated international, climate-reporting team. Five years on, however, the CBC has been heavily criticized for not doing more to highlight the critical importance of advancing climate change knowledge for the Canadian audience (4). In October 2024, following criticism that CBC had not done enough to expand its climate coverage, Fenlon reiterated that climate coverage was a priority for CBC News (5).

So what are some ways that writers can bring more of a climate balance into their work?

One option: Reframe ‘objectivity’

Those of us who are trained journalists have all been through extensive training on maintaining objectivity, which focused on (attempting to) remove all personal and political biases from reporting. The journalism industry, and editors throughout the industry, believed it was possible to be completely neutral in conveying information, and the value of journalism was equated with its hands-off, no-stakes-in-the-game approach to events on the ground.

The standard method of ensuring this level of objectivity is encapsulated in what’s now termed ‘both sides’ journalism, in which stories are told, and reactions from both, or all, sides of an issue are included, with journalists standing aside and refusing to weigh in on the issue.

This model has come under tremendous criticism in recent years, including from journalism insiders themselves. As more scientific disinformation (regarding vaccines, climate change and disease) has flooded the public sphere, the ‘both sides’ approach has been fiercely debated, with many pointing out that the traditional ‘objective’ stance of journalists has more often coincided with biases held by white men in charge.

(George Milton Via Pexels)

“'Objectivity' can no longer be trusted to convey the reality of what is happening in our world,” said veteran journalist, Karen K. Ho.

"The current moment exposes the degree to which the 'view from nowhere'/'straight white male' perspective is incongruous with reality," she said in conversation on January 28. She added, "other media critics have pointed out that journalists using the ‘both sides’ method have also been prioritizing quotations from individuals with large audiences, despite their lack of credentials or experience.”

This realization gives science journalists and communicators an opportunity to redefine what 'objectivity' means in practice. Objectivity, at its most fundamental, could be understood to mean refraining from advocating a particular position or solution. Moving from that starting point, journalists could argue that — given the scientifically-agreed reality in which we’re operating, where climate change is real, human-made and having deadly impacts — a new definition of 'objectivity' would insist that climate concerns must be considered, and individuals contesting this basic premise would not be quoted or referenced, at the very least.

Second option: Incorporate risk analyses

If a fundamental mindshift on 'objectivity' throughout the entire journalism industry seems unlikely or farfetched, science journalists and communicators may also consider a technique used by beat journalists to incorporate reputable, third-party reports or findings in stories to provide a corrective balance to other quoted individuals who are promoting incorrect or problematic views on climactic issues.

In the case of a newly proposed pipeline in Canada to contend with tightening trade policy with the U.S., journalists can contrast pipeline advocates’ positions in stories with new research from both economic bodies and international industry organizations to emphasize the climate impact of pursuing such a pathway. In the last two years, the International Energy Agency (IEA) — an agency tasked with objectively monitoring energy demand projections — has openly and repeatedly cautioned that oil is approaching peak demand, making any future pipelines less economical to construct and use.

(Tom Fisk via Pexels)

There are plenty of non-partisan, scientifically-informed reports from business entities that can be paired nicely with any story about fossil fuel groups, or any industry with severe environmental impacts. Among these is Nicholas Stern’s The Economics of Climate Change (published in 2006 for the U.K. government, and still widely referenced today), IPCC reports and IEA assessments, among others.

“Objectivity can no longer be trusted to convey the reality of what is happening in our world."

-Karen K. Ho, Journalist

Freelance journalist, Kelsey Rolfe used this approach in a recent article for Corporate Knights (6). In covering Canadian oil and gas investments, she pointed to a report from U.K.-based think tank, Carbon Tracker, to explain why these investments are risky. By citing a report from a respected think tank outside of Canada, Rolfe was able to provide readers with a more nuanced picture of these investments than they might receive from Canadian publications relying on solely Canadian sources.

Fairness is important in journalism — but so is informing readers that a plan or a project is likely to face steep headwinds, or never make any progress at all. By relying on external sources and reports which take these factors into consideration, journalists are providing a ‘big picture’ framing to their audience. Also, by downplaying the financial risk of, say, new pipelines, the article may be perceived as favouring the fossil fuel industry instead of being objective.

Disclaimer

The views and opinions expressed in this post are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Science Writers and Communicators of Canada (SWCC), the SWCC Board of Directors or the SWCC members.

In keeping with the SWCC's commitment to scientific integrity, accuracy and accountability, this piece may highlight actions or criticisms of organizations and/or individuals which, while may be difficult to hear, remind us of the responsibility when reporting on these critical issues. These comments are intended as fair comment and are not an indication of wrongdoing, malicious intent or liability of the groups in question.

Sources

About the Author

Jax Jacobsen is a Montreal-based journalist who specializes in mining, business, and climate.

Add comment

Author

Comment

Address:

P.O. Box 75 Station A

Toronto, ON

M5W 1A2

Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software