Summary

AI-generated

This summary is written by a language model reading the source document. It is not the publisher's words and is not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment

The report analyzes 2013 cable news segments from CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC, finding significant disparities in scientific accuracy. MSNBC had the highest accuracy rate (92%), followed by CNN (70%) and Fox News (28%). The authors argue that misleading coverage, particularly the use of 'false debates' on CNN and the disparagement of scientists on Fox News, hinders democratic dialogue on climate policy by conflating established scientific facts with political opinions.

Key insights

AI-generated

These insights are written by a language model reading the source document. They are not the publisher's words and are not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment
  • In 2013, the accuracy of climate science coverage varied significantly by network: MSNBC was the most accurate at 92%, followed by CNN at 70%, and Fox News Channel at 28%.
  • CNN's inaccuracies primarily stemmed from a framing choice to host debates between guests who accept and those who dispute established science, which falsely suggests the science is still widely debated among scientists.
  • Fox News exhibited the lowest accuracy and was the most likely network to feature hosts and guests who disparaged climate science or criticized the credibility of researchers.
  • A common misleading tactic on Fox News involved using short-term temperature records to claim a 'pause' in global warming while ignoring long-term warming trends and other indicators like sea level rise.
  • While MSNBC's coverage was overwhelmingly accurate, its few misleading segments typically involved overstating the effects of climate change, specifically regarding the speed of sea level rise and links to certain extreme weather events like tornadoes.
  • The report argues that the conflation of scientific facts with political opinions prevents the American public from having an open dialogue about how to respond to climate risks.

Cite the original document

APA
Huertas, A., & Kriegsman, R. (2014). Science or Spin? Union of Concerned Scientists. https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/2019-09/Science-or-Spin-report.pdf
Chicago
Huertas, Aaron, and Rachel Kriegsman. Science or Spin? Union of Concerned Scientists, 2014. https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/2019-09/Science-or-Spin-report.pdf.
Wikipedia
{{cite report |last1=Huertas |first1=Aaron |last2=Kriegsman |first2=Rachel |title=Science or Spin? |publisher=Union of Concerned Scientists |date=April 2014 |url=https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/2019-09/Science-or-Spin-report.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}
BibTeX
@techreport{huertas2014science, author = {Huertas, Aaron and Kriegsman, Rachel}, title = {{Science or Spin?}}, institution = {Union of Concerned Scientists}, year = {2014}, month = apr, url = {https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/2019-09/Science-or-Spin-report.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }

Full text

Collected · Record updated