Recently there has been a lot of interest in the Great Barrier Reef and the message surrounding our great icon, so this week I present an excerpt from our recently published article “Competing and conflicting message via online news media: Potential impacts of claims that the Great Barrier Reef is dying” Eagle, Hay, Low (2018).

The Great Barrier Reef (GBR) became a Marine Park in 1975 and was then listed as a World Heritage site in 1981. It stretches for more than 2,300 km along the Queensland (north-eastern) coast of Australia, covering an area of 348,000 km2 and has a 99% overlap between the Park and Heritage areas. It is the world’s largest coral reef system and is estimated to support between 65,000 and 69,000 full time equivalent jobs. It generates significant revenue through Tourism and Recreational and Commercial Fishing, with an overall direct and indirect revenue contribution of $11.6 billion AUD to the Australian Economy. Agricultural industries that operate on the GBR water catchment areas are also significant contributors to the Queensland state economy, with sugar production being worth $1.75 to $2 billion AUD per annum, and meat production contributing a further $4.6 billion AUD per annum.

There have been concerns for several years regarding the declining quality of water on the GBR. It has been reported that coral cover has halved in the last 30–40 years due to cumulative effects of a range of natural (e.g., cyclones, floods, natural disasters including coral bleaching events, etc.) and anthropogenic factors (e.g., pollution, population growth, deforestation, etc.). The decline in coral cover has been reported widely in the media and also by organisations such as the World Wildlife Foundation. 

While the agricultural sector is also cited as contributing to the decline in water quality through sediment loss from erosion of grazing land and leaching of fertilizer and pesticide residues, a significant percentage of farmers do not accept that their farming practices may adversely affect water quality. These issues are complicated further by additional pressures from coastal development and industrial activity and shipping through the Great Barrier Reef. 

Another concern is the growth in “last chance tourism”, i.e. visits undertaken before the attractions of a destination disappear. While this may result in a short-term increase in tourism, this may present problems in terms of pressures on resources and the GBR itself. This perception has been generated largely by news media coverage, with coverage having focused for several years on the declining health of the GBR. 

Media coverage of issues surrounding the GBR is known to impact on both public perceptions and policy development. Multiple pressures on the GBR, both natural and anthropogenic, were predominately sensationalised and negatively reported by the media in 2016, potentially reinforcing perceptions that any attempt at mitigation will be ineffective and thus likely to inhibit future policy development. Media coverage of this nature may have a lasting effect on the health and prospective future of the World heritage-listed icon. 

“Media coverage of this nature may have a lasting effect on the health and prospective future of the World heritage-listed icon.”

Results from a recent media content analysis highlight a need for a review of existing science communication models and strategies to reduce the knowledge-practice gap between scientists and policy makers, together with proactive strategies to counter negative news coverage. Just over 200 articles including news media, blogs and online press releases from government agencies or organisations or from lobby groups were identified. The articles dealt with the current or projected future state of the GBR, water quality issues, impact of natural events such as climate change or anthropogenic influences such as agricultural runoff and the impact of industry on the GBR. 

When reporting conflicting views, a false balance sees the news media frequently give equal coverage to both sides of the debate, irrespective of the amount or quality of evidence presented, or whether some views come from a small number of people. While this ‘objectivity’ in being seen to present all views is claimed to be a basic principle of journalism, this false balance can cause intentional or unintentional bias, magnifying the perceived levels of agreement or disagreement. In particular, when the relative strength of evidence offered by different parties is not stated, a perception may be created or maintained that there is a lack of consensus on particular issues. While stories of conflict or disagreement may stimulate attention and interest, they have been shown to decrease confidence in scientific evidence. 

By overstating the number of members of the scientific community with dissenting views and increasing perceptions that risks have been exaggerated, media coverage may increase doubt regarding the validity of the overall body of scientific evidence. While there is an increased call for interaction between scientific experts and lay publics, there is also debate regarding whether scientists should simply provide information for policy makers or whether, and in what ways they might become effective advocates for change. Awareness of an issue does not necessarily create public concern that will pressure policy makers into immediate responses, particularly where dissent among the scientific community is evident. Where media coverage repeats negative news without offering potential actions that individuals may be able to take, the response may be maladaptive: the feeling that the problems are too big for individuals to be able to influence may lead to increased feelings of helplessness and ultimately to reduced support for any proposed action. Without support, policy change and effective management actions may not be achieved. 

Media reporting presents a negative and sensationalised view of the current and potential future health of the GBR. Repetition of sensationalised headlines and editorial will likely reinforce the negative perception of the future of the GBR even where there is a gap between perceptions of the GBR’s health as portrayed in the media and the reality as identified in analyses of other issues covered in the media. Of more concern is that continued repetition of statements that the GBR is dying is likely to reinforce perceptions that any individual action, such as by farmers, to mitigate water quality problems will be useless, making it difficult to set well-informed effective policies for future management of the GBR.

There is a need to not only provide knowledge, but to empower all stakeholders to participate in knowledge exchange and the mobilisation of it in forms and ways that are relevant to, and usable by, decision makers at all levels of government. The analysis revealed that there were very few attempts to counter negative news media coverage. A much more proactive strategy for providing balance and countering misinformation would appear to be warranted. 

Excerpt from Eagle, Hay, Low (2018). Competing and conflicting message via online news media
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.03.037

jcu.edu.au