Media Scholar Examines Climate Disinformation in New Book

As the climate crisis intensifies, questions about how media shapes public understanding of environmental issues have taken center stage. A groundbreaking analysis of this relationship arrives next week in the form of a new book by Michelle Amazeen, Associate Dean of Research and Associate Professor of Mass Communication at Boston University.

Amazeen’s work, “Content Confusion: News Media, Native Advertising, and Policy in an Era of Disinformation,” provides a critical examination of how mainstream media outlets and advertising practices contribute to climate misinformation. The book, releasing November 18, draws on extensive experimental research and in-depth interviews with journalists to reveal concerning patterns in media coverage.

According to Amazeen, one of the most troubling developments is the proliferation of “native advertising” – paid content designed to mimic the look and feel of editorial material. These advertorials often lack clear disclosure, particularly when shared across social media platforms, leaving readers unable to distinguish between independent journalism and corporate messaging.

In a recent interview with The Nation published on November 5, Amazeen highlighted how these blurred boundaries create opportunities for fossil fuel companies to subtly influence public perception and policy debates surrounding climate change.

“The public is increasingly recognizing the greenwashing doublespeak from corporations that loudly promote sustainability efforts, even as the majority of their investments continue to support activities that harm the environment,” Amazeen explained. “This credibility gap highlights the urgent need for greater transparency and accountability in corporate environmental claims.”

The book arrives at a pivotal moment in climate reporting. Media organizations face mounting financial pressures in the digital age, with many turning to native advertising as a revenue stream. However, Amazeen’s research suggests these economic incentives can lead to editorial compromises that ultimately amplify misleading narratives about climate science and environmental policy.

Through case studies and empirical evidence, Amazeen demonstrates how such practices not only confuse audiences but potentially undermine the urgent climate action scientists say is necessary to avoid the worst impacts of global warming.

The findings have significant implications for the energy industry. Major fossil fuel companies have faced growing criticism for public messaging that emphasizes green initiatives while their core business models remain centered on carbon-intensive products. Amazeen’s work suggests media outlets may be inadvertently providing platforms for such messaging through poorly labeled sponsored content.

Media literacy experts note that the timing of Amazeen’s book is particularly relevant given recent debates about the role of social media in amplifying misleading information. As climate content increasingly moves from traditional news outlets to digital platforms, the challenges of transparent labeling become more complex.

The research also highlights regional disparities in climate coverage, noting that communities most vulnerable to climate impacts often receive less comprehensive reporting on environmental issues. This information gap potentially exacerbates existing inequities in climate preparedness and policy response.

Journalists interviewed for the book acknowledged the financial pressures driving native advertising adoption but expressed concerns about long-term impacts on credibility and public trust. Several cited institutional policies that have evolved to maintain clearer boundaries between sponsored and editorial content.

As climate policy debates intensify globally, Amazeen argues that accurate, transparent journalism remains more crucial than ever. Her book provides a roadmap for media organizations, policymakers, and consumers to navigate an increasingly complex information landscape while preserving the integrity of climate reporting.

“Content Confusion” adds to a growing body of academic work examining the relationship between media economics, information quality, and democratic decision-making on climate issues. For news organizations and readers alike, it offers a timely reminder that how stories are funded can significantly influence how environmental challenges are understood and addressed.