Journalism vs. Communications: The Battle for Truth in Climate Reporting

Recently during a Zoom call, a philanthropic advisor posed a question that cuts to the heart of our information ecosystem: What’s missing from climate communications today? His framing suggested journalism was merely a branch of communications—a characterization that deserves serious examination.

The advisor outlined how climate messaging strategies have evolved over decades. First came the scare tactics, exemplified by Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth.” When fear proved ineffective, advocates pivoted to providing quality information, assuming a knowledge deficit was the problem. Now, philanthropic dollars flow toward solutions journalism, based on the belief that hope motivates action.

What this analysis overlooked, however, is the formidable opposition climate science has faced since the 1980s. The fossil fuel industry and its allies have invested over a billion dollars in constructing a sophisticated misinformation infrastructure aimed at preserving carbon energy’s economic dominance. With Fox News amplifying these messages, this false narrative has effectively undermined the scientific consensus.

The oil industry’s communications playbook has become a template for eroding facts across nearly every sphere of public discourse. Their techniques have proven so effective that “agnotology”—the study of deliberately created ignorance—has emerged as a growing academic field.

Compounding this problem, environmental journalism has suffered its greatest contraction in American history. Local news outlets, once the backbone of climate reporting in communities, have been decimated by economic forces.

When examining the advisor’s premise that journalism is a branch of communications, a fundamental distinction emerges. Communications typically begins with a predetermined agenda, often for a paying client. It crafts focus-group-tested messages targeting specific audiences to achieve predetermined outcomes. It deploys spokespeople and coordinates campaigns across platforms, measuring results meticulously. Importantly, it views free press as something to be used for “earned media”—a tool in its arsenal.

Contrast this with a proper newsroom, particularly a local outlet covering its community. Journalists sift through the barrage of communications campaigns to determine what’s actually happening. Their mission isn’t telling readers what to think but bearing witness, listening to stakeholders, consulting experts, following evidence, and crafting stories that fairly and accurately reflect findings for community benefit.

This distinction suggests a sobering reclassification: communications as a form of propaganda, given its manipulative techniques and power dynamics; journalism as a form of education, which through daily acts of discovery serves as a check on power and wrongdoing.

America’s propaganda culture has deep roots. Edward Bernays, Sigmund Freud’s nephew, pioneered modern public relations. His first major success was selling Americans on entering World War I after voters had elected Woodrow Wilson on a peace platform. Tellingly, his 1928 book on public opinion was titled “Propaganda,” opening with the chilling declaration that “the conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society.”

Today, publicists outnumber journalists six to one, a statistic that should alarm anyone concerned with democracy. Yet the crisis in journalism is often framed as mere “creative destruction” rather than an existential threat to democratic governance.

The public sphere has too easily accepted the notion of a “post-fact world.” But facts govern our lives regardless of whether we recognize them. In the case of climate change, what we refuse to acknowledge is already causing deaths and destruction.

Inside Climate News has responded by establishing bureaus across the country, working with partner newsrooms to dispel silence and counter misinformation. Even with small teams, they elevate local environmental conversations around drinking water, air quality, and land use while holding leaders and polluters accountable.

As our democracy faces unprecedented tests, the institutions that protect factual integrity and rational discourse—legal systems, academic institutions, and free press—stand as bulwarks against a cynical slide toward ignorance. Our democracy would be immeasurably stronger if we had six journalists for every publicist, rather than the reverse.

The fundamental question may not be what’s missing from climate communications, but how to flood the information ecosystem with truth.