Let’s also talk about scale in the study- it looked at 1,794 press releases. Only 10% of those were anti climate action, and only 14% of those were cited, so we are talking about 25 press releases over 20 years, as opposed to 113 pro-climate press releases. That means that 81% of covered PRs are pro climate action instead of 90% of press releases- readers would still get the impression that an overwhelming majority of orgs are pro climate action.

I have other quibbles here (climate consensus has changed over the last 35 years), but I definitely didn’t come away agreeing that there is something fundamentally wrong with journalistic standards as the article and abstract imply.