In recent years, the world has suffered a dramatic increase in temperature which in turn has melted the polar ice caps raising the sea level slowly but surely. These are facts. However, some news sources such as Fox News don’t like to acknowledge these facts as true occurring events; rather they enjoy calling them “theories” and “ideas,” thus contributing to the distrust of scientists. When scientists who have focused their entire research on climate change and the global distribution of heat throughout the recent years are questioned for validity on news broadcasts, viewers sometimes find the need to reconsider their respect and appreciation for these proven facts. When scientists who are experts in the area of climate change aren’t believed, then who are the people believing?

Time and time again media consuming people are skeptical about where news sources come from; which in essence is a good thing. If an article from an unknown news source claims that five volcanoes are going to erupt tomorrow, its safe to assume that most viewers will disregard that piece of information as untrue and move on. But when a scientist makes a claim that if we don’t stop expelling carbon dioxide into the atmosphere at the rate which we are now our polar ice caps will melt and the rise in sea level will flood major coastal regions, viewers should not disregard that piece of information as untrue. Scientists today, more than ever, are constantly mistrusted and it seems as though they have to not only prove their findings to the audience, but they also have to prove themselves as worthy “sharers of information”.

When a news network has a speaker on television claiming that “climate change is a superstition like a Native American rain dance,” viewers don’t know what to believe. Should they trust their regular news channel with information that contradicts mainstream media? Or should they disregard a keynote speaker on the news channel that provides them with their everyday news? This common paradigm puts viewers in a catch-22 situation; if they believe the speaker then they’re going against proven facts and multitudes of outside sources, but if they don’t believe the speaker then they’re going against their own news channel that provides them with the rest of their news everyday; so what else should they not be believing?

When muckraking began in the early 1900s, journalists looked for any and all negative information about people in high society. As that concept evolved through time the aim of the journalists evolved too. Rather than focusing on famous or rich people, they began focusing more on influential people. Prior to muckraking, if you were a scientist you could get away with unethical studies and procedures, you could stretch the truth or even flat out lie about certain things and odds were definitely in your favor in regards to getting caught. No one would look into your research too much because you were a scientist with a degree and you would never lie (or so the common people thought). However, after muckraking took off, journalists began unearthing scandalous issues with regards to scientists and the validity of their procedures and results. Because of this tension and lack of trust growing between journalists and scientists, their relationship never was the same. Scientists are always trying to prove every little thing they do to journalists who will look for any possible thing to eradicate the scientists’ work, and even in some cases, obliterate their reputation. Scientists and journalists shouldn’t be working against each other to outdo each other; they should work together to contribute to the greater good of the world.