By Jessica Scott-Reid for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Nadia Ramlagan for Kentucky News Connection reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration

When “misinformation” was declared 2018’s Word of the Year by Dictionary.com, the website stated at the time that “the rampant spread of misinformation poses new challenges for navigating life.” The year prior, Collins Dictionary named “fake news” as its word of the year. Misinformation has since proliferated — made worse by the COVID-19 pandemic — as both social and traditional media have become viral vectors for the spread. Two hot topics have become especially susceptible to media misinformation and bias — climate change and our food system.

For readers seeking balance and objectivity on these issues, the current media environment can be tough to navigate. Corporate interests, polarizing politics and social media influence make the truth more and more difficult to decipher. To help readers traverse this challenging media landscape, we asked experts in media literacy for tips on how to spot misinformation red flags. Here’s how to separate fact from fallacy, and truth from conspiracy.

Why Misinformation Exists in Media

Though the concept of misinformation in media might seem relatively new, according to Sander van der Linden, professor of psychology at Cambridge University, and author of the book Foolproof: Why We Fall for Misinformation and How to Build Immunity, this threat to the public has actually been around since the late 1800s; back then in the form of media propaganda.

“A lot of people traced the first example back to the Spanish American War,” he explains, “where there was this sort of fake news about a U.S. tanker that sank, which was blamed on the Spanish even though that wasn’t true.” This false information “swayed public opinion in favor of the war,” he says, and was an early example of what came to be known as “yellow journalism: — journalism based on sensationalism and crude exaggeration. Since then, the problem of misinformation in the media has persisted.

Van der Linden points to cable TV news as the medium that took media misinformation to the next level. “In journalism you have editorial standards, you have fact checkers,” he explains. That’s no longer always the case, he says, as “cable news dropped some of those standards.”

As Flavia Roscini writes in her research for Boston University, “cable news is a business that runs on ratings and advertisements. In order to capture people’s attention, it needs to be engaging. It has, therefore, increasingly blurred the lines between information and entertainment.”

The emergence of social media then blurred those lines further, with “no barriers to entry,” says van der Linden. “Right on YouTube, we have content creators who can say anything now without any type of fact checking. There’s no regard for accuracy.”

John Cook, an expert in the cognitive psychology of climate science denial, says that “by removing gatekeepers [editors, fact-checkers, etc.], social media makes it possible for any individual to potentially reach millions of people.” But, he adds, “it’s worse than that. Misinformation spreads faster and deeper than facts on social media because it’s usually more eye-catching and salacious than dry facts.” And once misinformation takes hold, he adds “it’s notoriously hard to undo the damage.”

With online misinformation spreading quickly, and “more and more by inauthentic accounts and AI generated content,” van der Linden says, “the problem has gotten away from us.”

How to Add More Media Literacy to Your News Diet

The abundance of misinformation in the media today has created an increased need for media literacy among readers and audiences. Media literacy is the ability to critically analyze media content to determine its accuracy and credibility. To do this, says Jon Greenberg, a few steps are required. Greenberg is a senior correspondent for PolitiFact, and he teaches journalism at Poynter Institute.

The first step in looking critically at a piece of media, Greenberg says, is an emotional check-in. “If there’s a sense of, ‘Damn it, I knew that was the case,’ or ‘holy smokes, no way’ shock,” then, he says, the next step is the hardest, but most important: “hit the pause button.”

If media consumers can hit that pause button, says Greenberg, the following step is to then ask who or what the source of the information is. “Then you can ask the question: do they have a dog in this fight? What’s their interest?” Consider whether there are any potential conflicts or financial gains at stake.

The next step, Greenberg says, is to look at the news and interrogate the evidence. “Is it believable? Just because it comes from a group that is, say, the ‘Center for Really Savvy Insights’ doesn’t mean that they are squeaky clean,” he says. “They may not be insightful, and they may not be savvy.”

Judging the credibility of a source is key. “Do they have a setup that allows them to go through internal challenges to make sure that the information is accurate?” Greenberg says that if a source appears to be a “lone wolf researcher” — though they may have a PhD — readers should beware. “If they’re working by themselves, they haven’t gone through the process of having their findings and their conclusions vetted by their colleagues, peer reviewed.” Facts are learned through being challenged, he explains, “and that which survives challenges becomes our accepted truth.”

Finally, Greenberg says readers should be interested in what other people are saying about the topic or story. “Plug the phrase into Google and see what bubbles up,” he says. Look to see if certain advocacy or political groups have taken up the same issue, and what fact checkers and debunkers have to say. “And in this way, you can round out your picture.”

Navigating News on Climate Change

Some topics have become more vulnerable to misinformation than others; particularly those that are polarizing, political or with vested financial interests. Climate change is one of those topics, and Cook says that the tendency of mainstream media to present both sides of a debate has allowed for misinformation on climate science to easily enter the public discourse. Presenting both sides of the argument may be “an appropriate approach when it comes to politics or matters of opinion, but misleads the public when applied to matters of scientific fact.”

For example, “it would be inappropriate to give a flat-earther equal coverage with a scientist from NASA, in the same way it’s inappropriate and misleading to give a climate science denier equal coverage with a climate scientist.” Cook’s research has found this format “gives the audience the impression of a 50/50 debate among the scientific community, when the actual scientific consensus on issues like human-caused global warming is greater than 97 percent.”

Another red flag to be on the lookout for when maneuvering through mainstream news on climate change? The omission of the role food systems, and specifically meat and dairy, plays. A 2023 study conducted by Sentient and Faunalytics revealed that animal agriculture is systematically underreported in climate media coverage; 93 percent of the climate news stories reviewed didn’t even mention it. This, despite the fact that animal agriculture is a leading cause of deforestation, and is responsible for between 11.1 and 19.6 percent of global emissions.

Climate misinformation also makes its way into mainstream media via political leaders promoting false arguments about climate change, Cook adds. “Unfortunately, several studies have found that one of the biggest drivers of changes in public opinion about climate change is cues from political leaders,” he says. “People are tribal and respond when our tribal leaders speak.”

Seeking out peer-reviewed sources is the best way to find reliable information on climate change, Cook asserts — however, he recognizes that asking the public to read technical studies from scientific journals may be a bit much. “There are a number of other authoritative and thoroughly-vetted sources on climate information,” he says, “such as the NASA climate website and the National Academy of Science, which are also written to be accessible to non-scientists.”

Navigating News About the Meat Industry

News covering the meat and dairy industries is particularly ripe for misinformation, as the bias goes deep. Tayler Zavitz, a sociologist and critical animal studies scholar, describes this as an entire “corporate-controlled system” at work, made up of “the media, invested corporations (the animal agriculture industry), and the state.” One result of this system: journalists rarely, if ever, include animal suffering, let alone animal welfare, in their news coverage.

For example, while it is common to see quotes from industry sources, such as farmers and lobby/trade groups, rarely are animal advocates sought out for comment, or are the experiences of the animals considered.

Consider news coverage of barn fires. Often, the stories highlight the loss of money or product, as well as the devastation of the farmers. Reporting on how the animals died, often horrifically, is almost never included. “Readers should look at whether the coverage is written through an anthropocentric lens” says Zavitz. Pointing to our barn fire example, she says, “we often see headlines like ‘No injuries in barn fire,’ but the article will then go on to note that 30,000 hens were killed. So, this sort of discourse highlights the human-focused, capitalist ideology underpinning the mainstream news media, as that animal lives are seen as so insignificant and worthless outside of their economic value.”

Meat and dairy industry groups are also pouring money into academic centers created to train researchers in communicating industry-aligned messages to the public. While food industry funding for public research is nothing new, the focus on “communications” and “public trust” is a more recent and worrying invention, because the emphasis is on the message, rather than on research to improve the way food is produced.

One such example is the CLEAR Center at University of California, Davis created by Professor Frank Mitloehner, a scientist with a long public record of downplaying the climate impacts of meat and dairy. A 2022 New York Times and Unearthed investigation revealed Mitloehner did not disclose the full extent of his industry funding on the center’s website. Yet that revelation did little to discourage livestock industry groups from communications funding, and a similar initiative now exists at Colorado State University. And the pork industry has pledged to fund research to boost “public trust between pork producers and pork consumers,” to address animal welfare concerns.

The blurred lines between industry and public research is tricky for journalists to navigate, but also critical in this moment. A 2023 Washington Post-University of Maryland poll found 74 percent of Americans think — wrongly — that not eating meat would make little or no difference for climate change. The scientific research actually shows the opposite: eating less meat with a plant-rich diet is one of the most effective forms of individual climate action, according to Project Drawdown. When in doubt, journalists should avoid leaning on single studies in their reporting, but look instead for the scientific consensus or what most of the research points to.

The Bottom Line

In a media landscape increasingly saturated with misinformation, the need for critical media literacy is growing. As readers navigate topics like climate change and the food system, skills to discern fact from fallacy are crucial. By questioning sources, examining evidence and seeking diverse perspectives and peer reviewed conclusions, readers can better understand the truth amidst the noise of media sensationalism and industry bias.


Jessica Scott-Reid wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email

By Nina Misuraca Ignaczak for Planet Detroit.
Broadcast version by Chrystal Blair for Michigan News Connection for the Planet Detroit-Public News Service Collaboration.

Darwin Baas surveys Kent County’s landfill from the cab of a county truck, watching the steady arrival of waste-hauling vehicles dumping drywall, sofas, home clean-outs, and bagged leftovers tumbling out by the ton. An average of 800 of these trucks arrive every day. The South Kent Landfill — just outside Grand Rapids — is now about 95% full.

“Everything up here is going to try to kill you,” he tells visitors, gesturing toward the trash compactors and bulldozers weaving between soft spots of shifting debris. But it’s not just the machinery that makes this place dangerous — it’s the system itself, designed to make waste disappear with maximum convenience and minimum cost.

Baas, director of Kent County’s Department of Public Works, has spent the last 11 years trying to bend that system in a new direction. Under his leadership, Kent County has voluntarily captured methane from its landfill, continued to operate Michigan’s only municipal waste-to-energy incinerator, and proposed an ambitious Sustainable Business Park to divert food and yard waste, recover recyclables, and incubate circular economy businesses. 

But most of the county’s 600,000 tons of annual municipal solid waste still ends up here.

Kent County is among a minority of counties in Michigan managing waste through a publicly operated system. The vast majority of landfills statewide — 49 of 60 — are privately owned and profit-driven, further reinforcing the incentive to bury. Waste Management owns and operates dozens of landfills across Michigan. Baas sees this as a structural barrier to meaningful change.

“We need public-private partnerships,” he said. “The investments that need to be made are long-term — that’s not something the private sector is going to do on its own.”

The challenge Baas faces isn’t just operational — it’s systemic. As Michigan works to meet its climate goals, one of the most potent sources of greenhouse gas emissions is hiding in plain sight: landfills.

When food, yard waste, and other organic materials are buried, they decompose without oxygen and produce methane — a greenhouse gas that traps more than 80 times as much heat as carbon dioxide over a 20-year period. Though less visible than smokestacks or tailpipes, landfills are among the state’s largest sources of methane emissions, trailing only the fossil fuel sector.

Michigan recently overhauled its solid waste law, in part to address methane leaks. But even with new rules on the books, economic incentives still favor the cheapest option: burying waste. 

Baas sees this as a core flaw in how Michigan manages its garbage — and a missed opportunity. In Kent County, he’s built an integrated system that prioritizes material recovery, energy generation, and composting over landfilling.

However, those systems are more expensive upfront and require initial and ongoing investment, which means aligning public infrastructure, private capital and long-term planning in ways Michigan’s current system doesn’t support.

At the heart of the issue is a tension between innovation and inertia — between new solutions and a regulatory and economic system still structured around cheap disposal. Michigan has the opportunity to lead on waste recovery, Baas argues, but doing so will require more than technical upgrades. It will demand a fundamental rethinking of how the state handles waste — and who bears the burden.

A new regulatory push

Michigan overhauled its solid waste law in 2022, in part to address methane leaks. The updated Part 115 requires all landfills — regardless of age or size — to self-monitor methane emissions and fix leaks through patching or installing gas collection systems if they exceed thresholds. New technologies, including satellite mapping and drones, offer more precise ways to detect emissions than traditional walkover surveys — but adoption remains slow.

Sniffer Robotics, an Ann Arbor-based company, developed the only EPA-approved drone for landfill methane detection. Its technology, already in use at Arbor Hills Landfill, can locate leaks faster and more accurately than older methods. Yet despite promising results, cost barriers and procurement hurdles have limited uptake across the state.

Michigan’s new rules also impose faster compliance timelines: sites must correct surface emissions within 90 days or begin designing a full gas collection system. Currently, Michigan landfills use a mix of active and passive gas systems — active systems vacuum methane to flares or energy generators. In contrast, passive systems may vent it directly into the air. Sites without active collection may eventually be forced to upgrade.

Tim Unseld, a solid waste engineer with the Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE), said two landfills without gas systems have already detected surface emissions and made repairs. But those fixes may not last. “Once enough landfill gas is generated, it will follow the path of least resistance to escape,” he said. Ongoing repairs can become costly — pushing operators toward installing full recovery systems, particularly if they can sell the captured methane as energy.

Environmental advocates argue the reforms don’t go far enough. “We’re the sixth-largest producer of landfill methane emissions, even though we’re only the 10th or 11th most populous state,” said Mike Garfield, executive director of the Ecology Center. “The basic reason is simple: We’ve made it too easy and too cheap to landfill waste.”

Garfield wants the state to adopt enforceable best practices across the board — including tighter flare controls, real-time monitoring, and mandatory adoption of tools like Sniffer’s — and points to the 2022 Arbor Hills consent judgment as a model.

Arbor Hills, owned by GFL Environmental, is the largest landfill in the state in terms of the amount of waste in place, according to EPA. It has faced years of complaints and violations tied to odor, gas migration, and leachate issues. So far, however, EGLE has not moved to apply those stricter terms statewide.

“The Part 115 amendments of 2023 include what EGLE considers best practices,” said agency spokesperson Josef Greenberg, adding that the state’s current focus is on implementation.

The economics of food waste disposal

Food waste is the largest single component of Michigan’s municipal waste stream by weight. Yet efforts to keep it out of landfills face a steep uphill climb — in large part because the system is built to reward the opposite.

Disposal fees are typically based on weight, creating a strong financial incentive for landfills owners to accept heavier materials like food waste. “This is really carbon-rich material — it generates methane, and they can use that methane to drive biogas-based processes,” Desirée Plata, an environmental engineer at MIT.

It’s a perverse incentive, she noted, especially as Michigan aims to reduce methane emissions. Instead of rewarding diversion, the current system reinforces disposal. “We’re paying for disposal by the ton, not by environmental outcome,” she said. According to EPA data, 35 out of 60 landfills in Michigan — nearly 60% — have landfill gas-to-energy projects. 

That tension sits at the heart of Baas’s frustration. He’s spent years trying to reorient the local waste system around recovery. “I’ve been told I’m an oddity in the waste industry,” Baas said. “Most people don’t see the system this way.”

Waste recovery adds expense and faces adoption challenges, said Debora Johnston with Waste Management. “Capturing landfill gas generates revenue to help operators keep disposal costs down, helps protect our environment, and creates a renewable energy source for our local community,” she said.

“But separating out organics like food waste is expensive.” Indeed, the estimated cost for Kent County to meet the needs of a community of 640,000 to process 400,000 tons of mixed waste would exceed $400 million.

Plata said one of the most effective actions municipalities can take today is to fund composting. “Every municipality on the planet should be funding compost programs,” she said. “It’s one of the easiest things we can do to fight climate change — and it works.”

But Johnston points out the challenge of getting people to change their ways.

“Most communities are finding participation in recycling programs to have plateaued,” Johnston said. “And new organics collection and drop-off sites face many of the same challenges.”

That’s why Baas sees single-stream processing — separating out organics like food waste and recoverable items like recyclables and metals after pickup — as the path forward.

Despite setbacks, including the withdrawal of a private-sector partner, Kent County is moving forward with its Sustainable Business Park — a proposed 250-acre campus on county-owned farmland next to the nearly full South Kent Landfill.

The county has made a deliberate decision not to site a new landfill there and instead repurpose the land for recovery infrastructure that could process food and yard waste — which has been banned from landfills in Michigan since 1993.

“We’re past the point of building another landfill,” Baas said. “We’re trying to do something different.” Still, he acknowledges the economics won’t shift without public investment and new rules. 

“We’ve determined that the highest, best use for these organics was mission critical,” he said. “But unless you change policy and infrastructure to make it go somewhere else, food waste will keep going to landfills — the lowest hanging fruit economically.”


Nina Misuraca Ignaczak wrote this article for Planet Detroit.


get more stories like this via email

Wyomingites are split on what is causing climate change, but 86% of residents in the state agree it is happening, according to a new survey.

Kristen Landreville, a researcher at the University of Wyoming, surveyed a group of state residents and found 39% think climate change is caused by humans and 47% think it is not. Causes aside, more than 80% of respondents said their communities should plan for shifting water resources.

"Whether it's local community officials, Wyoming state legislators, Wyoming governor, we see high numbers of people saying, 'We want to do more to adapt to the changing water resources in our state,'" Landreville reported.

Landreville added most people are worried about future water threats. Fewer than half of respondents said their local area is already feeling the effects of changing water resources but about 70% think the same areas could be affected in the future.

The survey also found major misconceptions about public opinion. While eight of 10 respondents believe communities should plan for changes to water resources, only half believe their community feels the same way.

"That gap of perception can create this kind of 'spiral of silence' where people don't think that it's safe to share their opinions," Landreville explained. "I think it's important for us to try to make people feel more open to share those thoughts, because that's how we get the ball rolling in terms of action, is we need to be OK to talk about it."

Despite the gap in perception, more than half of Wyomingites are optimistic the state can overcome future challenges surrounding water and related hazards.


get more stories like this via email

By Jessica Scott-Reid for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Nadia Ramlagan for West Virginia News Service reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration

When it comes to tackling climate change and industrial animal agriculture, a long-standing debate continues to divide advocates - is it better to focus on individual dietary shifts, or demand systemic change? Over the last decade or so, environmental and animal welfare organizations have grappled with how to combine individual behavior change with a broader push for collective action. Is it more effective to urge consumers to eat less meat, or to target meat and dairy companies to transition toward plant-based alternatives? Are individual shopping choices more impactful, or should we prioritize boycotts and pressure campaigns through grassroots activism?

A new report from the World Resource Institute reveals that both strategies can - and in fact must - work together. To combat climate change, the report finds, collective change and individual action require a joint effort.

"This research shows that people really can't do it alone," Mindy Hernandez, one of the authors of the WRI report, tells Sentient. "They need help in order to realize the very significant emissions reductions that are possible." Rather than getting caught up in the idea that "'corporations need to do something, or nothing matters,' systems-level players, specifically policy and industry actors, have a massive role to play." At the same time, Hernandez adds, "that does not give individuals a free pass."

The Surprising Origins of the 'Personal Carbon Footprint'

The idea of a "personal carbon footprint" didn't come from climate scientists or environmental advocates - it actually came from Big Oil, as a means of placing the onus on us. In 2004, British Petroleum (BP) introduced the carbon calculator, reframing the climate crisis as a matter of personal responsibility. The message was simple: Don't look at us. Look at yourself.

We're still grappling with the legacy of that messaging. A little more than 20 years later, global emissions continue to rise yet conversations around food and climate tend to be framed in terms of individual choices - both the effective ones like eating less meat and the not-so-effective ones for climate emissions, like buying local, "climate-friendly," "regenerative" or organic.

Meanwhile, the beef industry continues to pump out emissions, with little political will to tackle these emissions in a meaningful way.

Impact of Diet on the Planet

Around a third of global greenhouse gas emissions come from food, and most of those food-related emissions are driven by meat, especially beef. Americans and other Global North countries must eat less meat and shift to more plant-forward diets, the research suggests. "Plant-based foods - such as fruits and vegetables, whole grains, beans, peas, nuts, and lentils - generally use less energy, land, and water, and have lower greenhouse gas intensities than animal-based foods," according to the United Nations.

WRI's research also finds that "pro-climate behavior changes" are enough, potentially, to "theoretically cancel out all the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions an average person produces each year - specifically among high-income, high-emitting populations." One of those climate-crucial behaviors, the research reveals, is cutting back on meat and dairy - especially beef and lamb.

Organic or regenerative food have various merits, but these do not include a reduction in climate emissions for beef, because organic and regenerative cattle ranching requires more land, and land has a climate emissions cost. Ultimately, none of these personal actions come close to the environmental impact of shifting away from meat and other animal-sourced products. "Full veganism can save nearly 1 ton of CO2 annually, about a sixth of the average global citizen's total emissions. But even reducing meat intake captures 40% of that impact," the report states.

Why Individual Change Is Not Enough

The WRI research also makes a larger point: focusing solely on individual behavior is not sufficient on its own. Without systemic change, we unlock just a fraction - about 10 percent - of our true climate action potential.

The other 90 percent, according to WRI, "stays locked away, dependent on governments, businesses and our own collective action to make sustainable choices more accessible for everyone. (Case in point: It's much easier to go carless if your city has good public transit.)"

Consider a student working to decrease their individual climate impact by eating less meat, WRI's Hernandez suggests. A systemic action the student could take would be to advocate for the school to adopt Meat Free Mondays or WRI's Cool Food Pledge, a program that helps organizations reduce the climate impact of their food offerings by shifting to plant-rich menus.

"Suddenly it's really easy for that student to keep their commitment to eating less meat," says Hernandez, and the collective emissions of the larger student body also then decreases.

The key is to have climate action, at both individual and systemic levels, working in unison. "Systemic pressure creates enabling conditions, but individuals need to complete the loop with our daily choices. It's a two-way street," the WRI researchers write. "Bike lanes need cyclists, plant-based options need people to consume them." And when more of us adopt these behaviors, "we send critical market signals that businesses and governments respond to with more investment."

Taking Action During Difficult Times

As the current administration continues to roll back environmental protections, it's a crucial time for both individual and collective action, Lauren Ornelas, founder of the nonprofit Food Empowerment Project, tells Sentient. "We can't say 'I can rely on the government to pass regulations that are good for the environment or that are good for the welfare of animals,' or 'I can rely on my policymakers to do those things.' It's kind of up to us," she says, "and this is the best time to acknowledge that in every aspect [where] we actually have power."

For those who care about food system impacts, that power can be found in what we choose to eat. "Food choices are always empowering," says Ornelas. So is taking part in a broader collective action, she adds, "to make sure that we are joining our voices with others to demand change."

And what could this look like? "Focus on the one thing that you think you can do in your household," Hernandez says." And then, think about what is the one systems-level thing you can do," like joining a local environmental or food justice group. Shifting diets away from meat and dairy may not solve the climate crisis alone, but eating less meat can be one empowering individual choice that can be made that much stronger by collective action.


Jessica Scott-Reid wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email