I have about half a billion website bookmarked, pdfs, webinars and lecture notes that discuss various methods, tips and approaches to climate communication. There are also tonnes more on my ever growing to do list. After speaking with students and media professionals I wanted to consolidate a list of a few that I have found personally very helpful and that others have backed up too. I wanted to share a few on different topics that I have found helpful.
I want to note, that these toolkits are not perfect or for everyone.
Some argue that they are limiting, providing boundaries for you to be creative within. Whereas others state that they are subjective as what they tell you to do may not work for all of your audiences. This criticism is valid and important to think about when looking at these resources, as there is no such thing as a holy grail for communication. None the less, they also can provide a good starting place for storytellers and communications who want to provide more climate justice aware messaging.
So good luck in using them and I hope you find this resource a useful starting point! Know that it in itself is biased in what I have come across and have found useful. Please do feedback if you have any recommendations or feedback on the contact page as I still have lots to learn!
As part of the monthly environmental film club I run at UWE, Bristol I often get given many brilliant recommendations from the audience members. The discussions after our screenings explore quite a broad range of topics which has so far ranged from creating impact, behaviour change, animal welfare, decolonialisation, climate communication, anthropomorphism1 and the human/nature divide. I have missed many others out! But as we journey from topic to topic, the audience member’s often end up sharing suggested readings or further watching from their specialist areas of interest.
I thought I would create a list of these suggestions to update and share as the sessions go along so that people who come along have something to refer back to if they are interest. Here is what I have managed to capture so far:
Hope you enjoy the suggestions, I’m sure I will. I will add more as the screenings go. Let me know if you have any thoughts or suggestions of your own on the contact page. Thank you!
“Anthropomorphism” is when human emotions, values or characteristics are given to non-human beings or objects. ↩︎
Shifting towards symbiosis: How filmmakers and researchers can work together to make impact when communicating science
New scientific discoveries have become a popular feature of documentaries, natural history programmes and in the wider specialist factual television genre. From David Attenborough’s “Our Planet” series on Netflix, to Brian Cox’s “The Planets” series on BBC and even the BBC’s “Spring Watch” series, these science-based programmes successfully attract audiences who want to learn something new while being entertained.
But what is the role of the scientist in the filmmaking process and how truthfully is the science communicated? As if audiences are coming to these shows to learn something, does that suggest a certain responsibility for the reliability and accuracy of science that these stories tell? These are just some of the questions that I was left thinking about after attending the Wildscreen Network’s1recent conference: Science in Storytelling2 which explored the process of translating science into stories.
There is a currency in firsts!
“Commissioning Science” panel
Throughout the day filmmakers, commissioners and scientists highlighted the importance of balancing three elements: new scientific discoveries, drama and emotion. This formula gives science the hook needed to attract audiences and gain media traction which are both things the commissioners need to see to justify the spend. Without the hook the shows are “zombie-like” in communicating information that audiences can easily find elsewhere3. But its more than this, there is a “currency in firsts” as emphasised by the “Commissioning Science” panel. New research sells! And it was clear that there is an increasing desire to work with scientists as filmmakers scouring all sources to find new exciting stories to tell.
What is a research consultant?
The role of the research consultant was heavily discussed, particularly in the “Striving for Symbiosis” panel. It was clear that more production companies are looking for consultants not only to fact check but to help a production find a new story or angle for their science-based stories. The consultant also plays an important role by acting on a local level within communities and environments to support the filmmakers to capture and accurately represent the science that is being communicated. However, this sparks many questions which were readily brought up by audiences: through whose perspective is this science communicated; what happens to the science that doesn’t have a clear hook; and how is the consultant compensated?
Acting as a consultant gives the researcher an opportunity to communicate their research to large audiences and create a potential platform to inspire social change. In some circumstances, such as when filming natural history documentaries, new scientific discoveries have been facilitated by the expensive equipment and techniques that are used by the filmmaking crews. However, it was warned that these processes have been extractive as in the past as they have not always fairly compensated the consultant for their time, efforts and expertise. Additionally, with the complexity of the filming Non Disclosure Agreements, which are industry standard paperwork, and the commissioner’s ownership of the footage, the consultant can get little access to what they helped film.
So, how do you build a symbiotic relationship between the filmmaker and consultant?
Communication! The patterns of a programme’s production often means that scientists are left in silence for months between when they are contacted to develop initial ideas and when the filming starts to be planned. Also, with the quantity of footage and stories that don’t make the final cut, stories often end up not being included in the final series, or looking quite different to what the consultants initially intended. This can sometimes be because the intended event or behaviour is very rare and didn’t happen when the filmmakers were there. Or because when on screen it doesn’t have the same hook as it does to the researcher in their findings. The best way to avoid this is for both sides to clearly communicate to help manage each other’s expectations throughout the entire process. After all, if the relationship is a good one, there may be more opportunities to film new research in the future which may increase the research’s social impact.
Science programmes are important!
Filmmakers and scientists alike explained that “behaviour is the first line of defence in a changing world”. With more scientists becoming activists to try to communicate their work and advocate for change, these series with their powerful storytelling tools and large audiences provide great opportunities to educate and inspire. But these are hard to pitch! Stories of climate change and environmental destruction have a reputation for being depressing4 and the possible futures that lie ahead are difficult to visualise. There is a risk that the negative stories that are commonly told today can polarise audiences and discourage change. It is therefore hard to know whether these programmes are effective at engaging audiences in action and measuring change is also difficult and expensive. This dilemma led to panellists’ questioning the popular vs worthwhile notion of the stories that were told. Are the stories we want to hear actually making a difference in the long run?
Despite these challenges, drama can help shed light on important topics as within the noise of misinformation and the mass of information platforms, new, emotional and entertaining stories stand out. The “Crafting the Truth” panel also called for the need to challenge the boundaries of traditional media genres in order to capture more diverse stories. The panel encouraged us all to question what types of science are not communicated – local, collective and communal knowledge – and how can media platforms could be utilised to give voice to these stories. They left me thinking, how can we frame stories that capture both sadness and hope and in doing so create “hopium” – addictively positive stories that encourage hope and spill over into action and engagement with social change.
Now production companies are more open to working with scientist consultants, Wildscreen’s event left a strong final message for scientists and filmmakers with the need to challenge the industry with new, hopeful, diverse and exciting stories that push boundaries, inspire change and make impact.
To keep an eye out for future events put on by Wildscreen take a look at their website here: https://wildscreen.org/ ↩︎
“Zombie-like” communication is based on the “information deficit model” which is an outdated concept of how science should be communicated. You can find more information here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_deficit_model ↩︎
What stories about the climate and ecological crises do natural history documentaries actually tell us?
How do filmmakers feel about the entangled crises and their role as storytellers?
How can they inspire change?
These are the questions that in 2021 inspired my dissertation when studying my MSc in Ecology and Sustainability, at the Centre for Alternative Technology. Having previously worked as a production coordinator on series for National Geographic, I often asked myself “what impact will my work have”. After watching the recent rise of the ‘green-chip’ programmes1 , with their big-budget and dramatically spectacular stories about the climate and ecological crises, and having seen how my production team and the general public reacted to these stories, I was curious to find out more about how Natural History documentaries can inspire change.
After carrying out a thorough review of academic literature, with the support of my extremely kind network of old colleagues, I interviewed 20 filmmakers, attended numerous events and watched hours of content. Now I can safely say I didn’t answer these questions, but here are some of the key take-aways from my research:
“If climate isn’t in your story, it’s science fiction.”2
Knowledge of the climate crisis is interwoven into our cultural consciousness. Even if we don’t know all the facts, we still know it’s real. If our stories don’t openly acknowledge it, they run the risk of minimising the audience’s sense of urgency and the need to act, which erases the people and ecosystems that are struggling today. This risks delaying change3.
Spectacular apocalypse, boring doom and gloom and emotional flow.
Audiences want to hear climate and environmental stories4! But as we are all bombarded by doom and gloom in the daily news, we risk becoming desensitised or depressed and end up seeking entertaining distractions. We do need to see some of the threat, to feel anger and a sense of urgency. However, what happens when you use blue-chip’s big-budget, glossy and awe-inspiring techniques5 to frame the environmental crisis? What happens when you spectacularise the apocalypse?
By making the emergency entertaining it becomes a little like a Hollywood film. Though unlike Hollywood, when we turn the TV off, the emergency doesn’t go away. Yes, you need emotional engagement, but don’t end the story with apocalypse as it risks the audience disengaging with the crises and leaving the programming feeling apathy or despair. As any good storytellers would, consider what comes next. By creating an emotional flow from fear into hope, you leave audiences feeling positive and wanting to engage with the urgent need to change now6.
Framing the next step: Sexy solutions and personal stories.
“Sexy solutions” such as the expert’s big tech fix all, greenwashing with tempting tiny action, or even the “phew” they are doing that so I don’t have to… All these enticing and entertaining stories could distract us from longer term engagement with problems that aren’t going away. Instead, find stories of real people and communities who make mistakes, learn and make change7. And for longer term change, audiences need resources to come back to after finishing the episode, there needs to be a next step. Solutions don’t need to be spectacular. They need to be many, they need to be woven together and they need to be shared. It is the first step that inspires the next8.
Climate anxiety. Grief. And hope…
Anger, grief, apathy, hope, fear… These are emotions I feel, audiences feel and a lot of filmmakers I interviewed felt too. Learning of the loss of a species or witnessing environmental damage when you are filming is devastating. The feelings of frustration were clear, but so too was the lack of places to talk about them, as interviewees explained that company and production meetings often glossed over these issues. Climate anxiety is a healthy normal response to the scale and complexity of this global emergency9. If you can, build places and communities to talk about them with others. Feel your feelings, don’t end up stuck in apathy. Your feelings as the storyteller are a powerful part of your story.
Isolating the individual: I am too small to make change.
Who else tells themselves this almost every day? Or pushes responsibility onto someone else with more control and influence? I do. ‘Shifting the blame’ has helped me direct my anger at others rather than using it to fuel my own sense of personal agency. This narrative is common in media, politics and in everyday life. It individualises responsibility rather than encouraging a sense of the collective and collaborative action10 I have always loved the dynamics of a film crew who came together and worked to their strengths to tell a story. The same must be done here, otherwise we end up living by a story that makes us feel isolated and confused and helps to delays change11.
Since finishing my MSc, I haven’t been able to stop thinking about these questions. Now I sit here at University of the West of England Bristol, having just started a PhD as I want to further explore how wildlife documentaries could communicate the issues of climate and ecological justice. I’m really excited to work with filmmakers again, to hear their ideas and feelings, but I hope to work with a much wider variety of people in the broadcasting industry and work with audiences too.
If you are interested in getting involved or what to know more, I invite you to get in touch through the contact page! I would love to have a chat.
“Green-chip” is a term from Morgan Richard’s 2013 chapter: Greening wildlife documentary, from the book ‘Environmental conflict and the media’. https://www.peterlang.com/document/1051222 ↩︎
Here is a useful guide that breaks down common stories we tell about climate change, ‘Warm Words: How are we telling the climate story and can we tell it better?’: https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep15716 ↩︎
Jelena Krivosic 