Have reporters “played poodle to their sources” on global warming?

That’s what British science writer Matt Ridley claims in a short post at the U.K. edition of the Spectator online.

While journalists argue that tenacious, in-depth reporting is suffering as newspapers die, “‘Climategate’ proves the opposite to be true,” he writes. “It was amateur bloggers who scented the exaggerations, distortions and corruptions in the climate establishment; whereas newspaper reporters, even after the scandal broke, played poodle to their sources.”

But the truth is that many of these same bloggers produced their own exaggerations, distortions and corruptions, and unlike most reporters, there was no effort to correct the record once the truth came out — because for many, the truth was not the object of the game. From the bloggers Ridley extols, I saw little fair, accurate and well-vetted accounts of what the emails meant.

At the same time, there is no question that journalists were slow off the mark to investigate the issue, and what significance it might hold for the credibility of climate science. And bloggers arguably helped prod them into action. But to equate the bloggers with science journalists — and even to argue that they did a better job at sussing out this story is ridiculous.

I don’t doubt for a moment that a certain pack mentality and fear of being criticized by sources has played a role in coverage of Climategate and, more recently, the IPCC controversy. But let’s also be fair: The IPCC is about as primary a source as sources get. And so it was reasonable to consider it an authoritative source. In fact, it still is reasonable to feel that way. (Especially if you dig beyond the summaries for policy makers and look at the underlying scientific documents.)

But in retrospect, could journalists have done better at holding power to account — one of journalism’s most fundamental values?  We can always do better at that. (And, in fact, some journalists did better than others. Andrew Revkin published a number of stories questioning the IPCC process long before Climategate, to offer just one example.)  Similarly, in retrospect, should journalists have been more skeptical and probing? No question.

The idea, however, that bloggers were the heroes in the Climategate story and journalists were the villains —— or as Ridley puts it, “poodles to their sources” —— is simple-minded and bordering on the absurd. He seems to imply that we’d be just fine without the likes of the BBC because all these enterprising bloggers will do a better job. (Have Ridley’s blogger heroes been able to do anything even remotely resembling something like this?)

The chum tossed out in blog postings like Ridley’s is very effective at luring in angry readers, but less so in explaining reality. Meanwhile, the reality of a situation like Climategate is almost always likely to be too complex and equivocal to attract partisans roving the turbulent waters of the blogosphere.

With his “poodle” comment, Ridley also implies that covering scientists is little different from covering politicians. He seems to be saying that like politicians, venal climate scientists are just trying to sell us a bill of goods, and it’s our job as journalists to cut through the masquerade. That is also simple-minded and absurd.

Covering science isn’t anything like covering politics. In politics, at least these days, the only “right” answer you will find is that politicians will do whatever it takes to get elected. Beyond that, it’s red versus blue, and many if not most journalists simply keep score and make snide comments from the sidelines. Some politicians may be admired by journalists, but my guess is that not many are.

Contrast that with science. Here, there often are “right” answers (even if they are provisional and subject to revision). And we science journalists generally hold our sources in much higher regard than political reporters hold theirs. For good reason. I would venture to say it’s because we feel intuitively that we’re involved in similar pursuits: an effort to get close to the truth about nature, and that we share similar values: curiosity, skepticism and a conservative, “prove-it-to-me” mindset. (But scientists routinely do one really, really dumb thing we journalists would never do: bury the lede!)

So I will admit that I’ve often wondered whether we get too close to our sources as science journalists. It’s only natural. I think many of us often feel more affinity to the scientists we cover than we do to our colleagues who cover other beats. So if some of us were slow to engage with Climategate, and if we have been reticent to question the IPCC process, I think it stems at least in part from this. But I’d rather it be this way than to emulate the unrelentingly cynical and negative orientation of political reporters.