okay I really hate journalists being defensive (particularly when it comes to climate) but I've read the paper and this research does not say what this tweet does https://twitter.com/NathanJRobinson/status/1326666778701934596

the study is cool in that it highlights the knowledge gap between scientists and the US public and proposes 5 facts journalists should better communicate:
1 problem
2 mechanism
3 scientific consensus
4 scale
5 permanence
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2515-7620/ab37dd

except for 1, these facts rarely appear in NYT articles that mention keywords about climate change. but this is a terrible measure of how well journalists "convey the reality" of climate change !

2 is the greenhouse gas effect, and explanations of this have fallen as a fraction of total climate-mentioning articles, which is probably a good thing because it means we're talking more about *the effects* without getting bogged down in the mechanisms

3 isn't necessarily better conveyed by saying "consensus" — stating climate change as an undisputed fact is clearer, particularly in a society where conspiracy theories run wild (good discussion and critique of "scientists say" in this thread) https://twitter.com/DoctorVive/status/1292580568522264577

4 is extremely abstract if you measure magnitude, as they do, solely in terms of CO2 concentrations. when temperatures and storms and wildfires break records, it's tangible. when an invisible gas breaks records, it's not.

5 — the timescale of resulting harm is "effectively permanent" — isn't even true ?

scroll through the NYT climate section (or the Guardian or BBC) and most articles will fail this test but provide useful information about climate change that conveys the problem, its cause and magnitude https://www.nytimes.com/section/climate 

where media has been really rubbish is:
-not giving climate enough prominence
-not hammering home who is responsible
-using the future tense
-prioritizing individuals over systems