First of all: you must take a stand
Editors and journalists in the media world: You hold an important key to saving this planet — and your own children — from a climate catastrophe.
As a journalist or editor, you need to take a stand on this matter, and to begin digging, learning and understanding. Investigate, ask the right questions, find the right figures. Understand what is happening — and then, communicate what you discover. Unfold the truth about climate change, investments in fossil fuels and in innovation, disinformation campaigns, public subsidies, and the rest, to your readers, listeners and viewers.
Ask yourself: How come that journalists, of all people, seem to be unable to comprehend what is going on – and how they are being manipulated by the fossil fuel industry? How much does this phenomena have to do with that the same group of shareholders that own the energy industry also own corporate media?
Remember also to make recommendations to your readers and viewers as to how we can begin to make a difference and take action to solve the problems. One of the biggest problems with climate change is that these questions about the future are so large and dire that most of us give up in advance. We need to hear about the problems, but we have a perhaps even bigger need to get inspiration and instructions on how to tackle the situation, how to get started at an individual level with becoming part of the solution instead of being part of the problem.
» Blog-post: ‘Wake-up call for European industry and media’.
The earth has just had the hottest January since records began, since humanity started measuring the temperatures world-wide. And… again, where were the headlines in mainstream media?
This morning, a headline that jumps at me in my mailbox says: “One man dead in freak storm hit, as residents wake to trail of destruction”. It is almost every day we hear about some sort of destruction or apocalypse closing in, but in the mainstream media it is rarely connected to neither climate change or our inadequate carbon emissions reduction policies.
Why not? The climate emergency is the “biggest and most important story of our time”. So if you are a journalist, why aren’t you engaged and doing your bit to communicate whatever you can about this?
Whether it is about telling the truth, explaining the science, showing the solutions, or viasualising how we come together and make a difference? Journalists have a platform, and they can make a difference if they want to – just like Russell Crowe just did.
But that is actually not what the Journalists Declare campaign is about: It is a petition, where the journalists who sign it are calling for their national and international unions to declare. To lead. To guide the profession and take measures that inspire and spread.
Covering Climate Now has published these 10 best practices for journalists:
We have a responsibility to the public to get the climate story right. Follow these “best practices” to give your news outlet a fighting start.
1. Say yes to the science. There are not two sides to a fact. For too long, especially in the US, the media juxtaposed climate science—a matter of overwhelming global consensus—with climate skepticism and denialism—seldom more than thinly-veiled protections of the fossil fuel industry. The resulting implication that these positions are equal, or that the jury is somehow still out, is in large part responsible for the public disengagement and political paralysis that have met the climate crisis so far. As journalists, we must write about climate change with the same clarity of the scientists who have been sounding the alarms for decades. Platforming those scientists’ detractors in an effort to “balance” our stories not only misleads the public, it is inaccurate. Where climate denialism cannot be avoided—when it comes from the highest levels of government, for example—responsible journalistic framing makes clear that it is counterfactual, if not rooted in bad faith.
2. The climate crisis is a story for every beat. At its core, the climate story is a science story. But whether you cover business, health, housing, education, food, sports, national security, entertainment, or something else, there is always a strong climate angle to be found. And in the words of renowned climate author Bill McKibben, climate change is “an exciting story filled with drama and conflict. It’s what journalism was made for.” Climate change is not something to isolate from our coverage of other subjects. That is, it need not be a story’s central focus to merit mention. Whether at a routine press briefing from a tech company or on background with a government official, there’s no time like the present for a sharp climate question.
3. Ditch the Beltway “he-said, she-said.” There are of course plenty of urgent climate stories to be told from halls of government. But when we treat the climate story first and foremost as a political dogfight, we give the narrative over to the same intractable partisanship that so degrades the rest of our political coverage. (One side wants to act. The other doesn’t. Looks like nothing can be done.) By foregrounding partisanship in our climate coverage, we also risk losing huge swaths of audiences that likely feel they get more than enough political news as it is. And, for those readers, viewers, and listeners whose political views are ensconced in one camp or the other, we forego opportunities to challenge assumptions.
4. Avoid “doom and gloom.” We can and must understand the epochal consequences of climate change. If our coverage is always negative, however, it “leaves the public with an overall sense of powerlessness,” in the words of former NPR reporter Elizabeth Arnold. “It just reaches this point where people feel hopeless and overwhelmed,” Arnold told Journalist’s Resource in 2018. “And when we feel that way, psychologists say, we tend to just avoid and deny, and tune out.” Indeed, for every wildfire or galling instance of denial by the powerful, there are untold multitudes of innovators and activists who are pioneering solutions. By elevating those stories, we show that climate change is not a problem too big to understand—or to tackle.
5. Go easy on the jargon. This is a tried and true tenant of journalism generally, but it especially applies here. The climate story is chock full of insider-y verbiage—parts per million of carbon dioxide, micrograms of particulate matter, and fractions of degrees Centigrade. The meanings and implications of these terms might be familiar to those who’ve been on the beat for decades, but they may be quite unfamiliar to some who are reading or watching our coverage. Always assume that your target audience is not scientists or fellow climate journalists and ask yourself: How can I help someone new to the problem understand it easily and accurately? Where possible, avoid clustering technical terms. And when attempting to quantify climate change, try to employ simple analogies. For example, when explaining how global warming contributed to the record wildfires in Australia, John Nielsen-Gammon, the Texas state climatologist, likened it to baseball players on steroids: a great slugger will hit plenty of home runs in any case, but a great slugger who takes steroids will hit more of them.
6. Emphasize the experiences—and activism—of the poor, communities of color, and indigenous people. The poor, people of color, and indigenous people have long suffered first and worst from heat waves, floods, and other climate impacts. Yet their voices and stories are too often omitted from news coverage. Good climate reporting not only highlights these people’s trevails, it also recognizes that they are frequently leading innovators at the forefront of the climate fight. Coverage that focuses overwhelmingly on wealthy communities and features only white voices is simply missing the story.
7. Beware of “greenwashing.” Companies around the world are waking up to public demands for eco-conscious business practices. Pledges to “go green,” however, often amount to little more than marketing campaigns that obscure unmitigated carbon footprints. So shun the stenography and cast a skeptical eye on grand promises of net-zero or carbon-negative emissions, especially from big-name companies that have historically been a big part of the problem.
8. Extreme weather stories are climate stories. The news is awash in hurricanes, floods, unseasonable snow dumps, record heatwaves, and drought. They are not all due to climate change, but the increased frequency and intensity of such extreme weather certainly is. Yet much news coverage makes little to no mention of the climate connection, leaving audiences without context and unaware that humanity is already experiencing climate disruption. (Worse still, some coverage greets this bad news with cheer. An alarmingly unseasonable heat snap, for example, is “a much welcome break from the cold.”) The climate connection need not dominate coverage, nor distract from the vital information audiences need in the face of emergency weather conditions—but mentioning it is a must.
9. Jettison the outdated belief that climate coverage repels audiences and loses money. Climate stories have a bad reputation as low-traffic ratings killers. This might have been true in the past, but demographic shifts and growing public awareness have brought increased demands for smart, creative climate coverage—especially from young audiences, for whom the climate emergency is often top-of-mind. Indeed, there’s good evidence that strong climate coverage can actually boost a news outlet’s bottom line.
10. For God’s sake, do not platform climate denialists. We understand as well as anyone that opinion pages occasionally need to push the envelope with unpopular takes. But there is no longer any good faith argument against climate science—and if one accepts the science, one also accepts the imperative for rapid, forceful action. Op-eds that detract from the scientific consensus, or ridicule climate activism, don’t belong in a serious news outlet.
In a newsletter in March 2020, Covering Climate Now, furthermore added:
Back to basics. Part of climate solutions coverage is helping people understand the problems that need solving. Consider explainers that describe the climate impacts facing your audience or region and how they are projected to intensify. Don’t be afraid to keep it simple; many people who are concerned about climate change are sometimes fuzzy on its causes and how to tackle them (e.g., limiting temperature rise is key, but so is preparing for unavoidable impacts). Plainspoken scientists such as Katharine Hayhoe and Michael Mann can help here, but also consider local voices that might better reach your audience.
Update your previous reporting. If you’ve done stories about how climate change will bring harsher heat waves or rising sea levels to your area, now is a good time to revisit what’s being done about it. Ask the mayor’s–or governor’s, or president’s–office what solutions they’re pursuing. Then run those plans by scientists, activists and other independent voices. How do they measure up?
The good fight. Climate change demands action of individuals, not just governments and companies. Who are the voices in your community or field going it alone, regardless of action from the top? How are their efforts inspiring others or reshaping your community? What obstacles do they face?
Problems in search of solutions. Active climate solutions certainly deserve coverage, but there are an awful lot of problems that haven’t found solutions yet. By all means do stories about wind energy, but does anyone have a plan for providing affordable property insurance as climate impacts intensify? Has anyone thought ahead to the transportation problems that will ensue when regular flooding damages roadways?
A story for every news beat. Ask your weather, business, and political colleagues to contribute to the week of coverage. Weathercasters can explain the science and the solutions it dictates. Business reporters can ask companies and chambers of commerce how they’re prepping for climate impacts. And political reporters should inform voters about the climate policies, records, and campaign funding of candidates seeking office at all levels of government, especially in the US in the lead up to elections in November.
American newspaper rejects giving a voice to climate deniers
“Saying “there’s no sign humans have caused climate change” is not stating an opinion, it’s asserting a factual inaccuracy.”
Los Angeles Times
The world has at least one newspaper now that openly takes a stand on climate change and says: “Letters with untrue basis e.g. ‘no sign humans have caused climate change’ do not get printed in our newspaper.”
On 5 October 2013, Letters Editor for Los Angeles Times Paul Thornton wrote: “Simply put, this objection to the president’s healthcare law is based on a falsehood, and letters that have an untrue basis (for example, ones that say there’s no sign humans have caused climate change) do not get printed.”
Climate deniers were obviously not pleased to read this. But letters editor Paul Thornton was unswayed by their complaints, as he explained in a response on 8 October 2013:
“As for letters on climate change, we do get plenty from those who deny global warming. And to say they “deny” it might be an understatement: Many say climate change is a hoax, a scheme by liberals to curtail personal freedom.
Before going into some detail about why these letters don’t make it into our pages, I’ll concede that, aside from my easily passing the Advanced Placement biology exam in high school, my science credentials are lacking. I’m no expert when it comes to our planet’s complex climate processes or any scientific field. Consequently, when deciding which letters should run among hundreds on such weighty matters as climate change, I must rely on the experts — in other words, those scientists with advanced degrees who undertake tedious research and rigorous peer review.
And those scientists have provided ample evidence that human activity is indeed linked to climate change. Just last month, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — a body made up of the world’s top climate scientists — said it was 95% certain that we fossil-fuel-burning humans are driving global warming. The debate right now isn’t whether this evidence exists (clearly, it does) but what this evidence means for us.
Simply put, I do my best to keep errors of fact off the letters page; when one does run, a correction is published. Saying “there’s no sign humans have caused climate change” is not stating an opinion, it’s asserting a factual inaccuracy.”
Paul Thornton’s response had received 5,000 Facebook-likes within three days.
Petition by FORECAST THE FACTS – 13 October 2013:
Tell the newspapers New York Times, Washington Post and USA Today: Stop publishing climate denial
Los Angeles Times – 8 October 2013:
On letters from climate-change deniers
By Paul Thornton
Grist – 10 October 2013:
L.A. Times won’t publish climate-denier letters
By John Upton
“At a minimum, good journalism — and the readers’ right to be fully informed — requires identifying a source’s stake. Is the source an environmentalist or coal or oil spokesperson? Their interests are clear.”
Dan Becker and James Gerstenzang in USA Today
» USA Today – 10 October 2013:
Climate deniers meet Joe Camel: Column
Don’t listen to the climate change smoke machine. By Dan Becker and James Gerstenzang
Below are some ideas and inspiration for questions you could ask, articles you could write, documentaries you could make.
Uncover the truth about public subsidies
The biggest scandal ever seen in human history is rolling right in front of our eyes: Not so much that there are people and companies who profit from wrecking the climate on this planet — but the fact that they do it with their respective governments’ blessing. They even get subsidised. What does that mean? It means that governments all over the world use public money to support the fossil industry.
Now that we have come to understand that carbon emissions will raise atmospheric temperatures to a catastrophic level, it is nothing less than a tremendous scandal that those governments who are supposed to be responsible for the well-being and security of their populations are letting this go on.
If all the public subsidies in the fossil fuel industry were moved to subsidise renewable energy, we’d have solved a large part of the global problem with carbon emissions, according to a UN report from February 2013.
Who decided that the oil industry should be subsidised for ever? How many journalists from the biggest media houses around the world have spent time and resources on digging deep into these kind matters and then revealed their findings to the public? Governments keep a lot of critical information about fossil fuel subsidies hidden from view.
Uncover the truth about investments in fossil fuel industry
In The Guardian on 17 April 2013, Duncan Clark wrote:
“Companies to spend the best part of $1 trillion a year (comparable to the US defence budget, or more than $100 for every person on the planet) to find and develop yet more reserves.
If and when we emerge from this insanity, the carbon bubble will burst and those investments will turn out to have been as toxic as sub-prime mortgages. Don’t take my word for it. HSBC analysts recently concluded that oil giants such as BP – beloved of UK pension funds – could have their value cut in half if the world decides to tackle climate change.”
125 people commented the piece on the first day. The comments make quite interesting reading too. For example Tonester7 wrote:
“The big 6 energy companies basically reported record profits, yet our bills go up? That equation does not add up. The single reason our bills go up is greed, capitalism, money. Your bills rise because the companies want more profit, it has nothing to do with the afforementioned false reasons. Incidentally, some or even all of the big 6 dont pay their taxes either. N-power have been forced to admit they have paid ZERO coorporation tax for at least 3 years. Remind me again who the scroungers are supposed to be? The sleepers must awaken.”
How does it look in your country? Has anyone bothered to look more closely into these matters?
Take a deeper look at Donors Trust
A group named Donors Trust has been funneling far more money than ExxonMobil ever did to climate denial groups, but because the source of the funds remains largely hidden, the public has been unable to pressure the donations to stop as they did with Exxon. A small portion of Donors Trust’s funding was recently revealed by the Center for Public Integrity, yet even that small portion has significant ties to the Koch brothers and other fossil fuel interests.
Between 2008 and 2011, Donors Trust doled out over $300 million in grants to what it describes as “conservative and libertarian causes,” serving as “the dark money ATM of the conservative movement.” Donors Trust enables donors to give anonymously, noting on its website that if you “wish to keep your charitable giving private, especially gifts funding sensitive or controversial issues,” you can use it to direct your money.
One of the “controversial issues” that Donors Trust and its sister organization Donors Capital Fund have bankrolled is the campaign to cast doubt on the science of climate change and delay any government action to reduce emissions. The following chart created by The Guardian based on data from Greenpeace shows that as ExxonMobil and the Koch Foundations have reduced traceable funding for these groups, donations from Donors Trust have surged:
» Media Matters – 28 February 2013:
How The Dirty Energy Money Funding Climate Inaction Slips By The Press
» Widener Law | Ethics and Climate – 12 February 2013:
10 Questions That The Press Should Ask Politicians About Climate Science In Light of This Responsibility
By Donald A. Brown, Scholar In Residence, Sustainability Ethics and Law, Widener University School of Law, USA
Clippings from the media newsstream
Articles and videoclips about climate-journalism and writing about climate change
CNN: Media’s global warming failure
Philippe Cousteau, president of EarthEcho International, and New York Times author Andrew Revkin appeared on CNN to discuss the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report that discussed in great detail human’s impact on climate change.
They expressed concerns that the public and media tend to only cover the role of climate change during dramatic extreme weather events.
Journalists choose the easy solutions, said Philippe Cousteau.
» Video clip from CNN’s interview: livinggreenmag.com
“Report: Media gives climate change deniers disproportionate amount of attention. Specifically, politically conservative news outlets like Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News and the Wall Street Journal were responsible for the lion’s share of the false balance, disproportionately representing climate contrarians in their stories about the IPCC report.”
» The Guardian – 11 October 2013:
Conservative media outlets found guilty of biased global warming coverage
New studies show conservative and politically neutral media outlets are creating false balance in climate change reporting. By Dana Nuccitelli
» Climate News Network – 18 September 2013:
Climate reporters ‘must explain risk’
Reporting climate change as a disaster story, or as something intrinsically uncertain, may be less helpful than describing it in terms of the risks it entails, according to a UK study. By Alex Kirby
» ThinkProgress – 16 September 2013:
NY Times Says Earth Has Unlimited Carrying Capacity, So Forget Climate Change and Party On, Homo Sapiens!
In a collective act of media irresponsibility, the New York Times and Washington Post have joined the Wall Street Journal in publishing “don’t worry, be happy” articles days before the big UN climate science report will say quite the opposite. | Memo to Jeff Bezos: If you want to fix the Washington Post, stop publishing anti-science pieces by Bjorn Lomborg. By Joe Romm
» The Guardian – 14 September 2013:
The first rule of climate change research: don’t mention climate change
“Data is important for decision making, but to get that evidence researchers must think carefully about the language they use.” Article by Sonia Whitehead
» Yale Environment 360 – 12 September 2013:
Finding a Better Message on The Risks of Climate Change
“To overcome polarization on the issue of climate change, Yale professor Dan Kahan says in an interview with e360, scientists and the media need to frame the science in ways that will resonate with the public. A message that makes people feel threatened, he says, simply will not be effective.” Article by Diane Toomey
» The Guardian – 9. september 2013:
Arctic sea ice delusions strike the Mail on Sunday and Telegraph
“Both UK periodicals focus on short-term noise and ignore the rapid long-term Arctic sea ice death spiral”. Article by Dana Nuccitelli.
“These two articles at the Mail on Sunday and Telegraph continue the unfortunate trend of shoddy climate reporting in the two periodicals, particularly from David Rose. They suffer from cherry picking short-term data while ignoring the long-term human-caused trends, misrepresenting climate research, repeating long-debunked myths, and inventing IPCC meetings despite being told by climate scientists that these claims are pure fiction.
Based on their history of shoddy reporting, the safest course of action when reading a climate article in the Mail on Sunday or Telegraph is to assume they’re misrepresentations or falsehoods until you can verify the facts therein for yourself.”
» Slate – 30 August 2013:
Climate Change: Rare Medium Is Well-Done
“As the world warms, and the environment changes around us, it’s good—for a sufficiently broad definition of “good”—to see the media starting, just barely starting, to take the issue seriously.” Article by Phil Plait
» Grist – 23 August 2013:
How to write about climate: Pull up a barstool
“Climate change is an awkward fit for the conventions and institutions that make up today’s media. There are a bunch of reasons for this, but the main one is that not much happens.” Article by David Roberts
► Consider using the Solutions Journalism Checklist
Climate Science Rapid Response Team
The Climate Science Rapid Response Team is a match-making service to connect climate scientists with lawmakers and the media. The group is committed to providing rapid, high-quality information to media and government officials. Climate Science Rapid Response team member scientists are chosen to cover a wide array of topics related to Climate Science. They have been selected based upon their publications in professional peer-reviewed scientific journals.
“There is a wide gap between what scientists know about climate change and what the public knows. The scientists of the Climate Science Rapid Response Team understand that better communication can narrow this gap. The media is in the best position to deliver accurate science information to the general public and to our elected leaders but only when they have access to that information. The Climate Science Rapid Response Team is committed to delivering that service. The team members are advocates for science education.
Media and government officials are encouraged to send requests using a inquiry form. For those who are not media or government contacts but have questions regarding climate, visit the Resources page. The informative links there can answer most questions.”
» Home page: www.climaterapidresponse.org
Press alerts from Environmental News Network
You can subscribe to the press alerts from Environmental News Network. They also distribute a daily e-newsletter to 36,000 environmental leaders.
The Environmental News Network is one of the oldest, and most unbiased sources of online environmental news on the web. The network has consistently earned the loyalty of the most respected insiders like the heads of sustainability at Fortune 500 companies, government leaders or leaders of the largest non-profits.
► You can sign up here
Climate News Network
The Climate News Network is a site and a news-service designed primarily for journalists. The free, ready-to-use factual service that brings you the latest news of climate change science. Climate News Network is run by four volunteers, all veteran journalists who have covered climate change for many years for leading British newspapers and broadcasters and are now freelancing.
“For journalists we offer news stories about climate change where the implications are spelt out explicitly and authoritatively as context and comment. Using trustworthy sources and straightforward language, we provide journalists with the stories they need in a ready-to-use form which they can use as it stands or adapt to their own circumstances. Our stories are typically about 600 words long. The service is entirely free of charge.”
When you sign up, you will be receiving interesting articles of high standard straight to your mailbox often before they are published.
» Home page: www.climatenewsnetwork.net
Where to get graphic material for climate change and sustainability articles
► Broadcast-ready graphics and animations from the Meteorologist Center at NASA Global Climate Change
► Check out Global Reporting Initiative’s sustainability image gallery on flickr.com
Recommended reading for all journalists and editors
“‘State of the World 2013’ assembles the wisdom and clarity of some of the earth’s finest thinkers, visionaries, and activists into a dazzling array of topics that merge to offer a compellingly lucid and accessible vision of where we are — and what is the wisest and healthiest course for the future.”
Nina Simons, Cofounder, Bioneers
Get hold of this book — and find the time to actually read it: ‘State of the World 2013: Is Sustainability Still Possible?’
Here is a Preview Edition, 28 pages:
Understanding the inadequate climate change coverage
Americans Tell News To Cover Climate Change
“Twelve. That’s the combined number of segments that ABC, CBS and NBC’s nightly news programs devoted to climate change throughout all of 2012. This is woefully inadequate. We need coverage that’s consistent with the importance of dealing with this issue.
That’s why Mediamatters for America and the Sierra Club are joining the League of Conservation Voters in asking those three nightly news programs to do a better job covering climate issues in 2013 than they did in 2012.
You can help out by signing the letter to Michael Corn, Executive Producer of ABC World News, Patricia Shevlin, Executive Producer of CBS Evening News, and Patrick Burkey, Executive Producer of NBC Nightly News, asking them to give Americans more frequent, accurate coverage of climate change this year.”
What is it with journalists and their relationship to climate change?
Journalists often choose to focus on the easy accessible conflict stories and opt out more complicated material which requires research. Contrary what I often hear, it is not because journalists are somewhat dumber than the average citizens. Journalists are busy people in busy jobs and tight deadlines who can’t find the time to look deeper into the case of climate change, which is an overwhelmingly complex issue.
The result is that we often see journalists make silly mistakes in their reporting. They misunderstand and misinterpret the reports published by the scientific climate researchers. They think, “Hm, wasn’t there just someone who said he does not believe that science is right?” And then they give that person access to the columns and hold the microphone for him in the belief that in this way they ensure “balanced journalism”, where both parties in a case is being heard.
Critique of the media
The great failure of the journalistic profession
When researchers at Oregon State University and Harvard University published their findings on 8 March 2013 in the journal Science that the earth is hottest now, and getting hotter, the world’s biggest news agencies wired the story to newspapers around the world, and what did the editors do? Did they give it priority and a headline on the front page? No. Of course not. As seen in this example from Herald Sun in Australia, they squeezed it in on the bottom of page 19.
Climate change is the story of the decade and the century. And if we don’t slash emissions soon, it will be the story of the millennium (see NOAA study which concludes climate change is “largely irreversible for 1,000 years” with permanent Dust Bowls in Southwest USA and worldwide.)
But most of the mainstream media treat climate change as a second or third-tier story.
Todd Gitlin — professor of journalism and sociology and chair of the Ph. D. program in Communications at Columbia University – has a long critique of the media at TomDispatch:
26 April 2013:
Todd Gitlin slams media’s miscoverage of climate: It’s dumb journalism, stupid
On this page is an excerpt of the part on climate.
Thank you, Todd Gitlin, for speaking out about the greatest failure of the journalistic profession ever. Because sadly, that is exactly what we are witnessing.
Todd Gitlin writes that if the press has “largely failed us on the subject, the TV news is a disgrace. Despite the record temperatures of 2012, the intensifying storms, droughts, wildfires and other wild weather events, the disappearing Arctic ice cap, and the greatest meltdown of the Greenland ice shield in recorded history, their news divisions went dumb and mute.”
“The rolling default in climate-change coverage cries out for the most serious professional self-scrutiny. Will it do for journalists and editors to remain thoroughly tangled up in their own remarkably unquestioned assumptions about what constitutes news?
Come on, people: Can you really find no way to dramatize the extinction of species, the spread of starvation, the accelerating droughts, desertification, floods, and violent storms? With all the dots you already report, even with shrunken staffs, can you really find no way to connect them?
If it is held unfair, or naïve, or both, to ask faltering news organizations to take up the slack left by our corrupt, self-dealing, shortsighted institutions, then it remains for start-up efforts to embarrass the established journals. (…)
The press was never too great to fail. Missing the story is a tradition. So now the question is: Who is going to bring us the news of all the institutions, from City Hall to Congress, from Wall Street to the White House, that fail us?”
2012: Eight minutes of tv on climate change in the U.S.
“In 2012, the Sunday shows spent less than 8 minutes on climate change… ABC’s This Week covered it the most, at just over 5 minutes… NBC’s Meet the Press covered it the least, in just one 6 second mention… Most of the politicians quoted were Republican presidential candidates, including Rick Santorum, who went unchallenged when he called global warming ‘junk science’ on ABC’s This Week. More than half of climate mentions on the Sunday shows were Republicans criticizing those who support efforts to address climate change… In four years, Sunday shows have not quoted a single scientist on climate change.”
» Source: www.mediamatters.org
International Energy Agency
The International Energy Agency is an autonomous organisation which works to ensure reliable, affordable and clean energy for its 28 member countries and beyond. The IEA’s four main areas of focus are: energy security, economic development, environmental awareness, and engagement worldwide. Energy Technology Perspectives, World Energy Outlook, Technology roadmaps, Oil Market Report, Scenarios and projections…
» See IEA’s newsroom: www.iea.org/newsroomandevents
Climate change is not allowed on the front pages, because this is not news. Climate change is just a bunch of scientists talking. News is something else. “It may be fundamentally important, but it’s not news and therefore it cannot be printed in the American press.”
According to Californian Governor Jerry Brown, people must instead “join with other individuals” and organisations to spread information about climate change and to work to combat it.
» Capitol Alert – 23 May 2013:
Jerry Brown: News media ignoring climate change
Gov. Jerry Brown complained bitterly this morning that the news media ignores climate change, in a speech attended by more than a dozen photographers and reporters. “If you take a look at Google and type in ‘global warming news,’ I venture to say on most days in the news, 20 to 30 percent, if not more, of the news, will be by climate deniers or skeptics”. By David Siders