Given the Democratic National Committee’s refusal to allow its party’s presidential hopefuls to take part in a televised climate debate, CNN (and, later this month, MSNBC) agreed to host “town halls” on the climate crisis—events with one candidate at a time on stage, fielding questions from network hosts as well as network-selected audience members.
CNN‘s climate crisis town hall (9/4/19) showed that, when it’s not setting up mock combat among candidates, the network can actually provide thoughtful and substantive discussion about critical policy issues. Over the seven hours, the ten candidates were spared the ridiculously short time limits enforced in televised debates that require superficial answers. Environmental activists and other interested and well-informed citizens were given the opportunity to ask probing questions about specific plans, and to force candidates to answer for their past (and present) climate-related stances.
A New York Times headline (9/5/19) treats a tax on carbon as a dirty word. (The online version of the story is here.)
But it’s not enough. Viewership for a town hall will never approach that for a party-sponsored debate—which is in part ensured by the lack of media hype and coverage. CNN averaged 1.1 million viewers across the seven hours of the town hall (TheHill.com, 9/5/19), compared to an average of nearly 10 million across the two nights of its debates (Hollywood Reporter, 8/1/19). Neither the Washington Post nor USA Today published write-ups of the event in their print editions the next day; the New York Times‘ write-up (9/5/19) played up the drama, focusing on one policy issue that it deemed “controversial”—the idea of a carbon tax (the “T-Word,” as the headline put it).
Given that lack of coverage combined with low viewership, what impact will the town halls make? The media hosts of the upcoming debates ought to view them as a foundation for asking more climate questions in the debates, question that—now that candidates have established their positions in much more detail—can probe deeper. The danger, however, is that instead they’ll take the town halls as a free pass to ask fewer climate-related questions, claiming the issue has already been covered.
And while we can hope for debate questions as informed as the ones CNN audience members asked at the town hall, many of the questions lobbed by CNN hosts themselves—like those from the first two debates—give us little reason to expect it.
The moments in which CNN hosts tried to be “tough” on candidates were largely based on Republican talking points, like how much their plans would cost (ignoring how much inaction would cost), and whether Americans would be “forced” to drive electric cars or give up meat.
CNN‘s Anderson Cooper questions Sen. Bernie Sanders at the climate town hall.
Anderson Cooper, for example, followed up on an audience question about how Bernie Sanders would fund his climate plan by pressing Sanders, “Would you guarantee to the American public tonight that the responsibility for $16.3 trillion, which is a massive amount of money, wouldn’t end up on taxpayers’ shoulders?” Meanwhile, CNN‘s Chris Cuomo asked Elizabeth Warren: “Do you think that the government should be in the business of telling you what kind of lightbulb you can have?”
These echoed the framework both CNN and NBC used for their debate questions, which—across issues—leaned on right-wing assumptions and talking points (FAIR.org, 7/30/19, 8/2/19).
Audience questions, on the other hand, were informed and useful, bringing some refreshing assumptions about things like the need for “massive industrial mobilization” to solve the climate crisis and frequent references to race- and class-based impacts of climate disruption. It’s remarkable—and commendable—that they were given a platform by CNN. But we need more of that in the more widely viewed debates.
Messages to CNN can be sent here (or via Twitter @CNN). Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective. Feel free to leave a copy of your message in the comments thread of this post.
Featured image: Sen. Elizabeth Warren at CNN‘s climate town hall.
I watched several of the presentations and believe that only Senator Sanders was asked about human overpopulation i reference to our environmental decline. I like his answer which supported access to safe, effective, affordable birth control and set off a storm of conservative criticism. Apparently, this was a brave act on his part. No wonder none of the others mentioned the single most obvious cause of climate change/global warming: too many humans using too many natural resources and producing too much pollution. Thanks for calling our attention to the CNN forum (?).
I too agree that population reduction is a key factor in climate change and one that underlies/exacerbates many of the other major problems this and virtually all countries face. Unfortunately, given our economic system in the US that celebrates GROWTH and a cultural more’ that essentially says every individual should have as many children as he/she wants, population discussions are virtually a third-rail in politics nowadays.
Not surprising they give Bernie Sanders the hot potato..
The answer to not getting the coverage that a debate would get is to improve publicity about it. Possibly CNN would have gotten a larger audience if it did it over 2 nights. Give me the public posting the questions any day. They were great! But who needs a DNC debate where questions are asked by the network hosts (FAIR is correct in panning those), there’s a time limit on answers, attacks are encouraged? Maybe we should do away with debates and just do more town halls. As for the substance, anyone who watched could see that there is tremendous agreement among the Democratic candidates, they only disagree on specifics.
But putting a price on carbon should be advanced as a strategy – I think the best is fee and dividend, with the carbon fee going in large part directly to low-income households to deal with rising costs they face. It also would have an immediate effect of cutting emissions/pollution. Let’s make the fossil fuel industry pay for their externalities.
Too bad CNN locked down the videos so that we would not see Joe’s red-eye capitulate on his behalf.
Forget the pretend debates and let’s have more town halls like this with audience questions. I don’t want to watch a dozen people argue with each other. That has very little to do with the job for which they are applying.
Much of the content from the 7 hours is still accessible for those who missed the live event or want to recheck what they heard. So the ultimate reach may be a lot wider than the live viewership.
CNN’s pro-nuke industry bailout ringer (curiously following, a sincere sounding “audience” question) disclosed Sen Sanders & Warren’s vulnerability when confronting concerted media/ K Street shills on complex topics. Neither questioned the obvious: there’re still 97 huge old fission reactors, currently online. And no miraculous replacement technology, outside of having Rosatom re-core our 45-60 yr old power stations. We’d have to socialize the expense, while “streamlining bureaucracy” to get past the costs (unacceptable to private utilities) , delaying installation, integration and implementation available alternatives.
https://queenseagle.com/all/hudson-yards-climate-crisis-town-hall-cnn-trump-ross