In a year dominated by coverage of the coronavirus pandemic, one might expect other topics to fall lower on the media’s priority list. But the climate crisis has not lessened in intensity; on the contrary, the urgency of addressing it increases each year. (Not to mention that climate change is an important driver of increased disease outbreaks like the current pandemic.) News media must be capable of covering two emergencies at the same time.
Their failure to do so reached shocking levels last year. ABC‘s This Week, CBS‘s Face the Nation and NBC‘s Meet the Press didn’t ask a single question that mentioned the climate crisis, climate change or the Green New Deal until more than two-thirds of the way through the year (9/13/20), when wildfires—which, due to climate change, are becoming more frequent and more intense—devastated the West Coast.
CNN‘s State of the Union did little better, asking one tangential question earlier in the year (2/2/20) to Republican Iowa Sen. Jodi Ernst about why she believed the Green New Deal and Medicare for All were socialism but farm subsidies were not. Its coverage of extreme weather beat the other networks by two weeks when it reported on Hurricane Laura in Louisiana (8/30/20).
CBS‘s Margaret Brennan (Face the Nation, 9/13/20) challenged the scientific link between climate change and wildfires by citing an op-ed (Washington Post, 9/12/20) representing the views of a far-right timber lobbying group.
Face the Nation asked only two questions referencing the climate crisis the entire year. In the first, CBS host Margaret Brennan (9/13/20) challenged Oregon Gov. Kate Brown’s statement that the wildfires were “a wake-up call for all of us that we have got to do everything in our power to tackle climate change.” Brennan responded:
Governor, I understand that’s your conviction. But I know four former Oregon lawmakers have written an op-ed in the Washington Post, though, saying you can’t blame climate change. Instead, it’s a failure of your state government to prepare, and that warnings were ignored regarding mismanagement of Oregon’s forests. What is your response to that?
Brennan presented climate disruption’s role in wildfires as a mere “conviction” of her guest—not because there was scientific evidence that questioned the connection, but on the basis of an op-ed (Washington Post, 9/12/20) written by a former Republican state representative (not four of them) who’s now associated with a pro-logging group funded by corporate timber interests and linked to far-right militias (Mother Jones, 3/6/20).
In the other question, Brennan (11/8/20) asked West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin if Joe Biden’s “energy message”—which featured a vow to transition away from oil and gas—hurt him in the election.
NBC asked three questions, ABC and Fox News asked four, and CNN asked 13 in their Sunday morning shows. The five shows combined aired a total of only 18 segments in which any questions were asked that referenced the climate crisis. There were 26 questions asked, to 18 guests.
The Sunday shows historically skew overwhelmingly toward official sources—politicians, party operatives and other current or former government officials—who typically account for half or more (FAIR.org, 4/1/12, 5/22/20) of all guests, with journalists making up most of the rest. In 2020, questions about climate skewed even more toward partisan guests, who accounted for all but two of the sources, and received 24 of the 26 questions. (The other two, both on Fox News Sunday, were an actor and a conservative pundit.)
Last April, when there was a crucial role for news outlets to play in clarifying the medical and scientific aspects of the Covid crisis, as well as offering space for vigorous debate over solutions, FAIR (5/22/20) criticized the Sunday shows for sidelining independent public health experts, who comprised only 10% of all guests that month. On climate, however, the shows have proved even worse, inviting not a single climate scientist or other climate expert or advocate as a guest over the entire year.
Of the partisan guests asked about climate issues, 12 were Democrats and only three were Republicans (taking 17 versus seven questions, respectively), despite the fact that Republicans dominated Washington for the year, holding both the White House and Senate and blocking any major climate change legislation. In fact, the ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox News Sunday shows didn’t pose a single question about the climate crisis to a Republican politician the entire year.
In effect, these shows are allowing politicians to define reality. If Republicans say the climate crisis doesn’t exist, then Sunday hosts—with the exception of CNN—don’t question them about it.
Twelve of the 18 segments centered on the US presidential election or the subsequent presidential transition, five were about the West Coast wildfires and Hurricane Laura, and one was a feature about an actor whose climate activism came up in a question.
CNN‘s Dana Bash. CNN was the only network whose Sunday show posed a question about climate change to a Republican all year.
All but one of the 10 climate-related questions in the extreme weather segments were about whether climate change is an important contributor to extreme weather events of 2020, or whether humans are the main driver of that climate change—questions that have long been settled science. CNN (8/30/20, 9/13/20) posed several such questions to two Republican climate deniers, and the network’s Dana Bash (8/30/20) stated clearly multiple times in her interview some variation of “the overwhelming scientific consensus is that human activity is responsible for the climate crisis.” While holding Republicans accountable for their climate denial stance is important, it’s also important to go beyond settled science and press them on policy. But with so few questions to Republicans at all, none did so.
What’s more, three Democrats were also asked whether climate change could be blamed for the West Coast wildfires (ABC, 9/13/20; CBS, 9/13/20; CNN, 9/13/20), letting then–President Donald Trump frame the news with his claims that it was simply a “forest management” problem, rather than doing what they ought to have done: set the record straight on what the science says about the role of climate change in wildfires, then use their questions to ask their political guests about government responses based on those scientific facts.
If we have any hope of addressing the climate crisis, journalists have to move beyond debating its existence or importance, and start looking at both its causes—very concretely, looking at culprits—and its solutions. You can’t debate climate solutions without understanding what is driving climate change, yet only 12 questions were asked on the Sunday shows all year that even touched on emissions or the oil and gas industry, and none mentioned agriculture, deforestation or capitalism more generally.
The fossil fuel industry advertised heavily in 2020 “to persuade voters that natural gas is a climate-friendly fuel” (Independent, 8/19/20).
Of those 12 questions, few got the national conversation closer to where it needs to be, instead asking about such things as whether Biden’s goal of net zero emissions by 2050 was “realistic” (ABC, 9/13/20) or the impact of his stance on oil and gas on voters, not the planet (CNN, 10/25/20; Fox News, 10/25/20). On ABC, host Martha Raddatz (10/25/20) asked Democratic strategist Rahm Emanuel whether Biden’s promise in one of the presidential debates to transition away from oil and gas made him “cringe a little bit.”
Meanwhile, the industry didn’t reduce its own media output during the pandemic; in fact, it increased it. The American Petroleum Institute, the largest industry lobbying group, spent over $3.1 million on TV ads—a 51% increase from the year before—falsely touting natural gas as “clean” energy (Independent, 8/19/20). These ads aired during almost the exact same period (1/1/20–8/16/20) that most of the Sunday shows were completely silent on climate.
I wonder what would happen to the climate if – just as a temporary pilot program – for a period of five years all major developed nations stopped eating, using and exploiting animals for human needs?
Maybe nothing would happen? From Cowspiracy to Seaspiracy the truth is most likely somewhere in the middle. We need to stop exploiting, abusing and torturing animals just so we can have something to eat and wear, when there have long been lesser polluting, and lesser exploitative alternatives.
Right now in 2021, we know the myths and lies that have been spread by the Meat Dairy and Fishing industries “the protein myth.” Humans don’t need that much protein, and what little we do need, plant based food sources provide plenty of fat-free digestible protein.
Let the idiots believe the myths about “phytoestrogens,” these dumb asses think (with zero scientific evidence btw), that somehow the nectar and reproductive fluids of a plant can interface with human reproductive hormones. That’s why there’s a man who is half a carrot right? Or an actual “soybean boy”….get the bleep outta here with that nonsense.
There is an old saying that goes; “garbage in equals garbage out.” Do YOU really think that eating another conscious being, after they toiled and suffered in a life of slavery and torture, comes at zero cost to you spiritually? Really?
Developed nations could do the rest of the world a huge favor, and lead by example if they wanted to. We could show the rest of the world that living happily and healthily can be achieved with limited or no animal exploitation and/or products
There is only one problem with this whole hypothetical situation….there is zero will to even try in the West, the East is just copying the West, and as usual, the errors of developed nations are going to make others suffer….you watch.
Look, both Cowspiracy & Seaspiracy have been shown to be absolute garbage on the science-side of things. Seaspiracy was so bad, it was pulled from viewing until they corrected a bunch of contentions they made.
Also, if countries like Norway abandon using any animal products, they literally disappear. One of the biggest lies of vegans is this idea that everyone, everywhere, can just stop depending on animals. Herd animals are capable of eating plants in places where most farming can’t happen due to lack of water, nutrients or weather.
What should happen to indigenous people’s in Alaska, who live on caribou & fish? Also, relative to climate, those marginalized communities are not the ones causing the problems in the climate.
I think that it is great that there are more ways for more people to eat a plant-based food diet and get proper protein. However, many of the substitutes are astronomical in cost compared to dairy and meat.
Respectfully to Josh,
From the original post:
“The truth is most likely somewhere in the middle.”
I guess you would disagree?
What you claimed about Seaspiracy being pulled and corrected – there is not a single thing anywhere online about that, not even Netflix’s social media mentions a thing about Seaspiracy being pulled and corrected. How convenient for you.
The claim you made about Norway – is patently false – pants on fire false – how do you think Norway gets its non-animal foodstuffs now? Wow.
Your “trope” about indigenous people – is a straw-man, because no one said anything about a planet-wide ban on exploiting animals for human consumption. The hypothetical appeal was for developed nations to stop temporarily to see what effect on the sea air and land it would have.
Go back and read the post more carefully, and stop projecting your own value judgment into it before the words are processed in your mind….nobody is pushing a racist, classist, elitist agenda here bro….this is about the behavior of one target audience…for a temporary period of time.
The part about plants being more expensive, while true, just begs a huge question; since meat IS cheaper to buy than veggies (even though meat is way more expensive and resource consuming to produce) why do you suppose that is?
Ya think it might be federal subsidies? Yes indeed it is! Go look at the billions of dollars the U.S. throws away annually on the meat and dairy industry whose mainstay is the wasteful abuse and slaughter of cattle, (not even talking about the harm to the animals here, talking about the millions of gallons and pounds of wasted milk and meat each year.)
I stand by what I wrote, nothing you said convinces me that enslaving, torturing and killing animals for food in the developed world is a necessary evil, it is not.
You made my entire point Josh. The spiritual cost to all of this, doesn’t even entire the minds of most people in the developed world.
The title of the post about exploiting animals was meant to read:
“The Catastrophe Is Spiritual Not Climatic”
At least I think I was trying to say something about the “climate”…hmmm guess it was a Freudian slip….ha ha.
Oh well, hopefully you understood what I meant to convey.
Indeed! And this is going on since 30 years, not only in the USA, in Europe too. And sadly enough it is not even enough to fight the big corporations. Just like 70% of all vaccines went to the western world, while we are only 10-16% of people, the western world consumes – since decades – 55% of all energy and buys 80% of all goods. By 2000 there were 3% of humans flying each year, then 5, now we reach 10%. 80% of all humans – people of color living in hot and wet regions – never ever flew. This is nothing to neglect – the 20-25% of fossil fuels our tax-free luxuries are added to the waste of each or our countries – is not added. It simply does not exist for the governments. But it is there.
This is a problem I talk about since 30 years, and it can make you mad that “green” people in Europe ignore it just as the Koch brothers or Lomborg or far left parties did. There simply was such a lot of greenwashing and no action. Of course the huge corporations – and politicians – are guilty of doing not enough. But it is a “western supremacy” problem which is wildly ignored. There are people from far left to the ugly far right, lgbtq millions just like all. There is no lobby. Wait until September 2021, the now conservative “green” party will rule Germany most probably. We will listen to a lot of praisals for Annalena Baerbock and the “Grüne” – but they believe the big corporations are the answer. “The huge power of the markets is the solution” is the green mantra… My goodness…30 wasted years.