Skip to main content

Chart on broadcast news coverage of climate change in 2012.
Jill Fitzsimmons at Media Matters has vivisected the coverage given in 2012 to climate change by the four broadcast news channels. Coverage on Sunday declined another notch. But while weeknight coverage improved over the past two years, it still fell far short of 2009, which wasn't all that great either. But then, considering how much attention the subject got from President Obama and the Republican presidential candidates, and, let's be fair, from us right here, expecting the corporate media to have done any better is a foolish wish:
Sunday Show Coverage Continued To Decline. Since 2009, climate coverage on the Sunday shows has declined every year. In 2012, the Sunday shows spent less than 8 minutes on climate change, down from 9 minutes in 2011, 21 minutes in 2010, and over an hour in 2009. The vast majority of coverage—89 percent—was driven by politics, and none was driven by scientific findings.

• 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.

Nightly News Coverage Increased Slightly From 2011, Driven By Extreme Weather. The nightly news shows devoted just under an hour to climate change in 2012, up from 38 minutes in 2011 but significantly less than in 2009. Coverage was largely driven—69 percent—by the extreme weather the U.S. experienced this year; 17 percent of coverage was driven by scientific findings and 12 percent was driven by political stories related to climate change.

• CBS Evening News covered climate change the most for a total of 22 minutes—a reversal from 2011, when the show covered climate change far less than ABC or NBC. [...]

•NBC Nightly News covered climate change the least at 17 minutes.

It's not just the time devoted to the topic, however. It's what was done with that time. Not a single Democratic politician was quoted on the Sunday news programs. On the nightly news programs, the situation was better: 60 percent Republicans; 40 percent Democrats.

But the priceless part of the "coverage" by the Sunday news programs on ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox was their failure to quote a single scientist on global warming in 2012.

And 2011.

And 2010.

And 2009.

Not a single one.

On the nightly news programs in 2012, two-thirds of the people cited in the total of 59 minutes of coverage were scientists.

This paltry coverage, and the skewed nature of the reporting that is done, contributes to the governmental and societal and individual failure to deal with global warming. Together with the funding of lies and smears by plutocrats such as the Koch brothers and the management of Exxon-Mobil and other fossil fuel magnates, the traditional media failure needs to be confronted on a daily basis by bloggers and social media not beholden to the interests that brought us to the ledge we now stand on. Even the evidence of actual climate change happening before their eyes has not shamed the media moguls to rebel against their masters. They are leaving it up to us.

Originally posted to Meteor Blades on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 03:15 PM PST.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Until they have sponsors (12+ / 0-)

    that want this coverage or they think that people will find it entertaining, it's probably not a good bet to expect increased coverage. You're right that it is up to us to get the point across.

    Breathe in. Breathe out. Forget this, and attaining enlightenment will be the least of your problems.

    by rb137 on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 03:24:21 PM PST

    •  The entire political class has decided climate (20+ / 0-)

      change isn't a burning (pardon the pun) issue.  By de facto mutual consent of the 2 major party nominees, climate change (in clear contrast to 2008) was effectively off the table in 2012.  It was like having all of the presidential candidates avoid debating slavery in 1860.  

      Think about it--climate change was serious enough for McCain and Obama to admit its seriousness in 2008.  The situation got visibly worse by 2012, yet Romney and Obama essentially avoided it.  I don't see the issue getting that much traction on the Hill, either.

      Yes--the fourth estate is too worried about keeping its own tax breaks, inside baseball, and pseudo crises to address this issue.  There is no excuse for its obvious misuse of its first amendment privileges.  The problem, however, is a broader Beltway failure.

      Some men see things as they are and ask why. I dream of things that never were and ask why not?

      by RFK Lives on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 03:47:58 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It up to us to act then (5+ / 0-)

        I've been saying this for a while.  If we refuse to act we are complicit in what will likely be the greatest die off of human history.  Both of humans and of animals.  The moral imperative is overwhelming and yet we argue over stupid tax plans like cap and trade that will have no significant effect.  We need a massive curtailment of carbon emissions and we need it as soon as possible.

        The revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

        by AoT on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 04:36:45 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Heh. So don't just sit there, do something! (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          AoT, mightymouse, DawnN

          I think we might disagree over the policy solutions, but you know what?  The real problem is that we're not even having a policy debate over what to do - despite all the scientific evidence, we're still trying to point out this is a problem that needs solving in the first place.  Very frustrating, to say the least, but you're absolutely right about the moral imperative.  Giving up is not an option.

          For our part, we started creating our own coverage last year.  News, science, and easy actions, in digestible, (hopefully intentionally) funny chunks:

          For our 2012 year-in-review of sorts, check out our Climate Denier Style parody video ---- already our most-watched video! (not that we're setting any records or anything, but still!)

          And because every episode has two easy actions to take, a personal and a larger action:

          (link is to a current Union of Concerned Scientists petition urging Obama to set science-based limits on carbon pollution.)


          Don't Just Sit There - Do Something! --- a humorous take on climate news, climate science, with easy things everyone can do to make a difference.

          by Dont Just Sit There DO SOMETHING on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 05:21:15 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Oh, I am. But in my spare time I (0+ / 0-)

            get on here and other places and try and actually discus policy.

            The revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

            by AoT on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 05:25:15 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  If you believe in climate change, you should (0+ / 0-)

        be in favor of running deficits.  In sixty or eighty years, when toasters will be obsolete, who's gonna care about the "national debt"?

  •  One day they will wish they had done more. (11+ / 0-)

    One day they will wish that they had felt this more worthy of discussion.  

    Rooting for Democrats!!!

    by SquirmyRooter on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 03:26:19 PM PST

  •  It is hard to sell cars and plastic crap from (16+ / 0-)

    China in the midst of the reality of an unfolding global catastrophe. Which car or oil company wants to purchase advertising on a station that reminds us that what we are doing will result in generations of unimaginable chaos for current and future generations?

    I wonder if we will see this story in the msm. Not.

  •  it's a tough subject (29+ / 0-)

    especially for mainstream organizations and people who hate nothing more than the idea of change. And implicit in talking openly about climate change is that we all have to change our lives on some levels, which is often a non-starter for a viewership hooked on shopping and consuming. So that's why you only get coverage when bad storms, fires, and droughts happen, because that affects people's livelihoods and comfort, but when it comes to talking about the broader infrastructural changes that need to happen to prevent the shit from continuously and more and more rapidly hitting the fan, people on both sides of the teevee don't want to hear it because they'd actually have to be part of those changes.

  •  but (10+ / 0-)

    what do the kardashians think about global warming?

    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

    by Laurence Lewis on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 03:39:50 PM PST

    •  Kim Kardashian has... (7+ / 0-)

      ...17,131,328 Twitter followers. Think about the impact of one or two 140-character global warming warnings from her would have instead of the latest plug for her hair stylist. Do it for your soon-to-be newborn, Kim!

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 05:54:47 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  This: (6+ / 0-)
        Kim Kardashian has...17,131,328 Twitter followers
        is just embarrassing.  So much for cogito ergo sum.

        Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

        by a gilas girl on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 06:03:02 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Okay, we can't count on Kim Kardashian, but (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Meteor Blades, NoMoreLies, DawnN

        I do believe we need to be talking to people through popular culture.  You know, in Mexico, they dropped the birthrate something like a third after concerned people stopped focusing just on arguing with the Cathollic church and the beholden legislators, and instead wrote a really appealing, likeable soap opera.  In which various characters had to confront issues of contraception, when to have children, lovers before marriage, etc.  It became a real hit, particularly with women, and changed thinking.

        For climate change, we need to put out scientific information, but we also need movies less stupid than The Day After Tomorrow.  We need more creative videos on YouTube, music videos and story telling,  near-future science fiction, maybe comic books or graphic novels -- we need to tell a lot of stories about what this stuff means.  DOing what the media should be doing means putting out the facts, but also making the meaning real to people.

        --------------------- “These are troubling times. Corporation are treated like people. People are treated like things. …And if we ever needed to vote, we sure do need to vote now.” -- Rev. Dr. William J. Barber

        by Fiona West on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 07:49:32 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I think the media will wait until (6+ / 0-)

    the oil and gas companies have finished drilling/fracking the USA into swiss cheese.

    Once the profit structure is in place, then the push might begin.

    Since 2009 literally tens of thousands of fracking wells have been drilled without any science to prove it is safe.

    Au contraire!  The only EPA study relies on reporting FROM the fracking industry.  I think this is why Lisa Jackson quit.  We have a nearly neutered EPA with most states run by GOP who will find a myriad of reason to not only not comply, but will justify drill baby drill.

    Utah boasts approving the first US Tar Sands project in an area that could flow into the Colorado.

    What a plan!

    It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

    by War on Error on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 03:42:53 PM PST

    •  In other words until it's definitely too late (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      War on Error

      Sigh.  And still the most "radical" politicians only put forward crap that won't do anything.  We need to take action and we need to push for strict carbon rationing.

      The revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

      by AoT on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 04:39:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Which might already be the case. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        There is a very real possibility that we are already at the point where survival, mitigation, and geo-engineering push prevention out of the way.

        We are already at about 400ppm CO2 in the atmosphere, arctic ice is disappearing at record rates and melting permafrost is dumping tons of methane into the atmosphere, all while China builds coal-fired power plant after coal-fired power plant.

        In the nest 3-4 years, Chinese CO2 emissions are likely to triple those of the US.  In other words, we could drop to zero without reducing the overall CO2 level.

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 05:15:55 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  We have to start by reducing emissions (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Nowhere Man, dinotrac

          to zero or near zero and also work on the other things you talk about.  Of course, at some point those emissions will be cut through a mass human die off.  So there's that to look forward to.

          The revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

          by AoT on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 05:19:15 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Sure, but we can't do it in a vacuum. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            AoT, War on Error

            How do you sell a program that is not likely to make any discernable difference in the problem but could displace and cost the jobs of millions of people?

            We need to make sure that we don't drop our CO2 emissions by the simple measure of shifting them (and even more jobs) over to China, India, etc.

            There is real opportunity for the US here if we make a priority of employing Americans and making sustainable energy profitable.

            Just look at what Germany has done with solar -- whether we want to mimic their approach, or simply their awareness and determination, it is possible to make a better, stronger, cleaner nation that provides more, not less, opportunity to its citizens.

            Do that, and we've got  a winner even if China continues to drag its heels.

            LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

            by dinotrac on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 05:23:51 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I think China is in a Good position to (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              make a massive change over and part of that is because of their massive solar cell production and the ability of the party to make decisions that just aren't politically feasible in the US.  What I do know is that no large countries are where they need to be.  Germany is getting there, but their carbon emissions are still increasing.  As much as your right about the political pragmatism we need to start putting forward solutions that can be implemented quickly and implemented now, because this is a problem now and we don't have a lot of time.

              And I'm sorry if some people lose their jobs.  That sucks.  But when weighed against the potential death toll of global it is nothing.

              The revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

              by AoT on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 05:48:50 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  There needs to be a will, and China has some (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                internal political problems that might sap that will.

                You may not care about destroying millions of families -- but even the Chinese know that's a pretty stupid position if you want to rally support around your cause.

                The Chinese aren't burning all that coal because they want to destroy the atmosphere. Many Chinese -- especially rural Chinese -- have not shared in the Chinese economic boom, and getting electric power and assorted other accoutrements of modern life out to more of the population is a part of avoiding chaos that could imperil the positions of their leaders.

                LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                by dinotrac on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 06:28:29 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  It's not that I don't care about destroying (0+ / 0-)

                  millions of families, as you put it, it's that the alternative is so incredibly worse.  I don't want to have to be the one years from now telling my grand nieces and grand nephews how we didn't do anything because people might have lost their jobs, or that it wasn't politically expedient.  I don't know how old you are but I'm young enough that I'll probably be around for some of the real bad stuff to start.  The real problem is that no politician is currently putting forward solutions that will actually solve the problem.

                  The revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

                  by AoT on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 09:50:08 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  The political problem is clear, the solution not (0+ / 0-)

                    The thing is, the alternative is not worse if your are one of the families destroyed.  As a result, you cannot expect people to support your efforts to destroy them.

                    You can play power politics and spit in their faces if you have the numbers to do so.  After all, politics has little or nothing to do with morality, principle, or higher purpose.

                    On the other hand, if there are more millions (especially when their friends and families are considered) than you can easily steamroll,or, alternatively, if you have some humanity and compassion, you can look that much hard for ways to make things better without destroying people in the process.

                    What's interesting to me is your response to the scenario I put forward -- reducing US emissions by moving more jobs to China, a move that just shifts emissions from one place to another.  It's pretty sad that you're willing to let others suffer for little more than appearances.  If you ask people to pay a heavy price, you should demand a significant benefit in return.

                    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                    by dinotrac on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 04:57:30 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I'd much rather be unemployed than (0+ / 0-)

                      live in a world of food shortages and drought.

                      What's interesting to me is your response to the scenario I put forward -- reducing US emissions by moving more jobs to China, a move that just shifts emissions from one place to another.  It's pretty sad that you're willing to let others suffer for little more than appearances.  If you ask people to pay a heavy price, you should demand a significant benefit in return.
                      That is not a solution, at all.  I'm not sure why you think that I would agree with that except that you want to make me out to be the bad guy.

                      The revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

                      by AoT on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 01:33:52 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

  •  I think it's because no solutions have been in the (5+ / 0-)

    news. No carbon tax, no large scale alternative energy programs, I don't know whatever happend to high speed rail.

    Everyone is talking cuts, not stimulus.

    How big is your personal carbon footprint?

    by ban nock on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 03:44:00 PM PST

    •  Pet peeve: alternative energy programs (6+ / 0-)

      I hate the phrase "alternative energy" because it implies something other than the "rightful" energy sources. Frankly, petroleum and coal are just as much alternative energies ans wind, solar, geothermal, etc.

      I like "sustainable" much better. Petroleum and coal can't glom on to that one, because they will, by definition, run out one day.

      LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

      by dinotrac on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 05:19:05 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  IIRC, there were NO questions about (7+ / 0-)

    climate change at any of the presidential debates.

    While Rome burned, Nero fiddled.  

    It's the Supreme Court, stupid!

    by Radiowalla on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 03:46:27 PM PST

    •  Were there any in congressional debates? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Radiowalla, Eric Nelson

      I know in my district, Steve King vs. Christie Vilsack, there were none in five debates. I was disappointed because King is such a science denier. The debate in my town was moderated by Dean Borg from Iowa Public Television. I submitted two questions in advance to the moderator:

      Do you accept the evidence for human-caused global warming? If so, what should we do about it?

      Do you support federal funding for basic scientific research?

      I received a polite reply, but he did not use the questions.
  •  It seems (7+ / 0-)

    broadcast media has given up on reporting on reality and spends time on things that really don't help us understand our world.  It's so disappointing at times.

    "It feels like President Obama still hasn't won. It never ends" - my very astute 9-year old watching MSNBC.

    by Ellinorianne on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 03:58:20 PM PST

  •  On Sunday, CNN had an hour-long (6+ / 0-)

    "Documentary" on climate change impacts and adaptations. What was totally missing was a discussion of the causes of cc and what mitigative processes (ie burn less fossil fuels) are available.

    Bill McKibbon's nightmare is rapidly becoming reality.

    And my political masters are only focussed on the economy and how we can get more tar sands oil out of the earth.


    I know you believe you understood what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant. -- S.I. Hayakawa

    by tapu dali on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 03:59:26 PM PST

  •  So remarkable! (14+ / 0-)

    For some reason my favorite part is the 6-second mention on Meet the Press. It's hard to imagine how you manage to bring it up and then dismiss it that fast.

    •  Not if you watch (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AoT, a gilas girl, mightymouse, NoMoreLies

      Meet the Press a lot.  Not hard to imagine at all.  

      Then again, only masochists, narcissists and sycophants watch MTP a lot, i.e., the Beltway Establishment, mostly.  MTP is good for only one thing: learning what our political and media elites consider is worth their time to discuss on Sunday Morning.

      "If you tell the truth, you'll eventually be found out." Mark Twain

      by Steven D on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 04:23:34 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Bill, you may already have seen this image, (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NoMoreLies, marsanges

      but if not you'd be the person to publicize it.  It comes from the latest suite of satellite images released by NASA of the U.S. at night.

      Scroll down to the second image at this link --

      In that link you'll find yourself as I did identifying US metropolitan areas by the light pollution they emit.  One of easiest to identify is Chicago along the shore of Lake Michigan.  To its northeast, you see Minneapolis/St. Paul.

      Then you ask yourself, what's that metropolitan area to the northeast of Minneapolis?  Edmonton?  Calgary?  But the glowing area is too huge and way too far south.

      Turns out, it's uncaptured natural gas burning off from drilling the Bakken formation in and around Williston, ND.

      I am completely stunned by the scale of the carbon release this photo infers, and shocked by the wastefulness from a purely industrial standpoint. (In one web forum I found, Canadians were aghast that the natural gas from these drillings wasn't being trapped, as it is by law in Canada.)

      Anything you can do to circulate this image, perhaps via a macabre game of "Name That New US City", would be greatly appreciated.  On the heels of the hottest year that region has seen in recorded history, this image has national scandal written all over it.

      "And now we know that government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob." -- FDR

      by Mogolori on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 05:59:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Why should we be be surprised at this ? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Why should we be surprised that big media, owned and controlled by those with vested interest in the fossil fuel industry would just not report on global warming ?


    Global Warming is brought to you by all who burn fossil fuels.

    We need to transition off this dangerous stuff ASAP

    Want to help do that and maybe give your kids kids some chance at an environment other than Hades ?

    Sign the petition to get us off fossil fuels in 40 years.

    thanks for your foresight
    Barry Allen

  •  I wonder if anyone here... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    princesspat, Livvy5

    will ever give credit to NPR and PBS for the coverage they do offer instead of these constant complaints about networks? I must have one or two stories explored here but nothing even close to the constant game of pin the tail on the MSM.  

    It might be useful to promote where the news can be found instead of seeking scapegoats or placing the responsibility on networks that rely on corporate sponsorship.

    You don't see much of that here. I strongly feel that those stories that do make it to the public airwaves should be featured here and often. The added bonus of perhaps getting readers out of the empty wasteland of cable news and watching real researched news like "Frontline." Here this is funny, the tag cloud count here "FrontLine 120 entries." of a much higher progressive priority "Rush Limbaugh 6498 entries."Hey but what do I know besides that fact that I've totally lost interest in complaints about what we can't change.

    I watch the networks and I've seen plenty of stories from the only network personality I really follow, Brian Williams and it's not like David Gregory can get a real slug fest going when the guest are mostly politicians. If it is big news they seem to get some of it into their programming. I know there was much network discussion of climate change during and in the aftermath of Sandy.

    But to what end? The media has become stenographers and there has been little copy out of Washington. This week Brian Williams has only been back two days from his holiday break and he already mentioned that climate change will be a major part of President Obama's second term. Right now he is on the Trillion Dollar Bill. That's entertainment.

    I try to be useful by usually adding some more material at the network news site when there is a story of global warming in the hope that some of that information works into a production meeting via the AP or PA who has the job of managing network blogs and emails. It's got to be better than complaining to other like minded people here.  

    •  Thanks Eddie C...... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Eddie C, Eric Nelson, NoMoreLies

      I find the coverage of climate change news quite interesting on PBS. Moyers and Company has excellent programs as well.

      Full Show: Ending the Silence on Climate Change
      January 4, 2013 | Moyers & Company
      Climate change communication expert Anthony Leiserowitz explains why climate change gets the silent treatment, and what we should do about it.
      I'm fortunate to read Crosscut, and as you can see from the link the range of articles is quite comprehensive.

      Love is the lasting legacy of our lives

      by princesspat on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 05:33:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  As you may have noticed, the amount of... (5+ / 0-)

      ...climate change coverage on the FP and in the diaries at Daily Kos is in a sharp upswing since the election. And that covers a wide range of things, including original reporting from some of us, as well as, pointing out new studies and the like.

      But, like it or not, the broadcast channels, not the cable channels and definitely not NPR and PBS are where most Americans still get their news. Pointing out that propaganda has clout, especially when there is little in the traditional media countering that propaganda, is an important part of our role as activists. We have to know what those we are trying to persuade are seeing and hearing in regard to subjects—like global warming—that we care about.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 06:02:25 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  And it is pointed out... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        several times a day. Over and over but to what end?

        If I ever see a Democrat trying to work information into the national public debate and the network denying them or pretending those efforts don't exist I'd be the first to diary that fact. Now that would be an issue I could sink my teeth into.

        Go ahead and invalidate my point. It's been done enough times. There is no point to be found in promoting well run media when there is knocking the network's brains out to fall back on. Just keep punching someone. I get it we are powerless to promote the media that is covering the issues but everyone knows there is enormous gains to be made by constantly whining and complaining about the networks. Perhaps they will change their ways and switch from the stories that will best keep asses on the couches for the next pharmaceutical commercial. Or perhaps the goal is just to get the aging audience to give up watching news. If it is about pointing out some fact about what they ignore,  I think we get it by now.

        I no longer post comment with links to those screaming "The Media Ignored This!" diaries. Comments like "Oh you mean this that was covered on Morning Edition, then discussed by Brian Lerher, the story that The PBS NewsHour had a roundtable discussion about this evening, that ignored story?" I don't bother anymore because the comment are usually followed by a (none/0) and no reply. That just dosen't fit in with the "See it's the media's fault" meme when things are slow in the "See it's the Republicans fault department."

        Shit, I no longer post anything political or can even be bothered with the "actions" here anymore. I wouldn't even be here except fo the fact that someone I respect and trust sent me an email about this important diary.

        But you know what always get me? How many links I can find to Bill Mckibben on either the CBS, NBC or ABC news sites and how few I can find on an elected Democrats page or see his name linked to an elected Democrat. I went looking for Democrats attempting to force climate change into the national debate after my President announced it would be a second term priority, pretty slim pickings.

        Now there is something I could write a zero impact diary about or try to make points about getting the people we supported into office into the national debate so people who are not paying attention will take notice. Yes I was taught well, these cannot be done so go find someone else to blame. But one thing, that is fucking useless and no matter how many efforts to scream about the media get posted here those Democrats keep getting more and more corporate and swinging further and further to the right.  

        But you're right, keep exposing the networks. Everyone know you can always change a TV station but politicians cannot even be addressed.  Hey if it was kept down to anything but a full blown propaganda program here I wouldn't have a beef but it has become total bullshit. Just some more silliness to type, whining and complaining about everyone in this nation who is not an elected Democrat.  

        •  Eddie, I did not try to invalidate your... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Eddie C, NoMoreLies, navajo

          ...comment. I pointed out the rationale behind knowing what the traditional media is talking about on various subjects because that traditional media reaches far more people than outlets like NPR and PBS and we need to reach those people as well.

          As far as my friend Bill McKibben is concerned, I posted a lengthy excerpt from his "Why climate change won't wait for the president to act" in this very space on Monday.

          More and more diaries about a range of global warming topics are appearing on right side here by A Siegel, beach babe in fl, FishOutofWater, HoundDog, Bill Moyers, Lefty Coaster, Laurence Lewis. And there will be more on the Front Page as well. It's noted at the beginning of this diary that President Obama was all-but-silent about climate change in 2012. Other Democrats who are into the delay game when it comes to climate change will not be let off the hook in these diaries.

          Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

          by Meteor Blades on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 07:27:03 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  It's crazy. Possibly suicidal. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AoT, DawnN

    We should be treating climate change with the collective urgency that we did during World War Two. Anything short of that is not enough.

    We have already passed the tipping point. Now we mitigate, plan contingencies, lessen the impending disasters. Now. NOW!

    curious portal - to a world of paintings, lyric-poems, art writing, and graphic and web design

    by asterkitty on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 04:20:34 PM PST

  •  I'm shock, shocked, to find that gambling is (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AoT, bryduck

    going on with the future of our climate:

    Just doing my part to piss off right wing nuts, one smart ass comment at a time.

    by tekno2600 on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 04:31:43 PM PST

  •  Given that 97% of scientists agree... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    crystal eyes, Eric Nelson, DawnN

    ...that global warming is caused by humans it's very damning of the quality of Sunday talk shows;

    In Four Years, Sunday Shows Have Not Quoted A Single Scientist On Climate Change. Of those who were asked about climate change on the Sunday shows, 54 percent were media figures, 31 percent were politicians and not one was a scientist or climate expert. This is consistent with a previous Media Matters analysis which found that none of the Sunday shows quoted any scientists on climate change between 2009 and 2011. By contrast, two-thirds of those interviewed or quoted on the nightly news programs in 2012 were scientists

    I don't watch Sunday shows any more.

    Daily Kos an oasis of truth. Truth that leads to action.

    by Shockwave on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 04:55:07 PM PST

  •  Imagine how much (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lady Libertine, Meteor Blades, DawnN

    lower these numbers would have been w/out Sandy.

    And, well, how much higher if President Obama weren't so diligent w/ his Climate Silence.

    Blogging regularly at Get Energy Smart NOW! for a sustainable energy future.

    by A Siegel on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 05:12:59 PM PST

  •  Alternate explanation for sucky press coverage: (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nowhere Man, princesspat, mimi

    The press likes stories that they can cover easily, in terms of framing, in terms of sources, in terms of narratives that theyy are fluent in and that they can traffic without much extra thought.

    Climate change as a story requires more work from journalists: they have to learn a new language -- science -- that has a very different set of conventions in terms of alternative explanations than that of politics or crime, they have to cultivate a whole different set of sources and experts who don't usually hang around in the usual places that journalists go to find sources, and these sources have different kinds of conventions for gathering and arguing and presenting material, AND the climate change narrative is a completely different frame than the general journalistic approach that US journalists have to news stories.

    So, there's a lot of status quo and laziness in terms of professional mis en scene that probably contributes to some of this lack of coverage, too.  Most especially for TV journalists who live and die by the speed dial function on their smart phones.

    Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

    by a gilas girl on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 05:19:03 PM PST

    •  This is all very true (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      a gilas girl

      But imagine if the press allowed themselves to scare people about global warming with just 10% of the fervor that they scared people about Iraq... or any other scary frightening panic of the moment. The press knows about scaring people.

      Let us all have the strength to see the humanity in our enemies, and the courage to let them see the humanity in ourselves.

      by Nowhere Man on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 06:03:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  But that's a good example of what I mean, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Nowhere Man

        I think.  When the press think "scare people", the subject of the "scaring" is always a political enemy.  Climate change doesn't have an easy personification, so they don't have an easy formula for "scaring people because it doesn't fit into their "insta create an enemy" formulations.

        Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

        by a gilas girl on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 07:04:30 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  They should spend more time at the movies... (0+ / 0-)

          Hollywood certainly knows how to make nature be frightening.

          Let us all have the strength to see the humanity in our enemies, and the courage to let them see the humanity in ourselves.

          by Nowhere Man on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 09:28:23 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  they not only have to learn scientific language (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Nowhere Man

      they are also supposed to translate this language into something non scientists can understand and find interesting. How are they supposed to do that when they have a couple of hours to prepare for their narrative, of which at least 60 percent goes into "finding the right images".

      If the journalists would be allowed to produce less "news" the public would actually get better products.

      The journalistic approach is dictated by the fact that they have to fill 24 hour news cycles and are supposed to be very "interesting" all the time. The demand to fill the airwaves with chatting word salads around the clock is killing everything. Aside from that, it's all cut and paste and copy and republish and image hunting.

  •  I really feel that since 9-11-2001 we (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    have (many of us) been stuck in an ongoing emergency frame of mind that makes any longer-term concerns too difficult to consider. I know that is true for me. I guess that the rise of social media during the same period has magnified this post-traumatic stress thinking. But we're just always in a state of emergency.

    “liberals are the people who think that cruelty is the worst thing that we do” --Richard Rorty Also, I moved from NYC, so my username is inaccurate.

    by jeff in nyc on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 05:26:10 PM PST

  •  Nero fiddles while Rome burns, headline in Roman (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    newspapers, "Emperor gives concert."

    "Intelligence is quickness in seeing things as they are..." George Santayana

    by KJG52 on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 05:46:22 PM PST

  •  "And so it goes." (0+ / 0-)

    [We] need a nightly somebody to sign off regularly re: climate change.

    "Goodnight and good luck."

    "The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed." ~ Steven Biko

    by Marjmar on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 05:51:09 PM PST

  •  tangent topic:Should we talk about climate change? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    David Roberts, a blogger at Grist, is challenging what he says is an evolving consensus among American "climate hawks" who say there's "nothing to be gained from talking about climate change".  

    These types, according to Roberts, argue that political effort aimed at climate mitigation needs to conceal itself inside debate focused on "innovation, energy security, and economic competitiveness" as a way of getting something i.e. tiny bits of what is required, done, because otherwise nothing would be accomplished at all.

    Roberts reminds us of a strategy that he believes works:
    ‘Brutal logic’ and climate communications
    As I’ve said so many times, though, what drives social change and shifts politics is not broad-based support but intensity. An intensely committed minority can act as a lever that moves larger populations. Scientists at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute did a study on this recently — “Social consensus through the influence of committed minorities” — that attempted to determine “the tipping point where a minority belief becomes the majority opinion.” They found that that it happens at right around 10 percent.
    So it very much matters who wins that battle of intensity. That is how the Overton Window is shifted, how views from outside the mainstream come to be inside.
    The right gets this. Forty years ago, supply-side economics and opposition to basic social safety net protections were crank, extremist views held by a small minority of hardcore conservatives — the folks who rallied behind Goldwater in 1964 and lost. But as historian Rick Perlstein recounts in Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus, they didn’t stop. They kept organizing and pushing, organizing and pushing. Then came Nixon, Reagan, GW Bush, Sarah Palin. Now extremist conservative views are part of the mainstream fabric.

    What if they’d given up after 1964? What if they’d looked at surveys, concluded the American middle didn’t favor their views, and spent the next decades trying to tone down and soften those views?

    That’s where climate hawks are — their own 1964. Surely one of their most important tasks is to grow and support the committed minority of people who have absorbed and understood the severity of the climate crisis. From this perspective, it doesn’t matter if climate truth initially fails to reach the mushy middle. What matters is that the committed minority grows.
    Someone around here has been making this exact point for a long time
     - Thx MB
    •  Eric (0+ / 0-)

      The conservatives were well funded by those with financial interests at stake. The environmental "minority" is not.

      As I see it, the fossil fuel industry is conflicted over the advice of their "advisors" who are paid for their advice to oppose any climate change legislation at all, and their own wish to control any proposed solution for their own benefit.

      When it becomes so late no other solution is possible,  they will propose a grand solution to remove carbon from the atmosphere.

      The mistake we make is that we believe them to be greedy and stupid. Greedy yes, stupid no. They can afford to pay for smart.

  •  The fossil fuel industry is using (0+ / 0-)

    the same strategy as the Tobacco industry used. Flooding the media with paid for studies so people will think there is still some doubt as whether Global Warming is real.
    You know, hey Fox viewers, there is still some doubt.
    It worked for them for 40 years (or more?) ago.

    Unfortunately, we really don't have forty years for big oil  / coal to admit they were wrong.

  •  How do you cover climate change? (0+ / 0-)

    I'm seriously interested. It is a very complicated subject in the best of circumstances.

    And we did have an election year after all which pushed other subjects aside.

    by Common Cents on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 07:07:27 PM PST

    •  covering climate change (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      There are actions going on all across the country that the networks could use to get into the scientific talk of climate change.  We have been seeing actions across the country and participating in actions here in East Texas. We need to be flooding the email and twitter accounts with links to websites like

      If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

      by texaslucy on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 07:17:11 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Just wait (0+ / 0-)

    Just wait, this will all turn around when the fossil fuel industry decides it is in their interests to propose a "Manhattan Project" type solution in order to develop an expensive technology to "scrub" the atmosphere clean of carbon. They thereby can privatize the air we breathe.

    They have hinted at this approach when at various international conferences spokespersons for organizations allied with them have expressed confidence that human ingenuity will provide us with a feasible technological solution before it is all too late.

  •  Hmmm, too bad no one has a soapbox (0+ / 0-)

    Nope, can't think of anyone.

    "just give me some truth" --John Lennon

    by vernon nackulus on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 07:21:55 PM PST

    •  the biggest continuous soapbox is RW radio and it (0+ / 0-)

      works for the koch brothers and has US university logos stickered all over it. see my post right above.

      the whole country has heard years and years of bullshit from the heritage koch blowhards (while environmentalists have sat on their hands relative to talk radio) to convince huge constituencies that calls for efficiency and alternative energy are pie in the sky and will do nothing but cut jobs. that long term effort undermines and slows all serious efforts and discussions on climate change, no matter what the guy on the presidential podium says.

      i sure hope he has something for us in the SOTU but we'd go a lot faster and farther if the environmental groups would finally pull their iPods out of their ears to hear what's coming out of the local university endorsed state dominating limbaugh megastation.

      This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and GOP lies by broadcasting sports on over 170 Limbaugh radio stations.

      by certainot on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 07:36:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  does that decline coincide w "climate-gate" fraud? (0+ / 0-)

    that broke in Nov 2009, i wrote about it here that week that Limbaugh broke it and spent several ENTIRE days on it just before Obama was going to go to the Copenhagen summit:

    climatologist Michael Mann recently told Bobby Kennedy that set the country back 2 years re GW- the subject was still coming up in media. and he said it downgraded the effectiveness of Compenhagen and undercut Obama.

    limbaugh was the lead guy in pushing that fraud for the Koch bros. MSM actually resisted it for a few days but they finally got it.

    that got a lot of screaming callers, which is what talk radio does, to call media producers/offices and scream "fraud!"

    and today limbaugh did a segment calling GW a fraud and hoax. and that's the same station that depends on the state university's sports to survive and promos the team during limbaugh. and that continues between many of our largest unis and hundreds of the largest RW stations- all doing GW denial and intimidating media.

    This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and GOP lies by broadcasting sports on over 170 Limbaugh radio stations.

    by certainot on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 07:26:05 PM PST

  •  if people want better coverage imagine what (0+ / 0-)

    protests at universities to get them out of RW denial radio would do?

    This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and GOP lies by broadcasting sports on over 170 Limbaugh radio stations.

    by certainot on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 07:50:44 PM PST

    •  never mind (0+ / 0-)

      This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and GOP lies by broadcasting sports on over 170 Limbaugh radio stations.

      by certainot on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 07:51:11 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  So, certainot, do you know of any university- (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      centered environomental groups?  I'm too out of touch with college students myself to know where this idea might find a receptive audience.  THough with the anger young women were feeling at Limbaugh earlier this year, it might be a good time to attack him on another issu (GW denial).  Or... I wonder if the people working on getting sponsors to drop him would be interested in expanding that to include universities dropping sports broadcsts from his stations?

      --------------------- “These are troubling times. Corporation are treated like people. People are treated like things. …And if we ever needed to vote, we sure do need to vote now.” -- Rev. Dr. William J. Barber

      by Fiona West on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 09:18:33 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  a lot of universities have student groups (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Fiona West

        environmental, social justice, diversity, LGBT, etc. all of them would benefit from getting their universities out of RW radio.

        most of their objectives and they themselves are regularly attacked from those stations in general ways, and more specifically when they make progress and get the attention of local or national think tanks that feed the local talkers.

        the current boycotts are directly related to the fluke incident so they're geared that way toward hate/misogyny. in my experience the the general attitude among liberals is to ignore everything else that talk radio does. that's the problem.

        a lot of this would be easier if there was a written record that could be searched - so liberals could read it. new transcription software could make that automatic and it should be a given task for every state Dem party office to be monitoring the main local talkers, since they basically do what think tanks and state GOP and Chamber of Commerce wants. maybe some minor scrambling would allow the transcripts to be offered to a wider audience without copyright probs.

        while universities might be defensive about not wanting to seem political (while supporting RW radio!) about it, the GW denial they support through RW radio should be indefensible.

        This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and GOP lies by broadcasting sports on over 170 Limbaugh radio stations.

        by certainot on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 11:32:28 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  And Then They Have the Nerve to Complain (0+ / 0-)

    that no one is watching their shows any more.

    Wikipedia is more entertaining than those people, and has better coverage of the issue.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site