Network news programs failed to mention climate change during their coverage of the midterms, according to an
analysis by Media Matters. Not frequently. Not occasionally. Not at all.
This was so even though Republican candidates, incumbents and first-timers alike, campaigned on dismantling EPA carbon emissions rules or even getting rid of the agency altogether.
Even though large numbers of these candidates firmly planted themselves in the denier camp on global warming, a few copping out by saying "I am not a scientist" and then promptly proving they also don't listen to scientists.
Even though the six months ending in September were the warmest ever recorded.
Even though the People's Climate March in September was the largest such gathering in history—310,000-400,000 protestors turned out.
Even though the International Panel on Climate Change issued the final volume of its grim Fifth Assessment of Earth's climate the weekend before the election.
Now, it's true that environmental issues in general, including climate change, have only occasionally risen very high on Americans' list of priorities. A HuffPost/YouGov poll asked respondents what were their two top priorities for the midterms and found that while 56 percent of Americans said "economy" and 35 percent said "healthcare," just 11 percent said "environment."
Please read below the fold for more on this story.
So the network chief who says its viewers aren't interested might have a point. But perhaps a reason for lack of interest is at least partly due to the previous failures of television news outlets to cover environmental issues except sporadically.
And then, too, the analysis showed that only 35 percent of network news coverage of the midterms dealt with any issues, which Media Matters defined as economy, federal deficit, health care, climate change, foreign policy, immigration, same sex marriage, reproductive health, gun safety, campaign finance, voting rights, and equal pay for women.
That overall lack of issue coverage deserves more attention as one of the reasons voter turnout is so poor, not just in the midterms but in general elections as well.
Of course, lack of coverage is hardly the only problem. The content of network news programs, when they actually have deigned to cover climate change, has been abominable for decades. The scientific assessment of what's happening in that regard has always been pitted on the news against the views of know-nothings and propagandists. Even if there were coverage at the level the climate change crisis deserves, nobody should expect this warped and reckless approach to be altered. The television news industry sees no profit in it.