So one day Anderson Cooper wants to do a climate segment. He thinks an interview with Dr. Katharine Hayhoe, a renown climate scientist, would be good. Dr. Hayhoe gets to the studio and does the interview. Then word comes down: she is a no go. Her interview is cancelled. Rick Santorum, the climate denier, will take her place. Strange.
The IPCC comes out with a report that major changes must occur in our energy use if life on this planet is to continue. A news anchor wants to talk about that. Word comes down from management: the anchor must have a debate -- a climate denier on one side and and the hapless anchor on the other. So the segment is filled with lies and misinformation.
Ahead of a Democratic debate, CNN polled their viewers to find out which topics they want to see more of. Then they turn around and give them none of what they wanted to see more of. Word came down: “Sorry, no.”
The net result of a whole lot of programming decisions like these is that the American TV-watching populace is being underinformed on the subject of the climate.
Let’s hypothesize that this is happening because the management of these news outlets have a good reason not to allow true climate news to occur on their broadcasts.
So what could that good reason be?
Does it make sense to think that the TV news outlets across the board (Disney and Comcast and WarnerMedia, etc.) are conspiring of their own free will to keep climate news from us for some antisocial or misanthropic reason? No it doesn’t.
So they are probably not bad people. (Except for maybe Fox.)
Or is it sensible to assume that, immediately upon airing a piece of climate news, their ratings begin to tank irrecoverably and that people en masse grab their remotes and change the channel? Not really.
So it’s probably not a ratings problem. But it does serve as a (lame) excuse for media execs to hide behind.
So what the hell could be the reason for the verifiable lack of climate coverage among these TV media conglomerates?
Could it be that their fossil fuel advertisers, (who buy advertising time to the tune of $2.7 million per week) have told the broadcasters, “True climate news affects our profits negatively, and so no climate news of any kind will be allowed?”
Yes it could.
“These sorts of conflicts come up all of the time for television, radio, and print media because they rely on advertising to pay for their news content.” thelamp.org "Who Pays for News?"
This is a big problem. There is a climate blackout caused by fossil fuel advertisers strong-arming the networks. It means that news, either positive or negative, about the climate crisis cannot get out to the American TV- watching public. Americans remain uninformed and uninspired. This is the opposite of what we need in order to deal with the impending climate disaster.
So journalists; pundits; Democrats; celebs; late-night comedians;
Help us out.
ClimateNet.org
ThisIsHowToFightGlobalWarming.com
