Thread by @ClimateOfGavin

What are the real issues in media coverage of climate change?

This commentary from @marcatracy (a NYT media correspondent) hints at the problem, but doesn't really capture it.

https://twitter.com/nytclimate/status/1148177846810152960

He correctly points to the massive difference between the increasing number of mainstream outlets that take the topic seriously, and those who are in total denial (Fox), but doesn't address the biggest gap...

...which is that mainstream broadcast channels appear to be completely indifferent. IMO the fact that climate almost never gets discussed on @abcnews @CBSNews or @NBCNews is far more important that the fact that Jesse Waters can spout the products of decades of disinformation.

Sure, there are occasional 'specials' with @chucktodd or @chrislhayes that are useful, but they are so occasional that basically you have to start from the beginning every time. There is no arc in their climate narrative.

Instead, as @nytclimate and @GuardianUS are moving towards, the media has to treat climate change as an issue that underlies a lot of their reporting on dozens of other issues. We don't need more specials. We need more context.

Stories on coastal real estate need the context of why seas are rising.
Financial stories on the fossil fuel industry need the context of how much of their assets might be stranded.
Architecture stories need to address energy use - and why!

I could go on (trust me!), but the pt is that many (not all) of the most prominent stories that are being covered have deeper climate contexts that is almost never addressed.

Why? Habit. The 'silo'-ing of environmental or science stories. Genuine lack of knowledge. Fear.

If we are going to make a dent in this problem, all this has to change.

You don't need to be advocacy journalist to cover this. You just need to care about truth.

Climate change is joined-up story. And we need joined-up journalism to cover it.