Today's LA Times has two articles about the extreme heat this weekend, and neither so much as mentions climate change. But both came with beach photos (one in today's print edition only) similar to this.
latimes.com/california/sto…
latimes.com/california/sto…
latimes.com/california/sto…
latimes.com/california/sto…
We're very late in the climate emergency. Every article about a climate-related impact should:
1. mention climate change
2. address how climate influences this impact
3. address future projections of this impact
To not do so seems journalistically dishonest to me.
1. mention climate change
2. address how climate influences this impact
3. address future projections of this impact
To not do so seems journalistically dishonest to me.
Maybe the authors @LukeMMoney and @CartoonKahuna could weigh in.
Why did you choose not to mention climate, let alone address how climate influences heat waves and how they will worsen in coming years and decades? Did you think it was irrelevant? Is it editorial policy?
Why did you choose not to mention climate, let alone address how climate influences heat waves and how they will worsen in coming years and decades? Did you think it was irrelevant? Is it editorial policy?
Don't you think not mentioning climate, and instead providing pleasant photos, might in some sense misinform to the public?
We're in an actual CLIMATE EMERGENCY here and in my opinion the only hope we have to halt it is if the public truly understands this.
We're in an actual CLIMATE EMERGENCY here and in my opinion the only hope we have to halt it is if the public truly understands this.
I'm not trying to be a jerk, although I am freaking out in general about the climate emergency and heatwaves do make me insane.
I just really want to know: why not mention climate?
Journalists have so much power, and therefore responsibility.
I just really want to know: why not mention climate?
Journalists have so much power, and therefore responsibility.
