Home | About | Donate

Corporate Media 'Failed' to Connect 2017's Extreme Weather to Climate Crisis: Study


Corporate Media 'Failed' to Connect 2017's Extreme Weather to Climate Crisis: Study

Jake Johnson, staff writer

"We can't fix the climate crisis if we aren't talking about it. It's critical that the media start reporting on the crisis with the quality and quantity it merits. We're talking about the greatest challenge of our time."


Of course corporate media ‘failed’ to cover the climate crises: it might piss off their advertisers in the fossil fuels mafia.


Mas death.

Mass migration.

That’s when you’ll see coverage of climate change.

In other words, when it’s too late.

Just checked my watch. It’s already too late.


What a bunch of dolts


Yes, it is too late- I think we saw this coming at least thirty years ago.


The question should be not whether the mainstream media connected extreme weather to climate change but whether climate scientists did. The latter are the only ones equipped to do that. What they apparently do is take the initial conditions for an extreme weather event and then run their models with and without global warming to see if global warming makes a difference. There was recently a report that the effects of Hurricane Harvey were worse because of climate change. The mainstream media should have reported that study. If the study was reported then they did their job, if not, then they need to do better.


Nah, craven media whores.


As in the greatest crisis of extinction of Life as we know it.


Only the unaware cannot see that mass migrations across the globe of animals, birds, fish and humans. This is why borders and nationalism are deadly. The concepts of Nations, borders and the like are no longer valid. The planet is too small, there are too many of us and the world is changing way too fast. Too small, too many, too fast. “Step into the future, step out of the past, nothing lasts”, Danny O’Keefe.


When you talk about mainstream media- these days that’s not that definable. Online news has meant that news, more than ever, reflects the views of the owners and sponsors of that news outlet. If they can’t refute a story they’ll sow doubt any way they can.
News outlets sponsored by the harmful industries and their right wing owners and pocket politicians will not even run climate stories except to sow doubt. News outlets without these encumbrances will. My point is that everybody doesn’t hear the same news.
The media that should be reporting the shit out of it are also not as forthright as one would hope. Maybe sponsor dollars are at work there as well.
Climate change is at such a pace now that generally everybody who cares doesn’t get any of their news from billionaire news networks (because it’s just constant everything’s fine bullshit) but from blogs from reputable science backed sites. Is the Gulf of Mexico and Carribean sea temp hotter? Yes it is and therefore your hurricanes are worse and more often. Will fox news ever repeat that-no.


The corporate media doesn’t cover climate change. How curious!


Disaster capitalism depends on a compliant media. But then again, widespread catastrophe like hurricanes and wildfires don’t need media for publication.


Hello Jake Johnson, Our Mass Media is all that the Ministry of Truth will allow!!! They have sold their souls for the traditional 30 pieces of silver!!!


I would say the center of the mainstream media includes the NY Times, Washington Post, CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN. They generate a lot of original news stories. They all run climate stories and I think virtually all of those stories are based on global warming being real and caused by humans. Among those sources I follow the NY Times the most. When you move into whether an extreme weather event is affected by climate change you are getting into difficult territory. Scientists have found evidence of many extreme weather events being affected by climate change but not all. So the media cannot state categorically that when an extreme weather happens that it is affected by climate change. It takes some research to come up with the answer. The Gulf of Mexico is warmer as is the North Atlantic and I think we can safely say that global warming is an important factor. Warmer water is associated with more and stronger hurricanes. But climate change can also increase wind shear and that reduces the risk of hurricanes. The point is this stuff is complicated and one’s views should be based on science not politics. And the media reports should be based on science. My view is stick to the science and try not to let your political views bias your conclusions on scientific issues. Rely on the data, not political talking points.


In 1979 James Hansen of the NASA Goddard Space Laboratory spotted shrinking of the north polar icecap and said that it was caused by humans (anthropogenic). He now says that the melting ice will dampen heating but that rising sea levels inundating coastal regions, where most of the great cities are located, will make the planet ungovernable. He also has said that the Paris agreement is a hoax because it has no teeth. He agrees with Trump but for different reasons. In any event, we still do not have the political will to make the required lifestyle changes required.


Our corporate media, falsely called the “liberal media” by right-wing blowhards like Rush Limpballs, has failed in just about every way, not just climate reporting. It seems to have started on local news with “happy talk” about 1970 in NYC and like a fungus it spread everywhere so that now there are almost as many weather features on the typical 22 minute local “news” program as there are actual news stories. The two main strategies have also risen in importance - “If it bleeds it leads” and “If it’s on fire it’s on at five”. The increasing popularity of this approach finally made it to national news and the prediction made by the brilliant movie “Network” came true, news was increasingly overseen by “corporate”. I can only imagine what former TV news reporters like Edward R. Murrow, Walter Cronkite or Daniel Shor would say if they could get a gander at this current crop of establishment lightweights.
One of the most shameful aspects is the banning by many stations of words like “climate change” or “global warming”. No sense i getting the people worked up so they won’t pay attention to the commercials.
I stopped watching commercial TV in the later 90s and don’t miss it a bit. I get my news from trusted sites on the internet and from shows like “Democracy Now!” with Amy Goodman, an award-winning independent journalist.
Hey, here’s a clue. Someone once asked some TV news producer why they hadn’t offered Amy Goodman a job. He answered that she wasn’t acceptable because she was too much of an “advocacy journalist”. Yeah, because when you aren’t towing the establishment line there is no room for you in the world of multi-million dollar salaries and celebrity interviews. Like Diane Sawyer, for instance.


What will it take before the media whores change their narrative from extreme weather to climate crisis?

From my perspective, not until there is some kind of world wide crisis where millions die; where millions are caught in some kind of catastrophic climate crisis. In those old movies where the crews are stranded in a disabled submarine and only have short time before their oxygen runs out, to me is a perfect example of where we ARE NOW!


Wow, once again you demonstrate your naivete or just plain reluctance to look at the whole picture. Considering the world-wide significance of this appalling situation and the implications for the entire human race and millions of other species I don’t think there has been anywhere near enough reporting on climate change. In fact, the paucity of in-depth reporting on this issue is one reason why there are so many idiots who claim the opposite - that the Earth is actually cooling or that more CO2 will be better for us and the plants!
Global warming is still a kind of background topic and brought up usually when we have extreme weather events. Please tell me where is the reporting that states to people that the warming we are currently experiencing was actually brought about by CO2 released decades ago and that we should be VERY concerned about how the world will be in the next few decades as a result of what we are doing right now, especially with the increased release of methane, a far more powerful “greenhouse” gas.
Also, the public should be made aware that the predictions of warming by groups like the IPCC have all been too conservative and did not take into effect the increase of methane emissions or the “cascading effect” where these feedback loops actually build on each other.
If people had been properly and regularly informed about this potentially disastrous issue maybe they would be capable of changing their profligate ways instead of shrugging or even buying that new shiny SUV when the price of gas goes down.
The relative lack of in-depth reporting also accounts for the fact that the U.S. is really lagging behind the efforts of other countries like Germany to develop alternative, non-pollution energy sources. It also accounts for the lack of outrage when this POS we have as president announces that he wants to “open up” the entire U.S. coastline for gas and oil drilling, exactly the opposite of what we need to do to give our kids and grandkids a stable future.


And it will only be exacerbated by the government’s traditional “too little, too late” responses. Besides, our government has been in bed with the energy cartels for many decades. Look at the current Secretary of Energy, that energy industry whore, Rick Perry.


Excellent rebuttal!