Climate Change Media Criticism

The media often frames the public discussion about climate change by comparing the vastly different viewpoints of the two candidates for President: Joe Biden, who aims to address the issue through the creation of jobs, and Donald Trump, who calls climate change a hoax.

The media often bring up Biden’s trillion dollar plan and his countless donors. They often explore the Green New Deal, most associated with Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and how Kamala Harris, his vice presidential candidate, influences Biden’s position. Fracking, jobs, green energy, and the effect of climate change on low income communities is discussed frequently. The main spokespeople advocating for climate change legislation are environmental reporters like Lisa Friedman, policy makers, major climate donors for Biden and the Biden-Harris team themselves. While the environment is a crucial part of the election, often climate stories don't appear to be on the front page or the first thing that pops up when you log onto your computer. However, we noticed a stark difference between where left-leaning media outlets placed climate stories in their newspapers and on their webpages compared to right-leaning outlets. While global warming has been covered more due to recent natural disasters such as the California wildfires, many aspects of the climate fail to be mentioned. Issues, like the proliferation of plastic in the ocean, that don’t play a huge role in everyday American lives are covered less frequently if at all.

When it comes to reforming the way the media addresses climate change, there are two issues to solve.

The first is coverage. Climate is an increasingly important issue to voters and is appearing more frequently in left-leaning news sources, sometimes even on the front page. Experts themselves note that climate will play a larger role in this election than ever before and the media has made significant progress. In President Obama’s campaign just several years ago, climate was rarely mentioned. Environmentalists argue that the issue is still severely under-covered. For example, although conservative sources have several articles on climate, they never appear on the front page, and are often opinion pieces. Perhaps this lack of coverage is due to how other issues, most notably the Covid-19 pandemic and issues of police brutality, have dominated the news in this year. Biden and Harris have proven that climate is of paramount importance to their campaign by planning to reduce emissions to zero in the next ten years, and creating new jobs as well. Donors have flocked to Biden on this issue as well and seem optimistic about his plan. If climate plays as big a role in the election as politicians predict, the media will need to take note. Perhaps climate coverage is low now because the issue seems distant to Americans, who would rather vote on issues that more directly affect their lives, such as healthcare or abortion. Many misunderstand the implications that climate can have in coming years: pushing millions into poverty and harming the agricultural sector and small businesses. Perhaps the recent wildfires in California will serve as a turning point, as they are evidence of climate change and could bring attention to the changing climate. It seems likely that this will be a topic brought onto the debate stage later in the fall.

The second way to change the media’s perception of the climate is to work towards a more nuanced approach. When the media frames conversations on climate change today, the coverage gathers itself along strict political lines, and fails to address the feasibility of these plans and opinions of current experts. For example, news sources tend to report on the plan Biden unveiled, yet most Americans are still unaware of the details of this plan and how exactly the U.S. can reduce emissions. Most of the articles quote politicians themselves, which further reinforces the media’s role in perpetuating polarization. The media could improve by listening to the input of current scientists and researchers in the field, who provide the reality of the climate policy on the table. They would question both the likelihood of the policy being passed and whether or not it will be watered down in the future.

The combination of more coverage and reliance on experts in the field will result in the climate truth that the American public deserves.