Stop Asking The Media To Report on Climate Change

That's Not Strictly Their Job... Sadly

We’ve all seen it - many of us have said it: “You won’t read / see / hear this in the mainstream media.”

There’s often a good reason for that. Good reason, as in it’s understandable if you know how the media works.

But no, not good in any other context.

Cards on the table, I have been a journalist for more than 30 years. So I know what I’m talking about here.

My own area of interest is the life of every creature on this planet - let’s just call it the nature and climate emergencies.

But this is relevant for many other scenarios which the media appears to ignore.

So why does that happen? Why are some of the biggest stories in the world seemingly ignored? Why are some obvious alternative angles not explored?

I know what you’re thinking. Any of these…

• Billionaire owners protecting their rich friends

• Billionaire owners protecting their own financial interests

• Owners in the pockets of fossil fuel companies who pay millions for advertising

• Owners with a political bias

• Woke leftist gay journalists (Well, I’ve got to cover all bases)

The truth? None of those things dictates what is said or printed. Hardly ever.

---

So why won’t the media report on what I think they should be reporting on?

Remember this - all media is nothing without its audience.

Newspapers won’t make money if nobody buys them. TV news programmes won’t attract advertisers if nobody watches them.

Whatever the outlet, the opinions of the audience matters most - purely for financial reasons.

Picture the scene: A dozen haggard journalists, most of them alcoholic, pick up their beer cans and cigarettes, and shuffle into a smoke-filled room to discuss what’s going on in the world that day.

Actually, scratch that. When I started in journalism that was a true picture. Nowadays, you’ll be lucky to find half a dozen journalists in the office, there’s no booze, no cigarettes (vaping will also be banned indoors)… but regular chats about the news agenda is still a thing.

I’ve been in that situation many a time, often putting forward a news or feature idea designed to educate people about the climate crisis, or plastic pollution, or the benefits of veganism….

It’s why I left to go and work for myself.

YOU might be the reason the media doesn’t report on climate change

A journalist may enter the profession with the intention of breaking big stories and educating the world, much like some politicians may actually believe they’re going into the job to make people’s lives better.

Reality can be very different.

When the editor or news editor decides which of the stories to cover that day, the overriding thought in his or her head will be this: “Will our reader / viewer / listener be interested in this?”

So if the United Nations releases a report proving that the climate crisis is causing all the latest wildfires and flooding, media outlets who serve people on the left of politics will usually run that in some shape or form.

Many media outlets on the right, with a sizeable percentage of the audience believing the dangers of climate change are overblown, will take the decision that nobody wants to know about that today.

Even though it’s clearly a major story, it will be knocked out of the news agenda to make way for a piece about Taylor Swift’s latest boyfriend, if the editors believe that is more likely to attract sales, views, listens, clicks and likes.

I believe news editors often get this wrong. The fact that media interest and trust has been steadily on the slide is due, in part, to a widening disconnect with what the public actually wants.

And I know I’ve jumped in with political right and left sweeping generalisations but… well, that’s the way it generally pans out.

But what if it became apparent that viewers of Fox News in the US, or readers of the Daily Mail in the UK, for example, were starting to get worried about the climate crisis? What if they were writing in, asking for more coverage on the subject?

Then believe me, even Fox News and the Daily Mail would change their content.

The audience is king. That’s you and me. And everyone else around us.

---

Why don’t journalists stand up for the truth on climate change?

Sorry to burst another bubble, but we expect more from journalists than they are ever likely to deliver.

In all my years in journalism, I believe I have only met a handful of reporters or editors who gave a proper damn about environmental issues.

The secret to being a good journalist, before specialising in a subject, is to be able to write with apparent authority on just about everything.

But journalists are not all-knowing. Instead of knowing a lot about a little, journalists need to know a little about a lot.

So don't expect them to understand everything about the climate crisis or biodiversity emergency - they need educating, too.

There is nothing special about journalists in that respect. They are regular people, doing regular things. They will represent society pretty accurately in terms of how many of them are vegan or members of environmental groups, for example. A low percentage, but growing.

Journalists are not a special breed. I have worked with many whose spelling and grammar left a lot to be desired. Others never watched or read the news before coming into work in the morning, so had no knowledge of what was going on.

Many entered journalism because they liked writing, or enjoyed reading books. These interests don't necessarily transfer to holding the government to account over issuing harmful fossil fuel contracts.

I'm choosing some extreme examples and ignoring that fact that there are, indeed, many very knowledgable journalists who specialise in environmental issues, and do their best to educate the public about the dangers we face.

I'm just saying, in general, don't expect too much.

The thing that really gets to me is this. Journalists are ALL about getting the big story, the big scoop, the front page, the leading article.

Yet so many are failing to understand that they are sitting on the biggest story EVER to have occurred in the whole of human existence - and the facts are there to back it up; the data, the actual measurements, it's so easy to report.

But their news sense is so off-radar, they can't see it.

What a time to be alive! They could be reporting on the biggest story ever! The extinction of the human race and most other life on earth!

But if they don’t believe that their audience wants to know about that…. well…

How can we convince people to read or watch more informed media?

This isn’t easy… but there is a solution.

Bear in mind that many people buy, or read their favourite newspaper online, out of pure habit. Perhaps their parents always bought that publication.

Often, they have actually chosen that newspaper because they value the sports coverage. Or they like the TV pages. Or the free puzzles supplement.

It used to frustrate the hell out of me while working for local newspapers, that however much work I put into writing a hard-hitting, insightful article, surveys still revealed that most people bought the paper to read the Births, Marriages and Deaths notices!

The solution? Stop relying on the media to come up with a solution. Be the solution yourself. Be the media.

Most environmental groups now have YouTube channels and social media accounts, where messages, graphics and videos can be very powerful, reaching millions of people.

Of course, the absence of fact-checking across social media now, does make it difficult to convince many people that you are, indeed, sharing facts.

Substack and LinkedIn offer great opportunties to reach a receptive audience. Running your own website affords total control but you’ll have to work hard to attract a following.

Ultimately, like most things in life, even if it doesn’t feel that way… the power to bring change is in our own hands.

Extinction Today is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Thank you.