Detail of the cover for Public Citizen's new report, 'Call It a Crisis': The Role of U.S. Network News in Communicating the Urency of Climate Change. (Image: Public Citizen)
Apr 29, 2019
Name and shame.
That's the dual directive from a new report that calls on news organizations to use appropriate language when discussing the climate crisis--even as the report calls them out for inaction.
The report--titled "'Call It a Crisis': The Role of U.S. Network News in Communicating the Urency of Climate Change" (pdf)--analyzed the coverage of ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News to determine just how much urgency the influential outlets bring to their reporting.
According to David Arkush, managing director of Public Citizen's Climate Program, the specific words that journalists and news anchors use--or choose not to use--matters.
"The words we use to characterize an issue make a difference in how it is perceived and prioritized politically," said Arkush.
When outlets with massive nightly audiences like the ones the report studied "consistently fail to use language that conveys that climate change is a crisis or emergency," Arkush added, "they unwittingly put a heavy thumb on the scale in favor of complacency and inaction."
Fox News was the worst offender, with the use of "climate crisis" coming in for only five mentions during the coverage period--all of which, as Public Citizen noted, were efforts to "minimize the issue with false logic, mockery or misinformation." But other news networks weren't much better than the conservative channel.
The only network to use the term in double digits was CNN, and only 16 of the 26 mentions were by a host. Van Jones, whose eponymous show ran every other Sunday during the survey period, accounted for six of those mentions.
\u201cNEW REPORT: In 2018, only 50 of 1,429 national TV news segments used the word \u201ccrisis\u201d or \u201cemergency" when discussing climate change. That's a measly 3.5 percent.\n\nHere's how the networks stack up:\n\nMSNBC: 7%\nNBC: 6%\nCNN: 3%\nCBS: 3%\nABC: 2%\nFox: 2%\n\nhttps://t.co/93TwlUFU6F\u201d— Public Citizen (@Public Citizen) 1556565839
Networks should name the problem clearly to avoid confusion, said Allison Fisher, outreach director for Public Citizen's Energy Program.
"Climate coverage on broadcast and cable television news is still at best spotty and at worst riddled with misinformation," Fisher said. "Calling it a crisis indicates that the stakes are high and that the issue is urgent. Most of all it signals to viewers that the time to act on climate is now."
How to report on the climate crisis has long been an issue for news organizations. In July 2018, MSNBC host Chris Hayes said on Twitter that while he was personally invested in the story, the topic was "a palpable ratings killer."
"So the incentives are not great," said Hayes.
\u201c@elongreen almost without exception. every single time we've covered it's been a palpable ratings killer. so the incentives are not great.\u201d— Chris Hayes (@Chris Hayes) 1532441141
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. Join with us today! |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Name and shame.
That's the dual directive from a new report that calls on news organizations to use appropriate language when discussing the climate crisis--even as the report calls them out for inaction.
The report--titled "'Call It a Crisis': The Role of U.S. Network News in Communicating the Urency of Climate Change" (pdf)--analyzed the coverage of ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News to determine just how much urgency the influential outlets bring to their reporting.
According to David Arkush, managing director of Public Citizen's Climate Program, the specific words that journalists and news anchors use--or choose not to use--matters.
"The words we use to characterize an issue make a difference in how it is perceived and prioritized politically," said Arkush.
When outlets with massive nightly audiences like the ones the report studied "consistently fail to use language that conveys that climate change is a crisis or emergency," Arkush added, "they unwittingly put a heavy thumb on the scale in favor of complacency and inaction."
Fox News was the worst offender, with the use of "climate crisis" coming in for only five mentions during the coverage period--all of which, as Public Citizen noted, were efforts to "minimize the issue with false logic, mockery or misinformation." But other news networks weren't much better than the conservative channel.
The only network to use the term in double digits was CNN, and only 16 of the 26 mentions were by a host. Van Jones, whose eponymous show ran every other Sunday during the survey period, accounted for six of those mentions.
\u201cNEW REPORT: In 2018, only 50 of 1,429 national TV news segments used the word \u201ccrisis\u201d or \u201cemergency" when discussing climate change. That's a measly 3.5 percent.\n\nHere's how the networks stack up:\n\nMSNBC: 7%\nNBC: 6%\nCNN: 3%\nCBS: 3%\nABC: 2%\nFox: 2%\n\nhttps://t.co/93TwlUFU6F\u201d— Public Citizen (@Public Citizen) 1556565839
Networks should name the problem clearly to avoid confusion, said Allison Fisher, outreach director for Public Citizen's Energy Program.
"Climate coverage on broadcast and cable television news is still at best spotty and at worst riddled with misinformation," Fisher said. "Calling it a crisis indicates that the stakes are high and that the issue is urgent. Most of all it signals to viewers that the time to act on climate is now."
How to report on the climate crisis has long been an issue for news organizations. In July 2018, MSNBC host Chris Hayes said on Twitter that while he was personally invested in the story, the topic was "a palpable ratings killer."
"So the incentives are not great," said Hayes.
\u201c@elongreen almost without exception. every single time we've covered it's been a palpable ratings killer. so the incentives are not great.\u201d— Chris Hayes (@Chris Hayes) 1532441141
Name and shame.
That's the dual directive from a new report that calls on news organizations to use appropriate language when discussing the climate crisis--even as the report calls them out for inaction.
The report--titled "'Call It a Crisis': The Role of U.S. Network News in Communicating the Urency of Climate Change" (pdf)--analyzed the coverage of ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News to determine just how much urgency the influential outlets bring to their reporting.
According to David Arkush, managing director of Public Citizen's Climate Program, the specific words that journalists and news anchors use--or choose not to use--matters.
"The words we use to characterize an issue make a difference in how it is perceived and prioritized politically," said Arkush.
When outlets with massive nightly audiences like the ones the report studied "consistently fail to use language that conveys that climate change is a crisis or emergency," Arkush added, "they unwittingly put a heavy thumb on the scale in favor of complacency and inaction."
Fox News was the worst offender, with the use of "climate crisis" coming in for only five mentions during the coverage period--all of which, as Public Citizen noted, were efforts to "minimize the issue with false logic, mockery or misinformation." But other news networks weren't much better than the conservative channel.
The only network to use the term in double digits was CNN, and only 16 of the 26 mentions were by a host. Van Jones, whose eponymous show ran every other Sunday during the survey period, accounted for six of those mentions.
\u201cNEW REPORT: In 2018, only 50 of 1,429 national TV news segments used the word \u201ccrisis\u201d or \u201cemergency" when discussing climate change. That's a measly 3.5 percent.\n\nHere's how the networks stack up:\n\nMSNBC: 7%\nNBC: 6%\nCNN: 3%\nCBS: 3%\nABC: 2%\nFox: 2%\n\nhttps://t.co/93TwlUFU6F\u201d— Public Citizen (@Public Citizen) 1556565839
Networks should name the problem clearly to avoid confusion, said Allison Fisher, outreach director for Public Citizen's Energy Program.
"Climate coverage on broadcast and cable television news is still at best spotty and at worst riddled with misinformation," Fisher said. "Calling it a crisis indicates that the stakes are high and that the issue is urgent. Most of all it signals to viewers that the time to act on climate is now."
How to report on the climate crisis has long been an issue for news organizations. In July 2018, MSNBC host Chris Hayes said on Twitter that while he was personally invested in the story, the topic was "a palpable ratings killer."
"So the incentives are not great," said Hayes.
\u201c@elongreen almost without exception. every single time we've covered it's been a palpable ratings killer. so the incentives are not great.\u201d— Chris Hayes (@Chris Hayes) 1532441141
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.