Why are major broadcast networks turning away from coverage of the climate disaster?

From MMFA:

Broadcast networks are decreasing their climate coverage at a time when the case for reporting on the issue is become more and more compelling. By ignoring this serious matter, media are failing to inform audiences about pressing impacts on human migration patterns, women, and the economy.

In 2016, media had no shortage of compelling reasons to cover climate change -- from the revelation that it was the third consecutive hottest year on record to the United States’ election of a climate denier to its highest office. Yet broadcast news outlets’ coverage of climate change dropped a whopping 66 percent from 2015 to 2016, making it the third consecutive year of declining coverage.

When media turn a blind eye to climate change, they ignore an issue that will have devastating impacts and multiply existing threats across the globe. According to The New York Times, unmitigated climate change could displace between 50 million and 200 million people by 2050. But the effects of climate change are already visible. Un the U.S. last year, the federal government allocated $48 million in grants to resettle residents of Isle de Jean Charles in Louisiana, which represents “the first allocation of federal tax dollars to move an entire community struggling with the impacts of climate change.”

The rest of the story is here.

This video makes several important points, including the differential effect on women, poor, and, well, people on small islands.

More like this

My hypothesis: they are kissing up to the party now in nearly complete power and for which climate-related knowledge and knowledge in general is hostile to their aims and positions.

By Tyvor Winn (not verified) on 29 Apr 2017 #permalink

MSM is run by big business owners. They never liked AGW, since it shows capitalism doesn't fix many things and brings them change to cope with it. Change that, them being on top, may see them drop more likely than go up (in relation to others, the whole pie may get bigger, but at the top levels of wealth, it's not the cash value that matters, it's how much compared to your nearest competitors: it's about power, not money) so they're against it, even if they end up better off.

So the MSM are really happy to let it go.

Hell, the reason why they fudged over Bernie so badly was because he'd harm corporate interests, so they were blessing Hilary's campaign against him 10000%. Then turned on her because Trump was just more profitable for them.

Perhaps the media had other stories to cover in 2016?

Perhaps they have more than one page...

Your sort of "news" paper, maybe not so much

HOGWASH. Earth's environment is has been in good shape for millions of years. I'm the ONLY EXPERT in the CAUSE of Global Warming. The species that implemented their organism that creates Global Warming also controls Earth's climate. Man from earth made climate change means to delete nature since nature controls the weather when we shut down Global Warming. If nature is gone whats going to keep ozone off ground & man from earth made climate change means a dead planet. Nothing & no one originally from earth had anything to do with the cause of Global Warming. Now there's 3 Glaciers loose on oceans. Last week Canadian's watched one go by in Canada. Mike

By Michael J. Schmitz (not verified) on 30 Apr 2017 #permalink


By Bernard J. (not verified) on 30 Apr 2017 #permalink

No, the USA has decided it's cheaper to let the mentally unstable out. That way they can get a gun and shoot people dead, removing the poor and middle class cheaply and giving the RWNJ brigade another reason to claim that there needs to be more guns so this won't happen again.

MJS, you're a whackkob.

#6 :-) :-) !

Now there’s 3 Glaciers loose on oceans.

First Shark Week, then Sharknado, now this. Living in the Midwest continues to be a safe bet.

#5 I think is the guy who is always posting this on Yahoo.