The corporate media doesn't like to talk about climate change, so they've found themselves
in a bit of a pickle in this year's midterm races, because as Joe Romm over at ThinkProgress
pointed out recently candidates are actually talking about climate change.
Well, specifically Democratic candidates are finally talking about climate change because
they understand that not only is it a very serious issue that has to be addressed, but
because it's also a winning campaign issue.
So media outlets, specifically as Romm points out, the New York Times, Politico and the
LA Times are confused about how to cover this because they don't like talking about climate
change.
The New York Times went as far as saying across the country there's been a small explosion
of political ads about global warming.
Conventional political wisdom says you don't talk about climate change on the campaign
trail.
That's mostly because it's a deeply polarizing issue.
Again, Romm points out something we have pointed out repeatedly on this program.
It's not a polarizing issue.
For several years, majorities of every single party in this country believe that we should
do something to act on climate change.
When you have majorities of everyone, or literally just a majority, that's not polarizing.
What's polarizing ... and to be fair, the LA Times did actually go and they said pretty
much the exact same thing as the New York Times, but what's polarizing is your advertisers
because that's what this is all about.
This isn't about them saying, "Oh, these people shouldn't be talking about that.
You're going to lose the election."
No, no, no.
It's that once the politicians start talking about it, you're going to be forced to cover
it in your paper and on your websites.
What that's going to do is it's going to piss off the fossil fuel companies that you have
advertising with you.
It could end up costing you millions of dollars because you finally have to address the biggest
elephant in this room today, and that is the growing threat of a destabilized climate as
a result of global warming.
Media outlets don't want to talk about it.
They make up excuses and they say, "Oh, it's a rating's killer.
Nobody wants to watch that.
It's boring.
The science is too complicated to get across in a three or four minute segment."
"Oh, it's too polarizing.
We don't want to cover it."
It's all lies.
All of that.
Every bit of it is a lie.
The reason these corporate media outlets will not talk about this issue is because they're
afraid that it's going to cost them advertisers.
It's not just the papers.
Look at MSNBC, CNN.
Obviously the folks at Fox news think it's a lie anyways, so they're not going to cover
it, but ABC, CBS, they don't talk about it because every time they throw to a commercial,
what do we see?
We see Exxon sitting there talking about how many jobs they've created, and how great they
are as a company.
We see Chevron telling us that they're helping America run.
Those things you order online?
You can't get those without gasoline.
Chevron's right there to take care of you.
Same thing with BP and all of the rest of them.
We're dependent upon them, and they know it, and they want to rub it in our faces at every
possible opportunity.
They also, with their advertising dollars, are helping to control the media and control
the conversation.
Climate change coverage in the corporate media is absolutely abysmal.
That's why they're freaking out right now.
The more that polls show that everybody wants action on this, the more the politicians talk
about it and the more action that actually takes place in DC, the more likely it is that
these outlets are going to have no choice but to finally address this issue and lose
their advertisers.
To those media outlets brave enough to cover it, even risking those advertisers, I say
bravo.
Good job.
Somethings on this planet, including the planet itself, are a little bit more important than
advertising dollars.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét