The impact of the climate crisis is obvious, yet society seems far from terrified. We have been trapped into thinking of climate change as part of the culture wars, where being worried about the planet is somehow considered 'woke,' writes Alan Rusbridger. It is time the media started reflecting their readers' genuine fears.
Record Heat Celebrated, Real Story Missed
How will history judge this week's front pages? Images of joyful children leaping into lidos to celebrate the warmest May on record, beachgoers basking in glorious sunshine, headlines screaming 'Hotter than Barbados' and 'RUM-BELIEVABLE!' Did editors not pause to consider that these increasingly common freak weather events might frighten more people than they cheer? Perhaps it is time to reassess the fluid concept of 'news values' when it comes to the climate crisis.
Covering the science, economics, and politics of global warming is difficult, which may explain why arguably the most important story of the year received barely a flicker of interest. But first, it is worth asking why climate change became part of the so-called culture wars. How did it come to pass that being on one side of the 'argument' was considered 'woke'? When tackling cancer or other life-threatening diseases, we largely leave scientists to their work and may even cheer them from the sidelines. Yet some journalists are far less willing to give climate scientists the benefit of the doubt. Facts matter less than which side you are on.
Climate Denialism in the Media
For many years, one of the most prolific commentators on climate change in the British press was James Delingpole from The Spectator. With an English degree from Oxford and a gift for words, he was also an outright climate change denier, opining ignorantly on the subject for the Trump-adjacent website Breitbart. He regularly told readers of The Sun, Daily Express, Daily Mail, The Daily Telegraph, The Spectator, and others that global warming was a hoax, and that those who claimed otherwise were 'crooks, liars, idiots, or shills.' He made a good living from it.
Then there was Christopher Booker, a Sunday Telegraph commentator with a Cambridge history degree, who for years was allowed to spout rookie nonsense on the subject. Billed as a 'Fleet Street giant' by editors who must have known he was deceiving the public, his work exemplified how journalism seemed to have a death wish. Just as the craft faced an existential crisis from billions of people self-publishing, we went out of our way to give them reasons not to trust us, the supposed professionals.
Scepticism Persists Despite Less Denial
Today, outright climate denialism is less common in mainstream media, but oceans of climate scepticism remain. There are a thousand excuses for attacking net zero, a dozen ways to suggest Ed Miliband is a fanatic, and hundreds of deluded articles arguing that restarting North Sea drilling would immediately plummet energy prices. Even Tony Blair has joined that bandwagon.
And then there is the stuff we quietly ignore. Six weeks ago, scientists published an alarming paper that should have dominated front pages and news bulletins. In The Guardian, it appeared under the headline 'Critical Atlantic current significantly more likely to collapse than thought.' The Independent headlined it 'Vital Atlantic current likely to collapse with catastrophic consequences, scientists warn.' Yet most news organisations ignored the story.
Reasons for Ignoring Critical Warnings
There are reasonable excuses. The original paper, published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, is virtually incomprehensible to the average reader. A highly scientifically literate journalist is needed to do justice to such findings, but many news organisations can no longer afford a wide range of specialists. The language of the paper was carefully nuanced, not making for a full-blown shock-horror headline, which is problematic for organisations geared towards clicks and viral content.
Some editors argue that readers do not want to read about climate change. Psychologists acknowledge that many find the subject too alarming and avoid it. On the day the Guardian story ran, it featured nowhere in the top ten reads, which were led by Meghan and Harry. In an age before newsroom metrics, editors felt freer to publish stories they felt audiences should read, rather than those they wanted. Today, that is dismissed as paternalistic self-indulgence.
But there are less defensible reasons. To put it kindly, there is little chance of confusing the average billionaire media baron with Greta Thunberg. Several have been vocal in dismissing the overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, especially with Trump's second coming. Ambitious editors working for such people do not need to be told what line to take; they read the room.
A combination of these factors has led us to where we are today. We celebrate David Attenborough's milestone birthday while collectively doing a mediocre job. We downplay stories that should be banner headlines, we have been trapped into thinking of climate change as woke, we wrongly assume readers do not care, and when we get the hottest May on record, we once again miss the real story.
