network news fiddles while the world burns

[realthog]

A report discussed by Joe Romm at Climate Progress presents some pretty stark information: during 2011, the three network evening news broadcasts spent a total of 32 minutes and 20 seconds on the single most important threat to US and global welfare, climate change.

I have no figures to back this up, but I'm willing to bet they spent more time during the year on stories about cats getting stuck up trees.

This is a shameful abnegation of responsibility by the networks and their paymasters, and explains every bit as much as the huge public misinformation campaigns mounted by the Koch Brothers, Exxon and the rest of that vile crew why the US population lags far, far behind those of the rest of the developed nations in understanding the reality of climate change and the urgent actions that need to be taken if we're not going to just sit back and watch our national economy -- not to mention many millions of Americans -- be destroyed.

Also shameful is that, as the article mentions, "The Obama administration has not discussed this issue at all." This administration, we'll recall, came into office promising to listen to science and act upon its results. Its record of keeping that promise is abysmal, but nowhere more dangerous than in the almost complete lack of action on climate change. This inaction is suicidal.

Enough of me. Romm's discussion, complete with some exceptionally useful links, is here.
 

Comments

[http://users.livejournal.com/la_marquise_de_/]

I suspect it's much the same here, sadly.

[realthog.livejournal.com]

I doubt it. The little BBC World News broadcasts we get here give more coverage of AGW than all the network news broadcasts combined. Of the supposed 24hr news channels on cable, FOX actively misinforms on the subject, CNN hardly mentions it for fear of offending advertisers, and MSNBC is not hugely better.

You folk do not know how lucky you are when it comes to TV news, honest!

[http://users.livejournal.com/la_marquise_de_/]

Oh, we do know about our news, we do. And we're grateful.. But the 'balance' thing means the BBC give -- to my mind -- far too much space to the deniers. (I don't know what Sky do. Channel 4 tends to the dry.)

[realthog.livejournal.com]

But the 'balance' thing means the BBC give -- to my mind -- far too much space to the deniers.

They certainly used to do this on the website -- Roger Harrabin in particular. I wrote them two or three times to complain about it, and perhaps a year or so ago there was a fairly swift change -- over just a few weeks, I'd say -- until they more or less stopped giving equal weight to the fruitbats and calling it "balance". I don't know if they brought in a new editor with higher journalistic standards or if lots of people like me got sufficiently pissed off to write and complain, but since then the website has by and large gone along with the 98%.

[http://users.livejournal.com/la_marquise_de_/]

Just before Xmas, the Radio Times had an article about global warming by David Attenborough. And, for 'balance' a piece of utter tripe from Lord Lawson, who is a climate change denier. It was infuriating.

[realthog.livejournal.com]

Yep, Fatty Lawson works assiduously for his paymasters . . .

In the Beeb's defence, I don't think they any longer have direct responsibility for Radio Times. I may be wrong, but I thought it had some while ago been spun off to a private company. Even so, it's a shameful example of faux-balance.

[http://users.livejournal.com/la_marquise_de_/]

I don't know: will have to look it up. But it may well be so.
Lawson was the MP for where I lived throughout my teens. We did not like him, not one bit.

[realthog.livejournal.com]

Lawson was the MP for where I lived throughout my teens.

You poor, poor person! I had Kenneth Baker as MP for a while in my youth, and that was bad enough.

[http://users.livejournal.com/la_marquise_de_/]

At least neither of us had Maggie...

[realthog.livejournal.com]

At least neither of us had Maggie...

We all had Maggie.

*sob*