Op-Ed by Logan Solomon

Propaganda? A Word of Caution on the US Media’s Climate Coverage

Op-Ed by Logan Solomon

On February 10, 2022, temperatures soared to record highs—10 to 20 degrees above normal—in Southern California, contributing to three separate brush fires. National news agencies like CNN, NBC, and ABC, along with local news like San Jose Mercury News, ABC7 San Francisco, San Diego Tribune, and KTLA covered the burns. However, none of these networks mentioned climate change as a contributor to the fires. Instead, they characterize the heat wave as “unusual,” “unseasonably high,” “rare,” and perhaps most bizarrely, a “DelightMare,” a supposed combination of delightful and nightmare according to ABC7 San Francisco. People are naturally concerned when they see the devastating impacts that weather can bring. If a viewer is not informed that climate change is increasing the odds of extreme weather occurring, they are unlikely to advocate for the implementation of policies that protect their communities by addressing climate change.

Media Matters for America, a non-profit media watchdog group, reported that in 2020 climate coverage made up just 0.4 percent, or 112 minutes, of overall coverage on major corporate news shows such as ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox News. Of those 112 minutes, only 29 percent of this coverage were segments on ‘climate solutions.’

These numbers beg the question, why is climate change covered so little? Why does the media not consistently discuss climate mitigation measures? A useful resource in trying to answer these questions is Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman’s 1988 book Manufacturing Consent. Chomsky and Herman outline an analytical framework to trace the influence of money and power through the institutional structures and relationships of U.S. media. This framework is called the ‘Propaganda Model.’

Chomsky and Herman’s framework analyzes the system that mainstream climate coverage operates within, highlighting five filters that distort media to serve the powerful: media ownership, advertising money, sourcing from ‘experts’ and insiders, flack, and having a common enemy. These five elements reinforce one another, shaping what issues the media chooses to cover and their positions on said issues, as well as influencing what stories they believe are not worth covering.

Media Ownership

Mainstream media companies are like any corporation—they function to benefit those who own the company. These owners possess not only the ability to influence their network’s rhetoric, but also an economic interest in manipulating climate coverage.

Shareholder voting is the legal right that allows company owners to engage in business matters. Those with partial ownership, or shares, are given a proportional vote on significant issues that may affect the value of shares. In practice, voting on any business choice can occur, and commonly involves the appointment or removal of company members in upper-level positions. This power to influence media leadership damages climate change coverage efforts by giving power to shareholders that more often than not have economic ties to the fossil fuel industry. This shareholder influence could lead media organizations to take actions that negatively affect climate policy, misinform the general public, or skew discourse to favor special interests.

With shareholder voting being proportional, those with more ownership have more power. Forbes documented in 2016 that 15 billionaires spent tens of millions of dollars operating in news markets of all sizes, with many having majority or complete ownership in multiple news organizations. Richard Murdoch is an investor and board member of fossil fuel-based company Genie Energy. He also has a controlling interest in News Corporation, which has a plurality share in Fox Corporation, which is the operator of the most-watched news network in 2021, Fox News. News Corporation also fully owns TheNew York Post and Wall Street Journal. Jeff Bezos,

who had the largest net-worth in the world in February 2021, owns TheWashington Post via Nash Capital. The Washington Post had 82.4 million unique monthly visits in February 2021 alone.

Ultimately, mainstream media is a concentrated industry. Ninety percent of media in America is controlled by executives at six corporations: Viacom, News Corporation, Comcast, CBS, AT&T, and Disney. Many of these corporations have interests and business ventures that span beyond news media.

Advertising Money

Advertisers are the real customers of the media industry. According to a 2014 Pew Research poll, “69 percent of all domestic news revenue is derived from advertising.” Advertisers have the power to promote or suppress certain climate change rhetoric and coverage by choosing which media organizations to do business with. Since media companies are largely reliant on advertisers for the bulk of their revenue, they are motivated to compete for their business. Chomksy and Herman identify two key considerations media companies contend with when dealing with advertisers.

The first is the importance of maintaining ‘audience flow,’ defined as the willingness of the audience to sit through news segments and advertisements. Historically, this has been tracked by the Nielsen Rating, however media companies like NBCUniversal are creating new methodologies themselves to modernize how advertiser engagement is tracked. Segments covering climate change have been known to perform poorly in these metrics. According to former NBC anchor Krystal Ball, “climate change does not drive interest, clicks, and ratings.”

The other factor media companies must consider is their need to align with the advertisers’ own interests and views. At times, the media can be objective, but their goal is to produce content in moderation and marginalize it in order to not disrupt their revenue stream.

Over time, the advertiser’s perspective is understood as what does not put business relationships in jeopardy as opposed to what does. One of these major advertisers is the oil & gas industry which has continued to increase its advertising budget in recent years. A study published by Brown University found that between 2008 and 2016, the five largest oil companies each spent an average of $217 million annually on advertising.

Sourcing From ‘Experts’ and Insiders

Sources supply the important details and insights that define news coverage on a particular topic. These sources are commonly government officials, corporate spokespersons, think tanks, or other power-holding individuals. These individuals capitalize on their status, having the opportunity to platform their climate policy, while grassroots activists are largely ignored. During the coverage of the first day of COP26, the 2021 UN Cimate Change Conference held in Glasglow, none of the information presented by NBC, CNN, or Fox was sourced by climate activists according to a Media Matters study. Instead, news guests were largely government officials.

It is optimal for both the media and sources themselves to sustain mutually-benefitting long-term relationships. Media is able to reduce their investigative expenses by having trusted sources that report “raw facts” for them. For sources, these long-term relationships give them a constant and comfortable space to share their opinions. This dynamic builds prestige for media organizations, by virtue of being a brand that is known

for having insider information.

Because this relationship is so valuable, the media makes an effort to preserve it. As a result, journalists will often not challenge sources’ statements or motives, hiding their sources’ motives and biases. On March 17 and March 18, 2022, Axios, The Washington Post, and Politico cited experts who claimed that big oil was not to blame for high fuel prices. It was not mentioned in any of these articles that all three of the “experts” mentioned are members of the National Petroleum Council, a committee meant to “represent the views of the oil and natural gas industries.” There are additional ways that corporate media may safeguard their alliance with sources: not running a story or hiding particular facts on sources,

running questionable stories to appease sources and entertain audiences, and putting sources on payroll to ensure continual ‘insights.’

Flack

The term ‘flack’ refers to any negative response to media coverage by media consumers; the public, governments, or those with a lot of money are common producers of flack. If the flack response is big enough, reporters may adjust their future news coverage on politicized or controversial topics like climate change to avoid this backlash. Flack can be direct: letters, social media posts, protests, petitions, lawsuits, speeches, and even Congressional bills. It can also be indirect through advertiser decisions, shareholder and employee action, or the funding of other organizations to counter the media’s narratives. In the modern day, social media has the potential to exponentially amplify flack.

Different flack techniques have been used by grassroots climate activists. Websites like Media Matters and social media accounts like the Twitter account @ ABCTelltheTruth, document the quality and frequency of climate coverage on various news networks. In 2014, 40,000 environmentalists delivered a petition for better climate coverage to CNBC headquarters according to Media Matters. In 2019, The Guardian reported that 70 protesters were arrested outside TheNew York Times office for expressing similar concerns.

However, flack is about power; the number of people who spread flack must be large enough to counter the economic interests that dictate the media’s coverage. The volume of the masses required to counter these fossilized interests is immense. With big money institutions and governments capable of being a potent force of flack, the media may consider if a climate-related segment strays too far from the perspectives of powerful people. Alternatively, a larger and more organized climate movement could better utilize flack to spur climate action.

Having a Common Enemy

Issues presented in the media are prioritized based on several factors. One factor that increases the priority of a story and promotes viewership is the idea of a common enemy. For example, media outlets might portray big oil as a common enemy, while another might portray politicians promoting green energy as a common enemy.

A common enemy can be another country, an ideal, or some subgroup of the population, like a political party. With high demand for certain coverage, the media will focus on producing content that affirms a common enemy narrative, even if it has openly biased sourcing. Coverage will frame things in connection to the ultimate evil, including climate coverage, most commonly via headlines and graphics.

Economic competition with China or other economic powers is one common enemy-based narrative that influences climate coverage. An April 17, 2021, CNBC headline reads, “The new U.S. plan to rival China and end cornering of markets in rare earth metals.” This article chooses to grab the attention of the reader via competition. Climate change is a crisis that requires international cooperation which has been unsuccessful because of conflicting interests. General rhetoric of competition further inhibits this.

Another implication is the dichotomization of news to serve special interests and promote the ‘national religion.’ News sources will often fail to mention all potential solutions and deliberately avoid nuance. On February 26, 2022, The New York Times told its readers that President Biden’s “big climate goals depend on Congress.” This is the current common narrative by corporate media on climate policy; we get it via Congress or we get nothing at all. But this presentation of two options is a false dichotomy; climate policy also depends on President Biden, who has used his executive authority to expand federal drilling permits at a pace 34 percent faster than President Trump in his first year.

Final Thoughts

The media plays an agenda-setting role, influencing public discourse, including climate policy. You, your friends, and your loved ones buy into a narrative and remember talking points, facts, and quotes. This is then communicated in person or virtually, quickly spreading to more people. Soon there is a general understanding of the circumstances surrounding a topic; maybe people take certain sides or maybe there arises a largely-held consensus.

But what was left out? What topic was ignored? Who benefits from the conversation?

The covert working of the media filters outlined here should incite a level of skepticism of the media. Mainstream media has personal interests, like all other businesses, and these interests shape their product. With much effort needed on climate education and advancing climate policy, we can not only rely on the mainstream media to fulfill this effort. Their debate, criticism, and dissent only operate so long as it does not hurt their own economic interests. Unlikely as it is that this will change, the grassroots must seize any media coverage it gets and mobilize community support to educate and implement climate policy through other channels. H Art by Abby Kaiser

The Chief’s Report From Houston: SEJ 2022 in Photos

By Noah Beckage Every spring, the Society of Environmental Journalists (SEJ) hosts an annual conference where reporters, freelancers, scientists, non-profit groups, and industry representatives from around the globe convene. Attendees can then learn from one another about a diverse array of environmental topics—and how best to report on them. Every year, Headwaters receives funding from UVM to send a few lucky writers, editors, and designers from our magazine to attend the conference. This year’s event was the first in-person conference since 2019, and after having missed out on the big jamboree for three years, Eleanor, Alex, and I were more than excited to go and visit the Bayou City. We ended up attending the conference for a full three days. While there, we had the chance to explore a longleaf pine preserve in east Texas, paddle a flood-mitigating urban bayou, ask questions to the CEO of Edison International (parent company of some of the largest electric utilities in the U.S.), witness improvised twilight theatre on the Rice University campus, and so much more. H

Eleanor and Noah on their way to a networking reception the first night of the conference. Photo by Alex De Luise Exploring Kickerillo-Mischer Preserve, a man-made urban bayou created to bolster flood control in Houston. Pictured: Alex De Luise. Photo by Noah Beckage

A grove of fire-adapted longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) at Roy E. Larsen Sandyland Sanctuary. The local Nature Conservancy chapter here practices ecological burnings to promote a balanced ecosystem. Photo by Noah Beckage View of the conference lobby during a session break on the second full day of the conference. Photo by Noah Beckage