Skip to main content

View Diary: Nightly news gave British royals seven times more coverage in 2012 than they gave climate change (79 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Honestly, if it makes the audience (10+ / 0-)

    more aware, I don't really care who talks about it.

    Prince Charles reaches an audience that doesn't watch the Science Channel or PBS.  Attacking his efforts is unhelpful to the cause of raising awareness and creating momentum for change.

    That, however, doesn't get the American media off of the hook for their massive failure in covering the reality of climate change.

    •  While MSM is culpable--presidential candidates not (4+ / 0-)

      talking about climate change didn't help matters any.  Obviously, one nominee (unlike his party's 2008 nominee) cares as much about climate change as he cares about raising the top marginal rate.  One might've hoped, however, that the incumbent might've made an issue of it.

      As per our paper of record:

      For all their disputes, President Obama and Mitt Romney agree that the world is warming and that humans are at least partly to blame. It remains wholly unclear what either of them plans to do about it.

      Even after a year of record-smashing temperatures, drought and Arctic ice melt, none of the moderators of the four general-election debates asked about climate change, nor did either of the candidates broach the topic.

      Throughout the campaign, Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney have seemed most intent on trying to outdo each other as lovers of coal, oil and natural gas — the very fuels most responsible for rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

      Or, as per HuffPo:
      History was made at the third and final presidential debate at Lynn University on Monday night. President Barack Obama and his Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, sparred over American policy in Libya and Iran. They traded generalities on trade with China and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and made brief mentions of renewable technology and "energy independence."

      But as noted by several debate watchers, climate change was never mentioned -- not by the candidates, and not by the debate moderator, Bob Schieffer of CBS News. Given the absence of the topic at the two preceding meetings between Obama and Romney, the close of Monday night's event marked the first time in roughly a generation that climate change has failed to receive an airing at any of the presidential debates.

      Nearly 25 years after NASA scientist James Hansen famously told Congress that the science behind the greenhouse effect was clear -- and after similarly long-lived efforts to raise awareness of global warming and to force the topic into the national dialog -- the meaning behind Monday's milestone is likely to be hotly debated. To some, it is a sign that climate change has become a niche issue -- and is now being treated like any other special interest. To others, the candidates are merely playing the political odds in an election in which Americans are highly focused on jobs and other more immediate concerns.

      Some men see things as they are and ask why. I dream of things that never were and ask why not?

      by RFK Lives on Tue May 14, 2013 at 02:41:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Right and what's really ironic is that the (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        niemann, RFK Lives, SolarMom, WheninRome

        leadership in our democratic political process and candidates which/who should tend towards serving the people's best interest is being completely shown up by a freakin' monarch on an issue that is without question a national and international crisis.

        When a future King looks like he's protecting the interests of the people more than an American President does, that's bad.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site