The BBC keep minimising the role of climate breakdown in news stories. I’m sure it’s some kind of internal editorial guideline because it’s super consistent.
I started noticing it over the summer in their reporting of the heatwaves. Unless a news story is specifically about greenhouse gas emissions or climate policy, they do not emphasise climate change as the fundamental driving force behind the story.
I’m sure they have their reasons, but I think it’s time for them to be more honest. If our public institutions spoke up honestly about it we would have action on climate. That goes for the NHS, fire service, national rail etc too. Everything is impacted but everyone is quiet.
Sorry for the political rant in a Rice Krispies thread but I’ve made a decision to speak up about this stuff whenever I see it.
This may be me being old, pessimistic and cynical, but I tend to assume the omission is intentional, led by a combination of ownership by billionaires that also get fat off fossil fuel money, or simply too cowardly to print anything that might upset people and reduce readership and profits.
And in most contexts, I might forgive someone taking a non-aggressive, mind your own business approach. But, if it’s anyone’s job to report on something disturbing, it’s the news reporters. And the moral high ground of “I was just minding my own business” goes out the window when the very nature of the article was to throw Kellogg’s under the bus. And don’t get me wrong - what Kellogg’s did here absolutely deserves attention - much like McDonalds trying to weasel their way out of a lawsuit about the McRib not being rib meat, Rice Krispies not being rice is grossly misleading, and could cause harm to anyone that is specifically purchasing rice based products for dietary reasons. But there is, what feels like a very intentional missed opportunity for the reporting news outlet to ask a follow up question, when the commenting company blames the weather: what is that company’s response to the scientific consensus that these weather shifts are part of a broader, alarming shift in climate?
That is you being cynical, yes. The BBC is not owned by billionaires; it’s not really owned by anyone. It certainly doesn’t have any individual owners or shareholders; you could say it’s owned by the British people but that’s not really true either.
The BBC gets a lot wrong but also is probably the media organisation that tries the hardest to get things right.
Personally I think the BBC are still working with an internalised assumption that climate is a ‘partisan’ issue, and that stating the role of climate in other stories opens them up to accusations to being partial/biased, or pursuing a political agenda. It is editorial cowardice to be doing this with climate, primarily because it is a science; it’s reporting facts. It also happens to be the most important issue of out time.
I’m not sure if that’s true. Whenever a story is directly about climate change it’s presented as unequivocal fact. But I have noticed the reluctance to associate stories about things exacerbated by climate change. It’s not total - during the summer quite a lot of links were made - but seems below where it should be.
I don’t think every story that can needs to make that link - that gets tiresome quickly. But more do.
That’s fair enough, my last comment is speculation of course.
I’m glad I’m not the only one who’s noticed!