and author of many books, including hot, living through
the next 50 years on Earth. Welcome to the show Mark.
Thanks for having me.
Let's just talk a little bit about and give a broad overview
of how different the coverage has been what we're seeing in
California and Oregon and you know, just all over the
American West.
And from what we've seen about climate catastrophes in the
global South, let's just you know we can do a broad overview
and then 0 in on some incidents would like
sure I should probably begin by saying I've been covering
climate change for.
>> Youth are years now and I've reported on from 25 countries
around the world. 4 leading outlets in the U.S. and abroad
up so I spent a lot of time in the global South and in the
bull Newark.
And I have to say that until the last couple of years the
climate silence in the United States media in general has
been deafening so it is nice to see that in this year. We
finally are seen major mainstream news organizations
treating inclement story with the degree of attention and
disability and death that it has long required there late
coming to the party, but I'm glad that they're here so I
don't want to be misunderstood here.
In criticizing that however it is unmistakable that there is a
really I think shameful double standard when it comes to will
self because the global South has been living with the kind
of heat and fires and other sorts of disasters that we're
now rightly taking attention to here in the States they've been
living without for a very long time and it's largely been
ignored by most of the news media, especially here in the
United States.
>> Well, I mean it's not a new phenomenon that I think is
isolated to climate coverage, one you're right, I'm glad that
there is at least some focus climbing in the media where
throughout the 2 thousands, leading up to and I think you
know maybe even 5 years ago, most of climate conversation
was well this side says this this size sides with the
majority of scientists and says that it's real and this side
says it's probably not real which was just one of the most
indicative and infuriating double standards of what we see
in the media false equivalence or I should say it's a false
equivalence that they do consistently just I think we're
wind a little bit and talk about how that was such a
damaging phenomenon and then of course now we're in the era of
this going to be Western centric white centric amarah
centric coverage, the only way that you're going to get
climate discussions in major news outlets.
>> Sure I have to say again because there's been so much of
my career overseas and have worked for. Leading news
outlets in Europe and Asia and other parts of the world.
I have to be really blunt here it is only in the United States
that you had that kind of false equivalence in climate coverage
you go back to the 1990's in Europe, our colleagues in
Europe, the media, none of them none were giving that kind of
credence to the climate in Ayers of because the science
was already very clear and it's quite striking that in those
years.
The government in Western Europe are allied governments
were mainly run by right of center political parties and
even those political parties were not arguing comforter
climate science was real of course they argued about what
you do about it who pays do we tax too we regulate all that
stuff you know normal political conversation but there was none
of this nonsense that you saw throughout the 1990's and into
the 2000 and even as you said, up until quite recently you
would see on a major network newscasts this false
equivalence or what you really saw was as I said earlier
climate silent. They they shied away from the climate store
because they saw it as political and I think that's
been the single greatest error that the United States media
has made on the climate story historically is that they
treated. Science story as if there were a political story,
politics, Stuart and on the politics toward
rightly or wrongly newsroom, strongly feel that you have to
give equal weight to both were all sides and there's an
argument for that if you're talking about whatever may be
housing or inequality or abortion rights or gun rights
or what have you that you should hear both sides.
But when it's science
that no longer applies we do not talk about whether the
Earth is flat or not on the air we do not give credence to to
the tobacco scientists and we should not have ever been
giving credence to climate in Ayers when it came to science.
Well.
>> Unfortunately, the United States though we see the
politicization of science we see it because one there was
massive amounts of fossil fuel donations that were fueling
Republican politicians and Democratic politicians to a
lesser degree and we're seeing it now with the vaccine debate.
This is a scientific
clear cut factual
understanding that if you get the vaccine, you are a lot less
likely to have serious illness or death from COVID-19 and yet
we're still having these conversations. Right wing media
has and I know this is a bit of a diversion but giving people
the context of how
how immense climate Nile has been in the United States,
especially comparatively. FOX News has now moved from
denying that climate change is happening to deny him and it's
manmade to now. Well it's happening but we don't really
need to do anything about it. I mean that's really the there
was never a reckoning with all of the false coverage from
before. And now this is just where we're at and I mean just
talk about that dynamic a little bit wrecking with that.
>> Sure look this is a country that has as you point out it
has long had a bastion buildling attitude towards
science. We are a country that until quite recently I think
the Pew polls were showing that 54% of Americans don't even
believe in evolution. We have a very strong and deep in our
history religion that that really in many people's minds.
It's more important in science or they feel threatened by
science. But we have to remember is journalist, our job
is to tell the truth as best we can ascertain it is not to
to basically calm into people's prejudices and ignorance and I
say currents not stupidity it's not that people are stupid but
if you're in a something
covid can really kill you if you will to the vaccine.
Then you're going to act like people are now and you know we
sadly very sadly see that the the infection rates or simply
much much higher in places that are not vaccinated and they are
not getting vaccinated so yes, this is this is a problem that
pervades outside of the climate space.
And yet as you mention in passing a lot of the climate
this information was paid for by the fossil fuel companies
and one of the things that we're doing not covering
climate now which just so people know we are a global
consortium of hundreds of news outlets around the world across
the U.S., including I should say NBC News and MSNBC the
owners of are you that your colleagues are Peacock we all
we work together to basically improve climate coverage and
all of our news rooms and one of the projects that we're just
launching this summer.
With the Guardian newspaper which has been our lead media
partner we call it climate crimes and we want to put back
to the center of the public narrative around climate
change.
The fact as investigative journalism pointed out a few
years ago, but Exxon knew its own scientists were telling the
top executive of Exxon 40 years ago that our products are going
to make this plan on inhabitable if we continue this
way and it's not just the next on you. It's also BP it's also
Chevron is basically all the big oil companies they've known
for 40 years and what they do. They lied about it they not
only do they keep that information to themselves.
They lied about it and they lied to us can press. They lied
to the public they like to policymakers in order to keep
their profits flowing and that's why we are seeing the
kinds of fires and and terrible downpours and flooding that
we've seen all around the world now. We are all everyone on
this earth right now is living in a crime scene.
And the crime is those 40 years a lot so that's what we're