One reason the legacy news media avoid mentioning the fossil-fuel connection to climate change and its effect on weather? They make too much money off of oil companies via their advertorial departments. The Times has T Brand Studio and the Post has WP Brand Studio (now called WP Creative Group). These departments create ads that look like news articles, stage "thought leader" events, and otherwise burnish the public image of the corporations that hire them.
Yeah, yeah, there is supposed to be a "wall" between the editorial and business sides of these papers. But the very existence of the brand studios shows it doesn't exist.
Good points. But journalists and editors who cover climate could easily add this simple fact to every story: burning fossil fuels is the greatest contributor to human-caused climate change. To not mention this in our reporting in a time of climate crisis is a dereliction of duty. Scientists would agree.
One reason the legacy news media avoid mentioning the fossil-fuel connection to climate change and its effect on weather? They make too much money off of oil companies via their advertorial departments. The Times has T Brand Studio and the Post has WP Brand Studio (now called WP Creative Group). These departments create ads that look like news articles, stage "thought leader" events, and otherwise burnish the public image of the corporations that hire them.
Yeah, yeah, there is supposed to be a "wall" between the editorial and business sides of these papers. But the very existence of the brand studios shows it doesn't exist.
Good points. But journalists and editors who cover climate could easily add this simple fact to every story: burning fossil fuels is the greatest contributor to human-caused climate change. To not mention this in our reporting in a time of climate crisis is a dereliction of duty. Scientists would agree.
I agree with this 110%! I just wanted to point out why the reporters' editors or other bosses might discourage this, overtly or subtly.