When the public broadcaster reports on wildfires, heat, and extreme weather without connecting the dots to fossil fuels, it leaves Canadians without the context they need to understand the crisis unfolding around them
Comments like this is why I don’t spend much time here anymore. Particularly how popular it is.
The article is fairly short and straightfoward.
It’s just a few short paragraphs before it shows a graphic indicating only 9% of 2023 articles made a connection to the burning of fossil fuels
Then they mention the 2024 number and the 2025 numbers.
During my recent interview with The Breach podcast, host Desmond Cole shared the results of the outlet’s informal review of 59 CBC stories during recent wildfire coverage. Only seven mentioned climate change, global warming or fossil fuels and most of those mentions came from interviewees rather than CBC journalists.
Posting a couple links from CBC in no way disputes the findings from the article. I don’t even think this person read the damn thing.
Personally, when I’m reading an article, I skim past the parts that explain climate change, unless it has some new bit of information (ex. updates to historical trends). It’s not because I doubt climate change, but because I’m pretty familiar with the core points already.
I think it is helpful to talk about it in longer articles where you have room to dive into the topic, and put the current topic into a relevant wider context. However, I don’t think we should require it for the sake of mentioning it. It’s not effective at changing minds when its done like that.
I agree that the last article should have included the wider context. I would also be concerned if there is a growing pattern of not mentioning it when it needs to be. On this last point, while it’s more difficult, I would prefer if they analyzed sentiment and phrasing rather than counting mentions.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/wwa-study-climate-change-wildfires-9.7297131
They are.
Comments like this is why I don’t spend much time here anymore. Particularly how popular it is.
The article is fairly short and straightfoward.
It’s just a few short paragraphs before it shows a graphic indicating only 9% of 2023 articles made a connection to the burning of fossil fuels
Then they mention the 2024 number and the 2025 numbers.
Posting a couple links from CBC in no way disputes the findings from the article. I don’t even think this person read the damn thing.
This one doesn’t: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/wildfire-smoke-health-effects-how-to-protect-air-quality-9.7297727
Nor this one: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bradley-creek-evacuee-wildfire-9.7297911
This one? Nope. https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/spokane-washington-wildfires-9.7297896
This one really seems like it should, but it doesn’t: https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/south-korea-heatwave-9.7296123
Personally, when I’m reading an article, I skim past the parts that explain climate change, unless it has some new bit of information (ex. updates to historical trends). It’s not because I doubt climate change, but because I’m pretty familiar with the core points already.
I think it is helpful to talk about it in longer articles where you have room to dive into the topic, and put the current topic into a relevant wider context. However, I don’t think we should require it for the sake of mentioning it. It’s not effective at changing minds when its done like that.
I agree that the last article should have included the wider context. I would also be concerned if there is a growing pattern of not mentioning it when it needs to be. On this last point, while it’s more difficult, I would prefer if they analyzed sentiment and phrasing rather than counting mentions.
Both articles were published August 6th, think it’s fair to give OP’s article the benefit of the doubt.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/wildfire-climate-emissions-smoke-9.7274862
eh, got me there. Nearly identical to OP’s article just slight differences.