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
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.
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.