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.
What are you expecting? CBC to come out and say “again our country goes up in flames as Irving and enbridge profit” - that isn’t journalism and they don’t need the legal hassle.
It is very clear in CBC coverage that climate change which includes fossil fuel consumption is driving this.
When I read those graphs, I come to slightly different impressions.
First, I am glad such a small number referenced individual actions. Those are typically just greenwashing propaganda from the fossil fuel industry. Policy will effect our emissions, not shopping or hair shirts.
Second, less than half the climate items were about extreme weather? I guess they just looped regular agriculture under climate items. Fine, but not concerned they wouldn’t go big picture on every story.
Last, I think the average CBC viewer isn’t likely to be a full on climate denier. Those people have their own media bubble. The bigger concern are the middle-road non-committed folk who understand it exists, but fall for the two cop-outs: its not human-caused, or there’s nothing that can be done about it. The fossil fuel link being missed from so many stories is my biggest concern.
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.
What are you expecting? CBC to come out and say “again our country goes up in flames as Irving and enbridge profit” - that isn’t journalism and they don’t need the legal hassle.
It is very clear in CBC coverage that climate change which includes fossil fuel consumption is driving this.
When I read those graphs, I come to slightly different impressions.
First, I am glad such a small number referenced individual actions. Those are typically just greenwashing propaganda from the fossil fuel industry. Policy will effect our emissions, not shopping or hair shirts.
Second, less than half the climate items were about extreme weather? I guess they just looped regular agriculture under climate items. Fine, but not concerned they wouldn’t go big picture on every story.
Last, I think the average CBC viewer isn’t likely to be a full on climate denier. Those people have their own media bubble. The bigger concern are the middle-road non-committed folk who understand it exists, but fall for the two cop-outs: its not human-caused, or there’s nothing that can be done about it. The fossil fuel link being missed from so many stories is my biggest concern.