What If We Covered the Climate Emergency Like We Did World War II?
I hope you’ll take a bit over two minutes and watch the video below, featuring Bill Moyers discussing what is perhaps the most vexing challenge facing journalism today. He asks, “(With respect to climate change), can we get this story right? Can we tell it whole? Can we connect the dots and inspire people with the possibility of change?”
He starts with a comment on the coverage of Hitler’s rise to power in the 1930s and the bravery required of people like Edward R. Murrow to get this story out to the American people, where we were being so actively duped as to what was happening in Europe at the time.
“What is journalism for?”
Great stuff, from a fine American.
Craig,
I’ve had the pleasure of meeting Bill Moyers on a number of occasions over the years, and I agree with your observation. Bill is a fine, sincere individual and accomplished in his chosen profession.
On the other hand, as Bill would be the first to admit, he is a thoroughly partisan advocate and purveyor of propaganda for his cause.
That renders his contribution interesting and on occasion even insightful, but it also means he lacks objectivity.
The reason “climate change” isn’t treated like World War Two, is obvious. The US has not been “attacked” by any clear enemy !
World War Two required by common consent the imposition of a great many social sacrifices and deprivations that were clear and beyond dispute.
The resolution was easily understood and agreed.
For all the green rhetoric, no such dire emergency exists for the US. No common agreement exist outside of a handful of would be “social revolutionaries” and hopeful “eco-commissars”.
Lastly, resolution is far from commonly agreed or understood.
The “emergency” exists only in the minds of an overly sensationalist press, and ambitious ideologues.
Joe Public ain’t buying it! Joe Public will buy easily understood, practical, well thought out, sensible environmental policies and products, but “social revolution”? No thanks !