Climate Change in Europe: On the Culpability of the Media

A report by the E.U. Copernicus Climate-Change Service in 2024 contains the finding that “Europe is the continent with the fastest-rising temperatures on Earth, having warmed twice as fast as the global average since the 1980s.”[1] In spite of “fastest-rising” and “twice as fast” are alarming expressions, no such corresponding sense of urgency had translated into a political will capable of pushing through game-changing legislation and regulations in the European Union. The short-term financial interests of industry, cost-conscious consumers, workers not wanting to be laid off, and taxpayers would pale in comparison were a sense of emergency to take hold the domain of politics. “Weak” states (i.e., governments) that are not willing or even able to resist short-term political pressures from an electorate exacerbate the problem even in the midst of climate change, which scientists decades earlier had predicted would really begin to move the needle on air-temperatures globally in the 2020s (and just wait until the oceans become saturated with CO₂!). You ain’t seen nothin yet may be the mantra for the 2030s.

It seems to be a case of the proverbial oblivious frog in gradually yet steadily warming water in a cooking pan on a stove, as the editors at journalistic media companies have been orienting their news to reporting on specific climate-related events that are disasters only in particular locales and thus do not point explicitly to global warming. For instance, on 4 July, 2025, a wildfire in the E.U. state of Greece “prompted evacuations in coastal areas south of Athens” and mobilized “75 firefighters, including five elite ground teams . . . alongside fire engines, volunteers, four helicopters, and two aircraft” as well as municipal water trucks.[2] “(O)ngoing heatwaves, drought and strong winds” kept the fire-risk high in the area.[3] Only at the end of Euronews’ article on the fire is climate change mentioned, and then only as an attenuating factor: “While fires are common in the area, experts say climate change is exacerbating them.”[4] That is to say: Oh, by the way, the warming of the planet’s atmosphere and oceans is in play here. Even as climate change is relegated thusly, that it is only exacerbating wildfires in the southern states such as Greece is a way of deflating claims that climate change ought to be handled as an emergency in terms of public policy. The media has thus been culpable.  

1. David O’Sullivan, “Firefighters Battle Wildfires in Greece and Turkey, Prompting Evacuations and Emergency Response,” Euronews.com, July 4, 2025.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.

On the Decadence of American Journalism: Journalists as Celebrities

I submit that when a conveyer of the news becomes the story, something is wrong; in typing this sentence initially, I did not include I submit that. To state my thesis statement as if it were a fact of reason (Kant’s phrase) seemed to me rather heavy-handed (i.e., arrogant). Similarly, when some Americans insisted after the U.S. presidential that Don Trump had won as if the asseveration were a fact of reason, I could sense aggressiveness along with the presumptuousness in treating one’s own opinion as a declaration of fact, especially if the actual fact—Joe Biden being sworn into the office—was otherwise. Opinion is one thing; fact is another. When a person misconstrues one’s opinion with fact, something is wrong. I believe this happens so often that it may be due to a problem innate in the human brain. Religious folks would not have to reach far to point out that in the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, the sin of pride manifests in wanting to be omniscient; eating of that proverbial apple of the knowledge of good and evil ushers in original sin. A person perceiving one’s own opinion as fact, or even as important as fact, implicitly regards oneself as God. A journalist who interlards one’s role in conveying the news with one’s own commentary, and an editor who then makes that commentary the point of a story both treat a means (i.e., the conveyer of news) as an end (i.e., the news itself). I contend that at least by 2023, American journalism had fallen into this hole with impunity, which involved a lack of industry self-regulation and individual self-discipline.   

On July 4, 2023, The Huffington Post ran a story, “CNN Journalist Responds to Brazen Trump Campaign Claim with Disbelief.” The story begins with the following statement: “CNN’s Phil Mattingly on Monday couldn’t quite believe a Trump campaign response to a Washington Post question about the former president’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election result.”[1] Why should it matter whether a journalist can’t quite believe a statement made by a person being interviewed? CNN also ran the story, "Anderson Cooper Is Dumbfounded by Ron DeSantis' Bad Polling Excuse." The news network reported that the "CNN anchor was confused by the 2024 Republican presidential candidate's reason for falling behind Donald Trump." Why should it matter that the journalist was confused? Maybe he was not the brightest lightbulb. The network's message was obviously that DeSantis was to blame for the journalist's confusion, so the intent was to bias the viewers and readers against the presidential candidate. The inclusion of the word, excuse, in the story's title indicates the tenor of the bias in the "news" story.  

Is it ethical for a journalist to sway or bias the reactions of viewers or readers? Euronews, a E.U. rather than a U.S. news network, explicitly espouses impartiality so viewers can form their own opinions unimpeded by that of a journalist. That network even has a feature in which video is shown of events going on around the world, such as a political protest, with “No Comment” showing at the end. What a contrast to the American news media!

CNN’s obsession with the visible reactions of one of its news anchors, Anderson Cooper, to political statements even of people being interviewed illustrates my thesis. From his “news” show, Anderson Cooper 360, the network posted a video on CNN.com entitled “Watch Cooper’s Reaction to What Sondland Told Trump.” His reaction was visibly nothing spectacular. 

Another video had the title, “See Anderson Cooper’s Reaction to Ted Cruz ‘Groveling’ on Fox.” Again, the reaction was hardly noteworthy. 

Nevertheless, his show on the new network all about the anchor, as the very name of the show makes explicit. CNN’s CEO must have thought that the anchor’s reactions would make good promotional material for the network. Strangely, a magazine’s editor even thought that Anderson Cooper’s reactions were of value apart from promotional purposes. People posted a story online about the CNN anchor’s reactions in a New Year’s Eve broadcast from Times Square in New York City. The story, “Anderson Cooper Was All of Us with His Hilarious Reactions as He Took Shots to Bid 2020 Farewell,” featured the celebrity’s reaction to drinking a shot of alcohol on live television. After he and the other host drank a shot, “Cooper pursed his lips and coughed in seemingly slight discomfort, though he otherwise held it together.”[2] Hilarious.

It may be that Anderson Cooper’s minute reactions were such important fodder for publications because the anchor’s mother, Gloria Vanderbilt, was an heiress of an illustrious (and very rich) American family. She was a businesswoman, fashion designer, socialite, and writer in her own right. Interestingly, she had offered at the age of 85 to carry a baby for her gay son. That in itself was more newsworthy than any of her son’s muted political reactions on air. Of course, when Anderson Cooper had come out as gay on air, that too was deemed to be newsworthy in spite the journalistic standard that the sexual orientation (or race, gender, or political ideology) of a conveyer of news shouldn’t have an impact on the presentation of the news.

When a journalist becomes the story, especially in expressing a personal opinion, news itself (and journalism) becomes obfuscated, diluted, and even toxic from the standpoint of the role of an electorate in a democracy. The societal justification in giving journalists an outsized mouthpiece in public discourse is predicated on their function in conveying the news. This does not extend to molding public opinion and being the news themselves. In a culture in which reality-shows spawn celebrities, perhaps it is only natural that anyone on television could be made into one even for displaying muted visible reactions.

---

1. Lee Moran, “CNN Journalist Responds to Brazen Trump Campaign Claim with Disbelief,” The Huffington Post, July 4, 2023.

2. Jen Juneau, “Anderson Cooper Was All of Us with His Hilarious Reactions as He Took Shots to Bid 2020 Farewell,” People, January 1, 2021.

Naked Royalty: Prince Harry and the Sun

In publishing naked pictures of Prince Harry on holiday in Nevada, the Sun in Britain ignored the warning from the press watchdog that had warned the Sun that it would be breaching a privacy provision in the state of Britain’s press code. That the warning followed an appeal to the Press Complaints Commission from St. James’s Palace, which is Prince Charles’s home and office in London, suggests that the warning came from “the firm” itself to protect one of its own.

                   

A naked royal hits the newsstands in Britain.         Tony Melville/Reuters

As for the Sun, the value in printing pictures that had already been widely published by TMZ and other parties on the internet may lie more in revenge than in a bump in immediate revenue. If so, it is nonetheless striking that the Murdoch paper would defy the palace in the wake of the government investigation of phone-hacking and illegal payments to police employees and public officials centered on Murdoch. In ignoring the warning, he might have been giving the state the finger (i.e., payback). Given the charges against one of Murdoch's tabloids, the publisher's motive could not have been moralistic.

“The Sun is not making any moral judgment about Harry’s nude frolics,” the newspaper said. “Far from it. He often sails close to the wind for a royal — but he’s 27, single and a soldier. We like him.” Indeed, as a single man at the peak of his physiological prowess, Harry Windsor should not be expected to conduct himself as would be fitting for an eighty-five-year-old monarch. 

A few weeks after Harry's pictures were published, Kate Middleton awoke to find topless pictures of herself published on the front page of an out-of-state tabloid. She had been on holiday at a secluded house in the south of France with her husband, Prince William, who promptly began efforts to sue the publication after learning of the pictures. The editor of the tabloid then hinted that she had pictures of the royal couple engaged in sex while at the house. 

Again, the issue is not so much of morality, but, rather, of the right of privacy of not just public figures, but members of a head of state. When not engaged in duties or otherwise in public, such members (and perhaps the problem is to have an entire family included under "head of state," but such is the nature of royalty) are, after all, people. As human beings, they need and deserve some privacy at the very least to unwind. Considering the arrogance that can come with celibrity, it is in our interest that public figures are grounded in some sense of a normal existence, at least periodically. In fact, the whole royalty thing can be regarded as artificial--that of placing a few human beings so far "above" the rest. The gulf from God to man dwarfs any distance we think we see between ourselves. Indeed, perhaps the distance we create and enforce between ourselves is that gulf between humanity and God.

Moreover, it goes against the Golden Rule to cause another person to feel shame for something that is rather normal in ordinary life. Young people have parties, and newlyweds should feel secure in being intimate with each other or at the very least "letting their hair down" when it is reasonable to assume they are alone and "on their own time." Staking William and Kate out--spying on their private affairs--is underhanded and violates their right to "normal lives" as much as is possible given their "jobs." In other words, the press over-extend the artificial life of celebs and thus violate the human persons themselves. We ought to be encouraging celebs to be down-to-earth and we should relate as much as possible to them as we do to other people in our everyday lives. I have little interest in meeting a royal at a "function," but I would enjoy chatting under normal conditions with one. Fundamentally, celebs are simply other human beings, and I suspect that they crave to be treated as such. At least this is what I have found in talking one-on-one to a few during their "off-time." Tim Russert, the late host of NBC's political talk-show, "Meet the Press," was for example incredibly down-to-earth in chatting with me in a hallway before he was to speak to a group. Our impromptu chat was spontaneous and natural. In making such normal interactions more difficult by violating privacy, the press extenuates artificiality at the expense of that which is natural. There is already far too much social distance between human beings; we don't need to encourage it by making people who are well-known afraid of people. 

Sources:

John F. Burns, “Murdoch Paper Defies a Warning and Exposes Prince Harry,” The New York Times, August 24, 2012. 

Scott Sayare, "French Court Rules Against Magazine on Royal Photos," The New York Times, September 18, 2012.

The Huffington Post Gilds the Lily: Facebook’s IPO Plummets?

On the day of its IPO, Facebook issued at $38 and went to a high of $45 before returning to near its issue price (closing at $38.23). On the next trading day, the price fell to about $34 in the early afternoon. This represents about 10% off the issue price. The Huffington Post headlined “Stock Plummets,” which must have been irresistible to anyone who had bought the stock. The Huff was using the $45 high as its benchmark, from which the $34 price represents a 25% drop. As if that were a plummeting, using the 10% off figure would have made the self-aggrandizing headline too obvious. At the very least, the headline detracts from the credibility of the Huffington Post.

The full essay is at "Taking the Face Off Facebook."

Holding the Unfit Accountable vs. Murdoch’s Entitlement to Power

“A damning report [in late April 2012] on the hacking scandal at Rupert Murdoch’s British newspapers concluding that Mr. Murdoch is “not a fit person” to run a huge international company has convulsed Britain’s political and media worlds and threatened a core asset of Mr. Murdoch’s American-based News Corporation.”[1] The report also “found that three senior Murdoch executives misled Parliament in testimony” and “alleges that the company sought to cover up widespread phone hacking.”[2]

The full essay is in Cases of Unethical Business: A Malignant Mentality of Mendacity, available in print and as an ebook at Amazon.

1. John F. Burns and Ravi Somaiya, “Panel in Hacking Case Finds Murdoch Unfit as News Titan,” The New York Times, May 1, 2012

2. Ibid.

In the Eye of the 24/7 News-Cycle: Profits & Attention-Seeking

For about a week toward the end of August 2011, the news networks in the U.S. seemed utterly captivated, or obsessed, with Hurricane “Irene,” which was running up the east coast from North Carolina to New England. The prognosis had been given as a fait accompli when the storm was just pulling out of the Bahamas. A rough convergence of the models was taken for certainty. If this obsessiveness sounds familiar, it may be because on virtually any major story, the 24-hour news networks have tended to crowd out other stories even when the marginal utility of the added coverage on the major story is very low. Editors go with filler on the major story rather than risk losing viewers by breaking away to cover the other news to a meaningful extent. Viewers who are not obsessed with the main story may view the networks as obsessed while the networks may view themselves as merely satisfying a growing obsession by viewers. In any case, the narrowness of coverage, as if a major story should crowd out other news, is problematic, for it ultimately leaves the American people less well informed than they would otherwise be of what is happening around them.

 

The constant coverage and hyperbole that typically accompany a major news story can whip some viewers into a frenzy of binge-watching, which doesn't hurt ratings. To be sure, some stories, such as the 2020 U.S. presidential election, contain their own built-in excitement. 

When the hurricane named Irene failed to strengthen after the Bahamas, little was made of it; reporters did not point out that the storm’s eyewall, which had collapsed, did not re-form out of a contracting outer wall. Instead, the media obsessed on where the storm would make landfall. According to James Franklin of the National Hurricane Center, “There were a lot of rain bands competing for the same energy. So when the eyewall collapsed, there were winds over a large area.”[1] Spread over a larger area, the winds were less intense. So what was predicted to be a Category 2 or possibly Category 3 storm at landfall in North Carolina was in fact a Category 1 storm. After North Carolina, the storm weakened even more rather than strengthening over the water east of Maryland and Delaware. The water was slightly cooler and the winds and drier area of another weather system kept the storm from strengthening. 

Even so, the media was reporting that the hurricane would reach New York City as a hurricane. No mention was made of the fact that the storm was downgraded to a tropical storm prior to reaching New York City. Instead, the media kept up the storyline of lower Manhattan being set to go underwater. Eventualities based on an assumed worst-case-scenario were played out ad nausea even after the storm had been downgraded from hurricane status! Not surprisingly, New Yorkers were underwhelmed and most of the rest of us might have wondered whether the five or six day marathon had been worthwhile.

To be sure, damage was in the billions of dollars (especially from flooding far from the coast). The storm was a Category 1 hurricane when it arrived in North Carolina and a large and very wet tropical storm when it headed from New Jersey to New York and into interior New England. Also, the hurricane had the potential early-on to be devastating to the major cities on the eastern seaboard. So getting the warning out, particularly to folks on North Carolina’s outer banks, was important. However, the overkill had its own costs, including the opportunity cost of foregone, neglected news. Other things were happening during that week in August 2011. At the very least, the American broadcast media suffered from tunnel vision, was slow in reacting to the diminished destructiveness of the storm and was partial in reporting the updated storm information as it came in.  The partiality was in line with perpetuating the rather dramatic worst-case-scenario. I contend that this did not happen by accident.

As if to vindicate all the attention devoted to the story and the catastrophic portant, at least one network showed water going over a reporter’s feet when the tropical storm was at New York City. After the storm, as the nonstop coverage astonishingly continued, one reporter was interviewed because at one point on a boardwalk she could see foam below the boards. So much for catastrophic. Along with the omission of data indicating the storm was weakening, the refusal to budge from the storyline of utter destructiveness points to something being up (i.e., even beyond acting on behalf of public officials in sounding the alarm).

It is as though the media were bound and determined to run through the storyline come hell or high water—even if there was neither. Better to keep on message than change course because the latter would imply that the original storyline had been wrong. In obsessing on the projected path of the storm, the media ignored data on the diminished strength. “(I)t was not surprising that the strength forecasts were off,” The New York Times observed. “The accuracy of such forecasts has hardly improved over the past several decades.”[2] In the wake of hurricane Irene, readers might have been thinking, now you tell us. However, it is not just overreliance on predictions; the media had an interest in ignoring the inherent inaccuracy.

The staff at the news networks might have wanted to take the limits of human knowledge to heart the next time a storm pops up in the Caribbean, and the rest of us might want to remember that it is in the self-interest of the media companies and their personalities to exaggerate the dramatic scenario and then pretend that they have done no such thing when things turn out differently. In other words, there is not apt to be a learning curve on this circulation of profits and attention around an eye of ego—this is one spin that can be predicted. The game is up, journalists, but whether anything can be done about your little scam is another story—one that no doubt will also be preempted by some pressing disaster that demands a monopoly of attention across the continent of North America and beyond.

1. Henry Fountain, “Hurricane Lost Steam as Experts Misjudged Structure and Next Move,” The New York Times, August 28, 2011. 

2. Ibid.

Partisan Journalism at Fox News: Stockholders and Democracy

Roger Ailes “is the most successful executive in television by a wide margin, and he has been so for more than a decade. He is also, in a sense, the head of the Republican Party, having employed five prospective presidential candidates and done perhaps more than anyone to alter the balance of power in the national media in favor of the Republicans. ‘Because of his political work’—Ailes was a media strategist for Nixon, Reagan, and George H. W. Bush—‘he understood there was an audience,’ Ed Rollins, the veteran GOP consultant, [said in 2011]. [Ailes] knew there were a couple million conservatives who were a potential audience, and he built Fox to reach them.’ For most of his tenure, the roles of network chief and GOP kingmaker have been in perfect synergy. Ailes’s network has dominated the cable news race for most of the past decade, and for much of that time, Fox News attracted more viewers than CNN and MSNBC combined. Throughout the George W. Bush years, the network’s patriotic cheerleading helped to marginalize the Democrats. . . . The problem wasn’t that ratings had been slipping that much— [Glenn] Beck’s show declined by 30 percent from record highs, but the ratings were still nearly double those from before he joined the network. It was that, with an actual presidential election on the horizon, the Fox candidates’ poll numbers remain dismally low (Sarah Palin is polling 12 percent; Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, 10 percent and 2 percent, respectively). Ailes’s ­candidates-in-­waiting were coming up small. And, for all his programming genius, he was more interested in a real narrative than a television narrative—he wanted to elect a president.”[1] The last sentence of the quoted passage is particularly revealing: “(H)e wanted to elect a president.”  With Beck’s 30% drop in ratings still leaving him with a profitable rating, Ailes’ motive was not commercial, neither was it to improve the network’s journalism. Typically, news networks are criticized for sacrificing good journalism for commercial interests. Here, journalistic integrity and profit played second fiddle to partisan objectives. 

The full essay is at "Partisan Journalism."

1, Gabriel Sherman, “The Elephant in the Green Room,” New York Magazine, May 22, 2011.