Could more urgent climate coverage save the CBC from a Pierre Poilievre government? That’s the theory that was floated by five of the mothercorp’s most famous personalities in a letter they sent to editor-in-chief Brodie Felon back in 2023. In their shared missive, former broadcasters David Suzuki, Peter Mansbridge, Adrienne Clarkson, Paul Kennedy and Linden MacIntyre recommended describing climate change as a “civilizational threat” and creating things like a “daily climate emergency report to be embedded in its flagship local, national and current affairs shows, including all local morning radio and national shows.”
Now, after CBC management apparently failed to take this advice, Suzuki has taken the recommendations public. “We know the CBC is under attack,” the letter read. “We know that public broadcasting is significantly underfunded in Canada to fulfill this critical purpose. But we also know that Canadians who depend on the CBC, including ourselves, will defend it.”
With all the respect these eminent former CBC personalities are owed — which is, to be clear, a lot — this is a road to ruin. Most obviously, it would make the CBC an even bigger target for the Conservative Party of Canada and Pierre Poilievre, and they would batter it relentlessly as a source of partisan information. This isn’t fair to the journalists still working at the CBC, who are trying their best to avoid becoming a political prop — or prize — and would probably like to just keep doing their jobs in relative peace.
More importantly, though, this approach to climate coverage won’t work — and might even backfire on those who care about the issue. There’s a growing body of research, supplemented by a new report aimed directly at journalists that was just published in August, that clearly shows alarmist language doesn’t help improve climate literacy. “Our advice: Don’t make the mistake of using overheated language,” report co-authors Wändi Bruine de Bruin and Gale Sinatra wrote in a piece for the Nieman Journalism Lab. “Just stick with familiar terms that people understand — use ‘global warming’ when referring to rising temperatures and ‘climate change’ for overall changes in the climate.”
This finding backs previous research on the subject, which also shows that phrases like “climate crisis” and “climate emergency” don’t have any measurable effect on public engagement on the issue. Worse, as Grist’s Kate Yoder noted in a 2021 story, “researchers found one instance where the stronger phrasing backfired: News organizations deploying climate emergency came across as slightly less trustworthy, perhaps because it could sound alarmist.”
These findings also validate the work done by the Alberta Narratives Project, a massive public engagement and consultation exercise that sought to test what worked — and what didn’t — as Alberta’s then-NDP government rolled out its Climate Leadership Plan. “In testing, most people felt that strongly worded statements about climate change were exaggerated, untrustworthy, or reflected the ideological agenda of the communicator,” its report said. “Using such adamant language is appropriate for some audiences and communicators, but is likely to be divisive across the broader public.”
None of this means the CBC shouldn’t cover climate change more deliberately. It can, and should, help people connect the dots between decisions made today on things like climate policy and other policies impacting the oil and gas industry and our longer-term future. It should call out the bogus arguments being made by bad-faith actors and more rigorously fact-check the oil and gas lobbyists masquerading as elected officials in Canada. And it should focus on climate stories that give people hope about the future — yes, they exist — as well as ones that might make them worry.
But it should do all of this in ways that are intelligent and evidence-based, and it must avoid stepping in traps that are increasingly well-marked by the research. Framing the issue in explicitly existential terms is more likely to alienate than attract an audience, and it makes the CBC an even more inviting target for climate-skeptical Conservatives than it already is.
The CBC isn’t going to go without a fight, and I’ll be a willing and active participant in that. But to those who want to save it, I’ll simply say this: let’s make sure we’re picking the right battles rather than dying on the wrong hills.
Comments
Considering what Alberta and the UCP stands for, why would you take research regarding climate change and how it is received that is done in that province and suggest it would apply to all Canadians
Unless I'm mistaken, the Alberta research referenced in the piece was conducted by the then NDP government.
I'm thinking because that was NDP research, admittedly cowards on the topic but not active deniers, so very much in contrast to the appalling UCP, who are losing their tribal grip.
The NDP with Nenshi as leader took the membership from 16,000 to 85,000 recently, for example.
Also, never underestimate the effectiveness of giving the crazy cons enough rope to hang themselves...
Exactly, a majority of my fellow Albertans from the Premier on down are ignorant about the real cost of climate change. What is actually happening. Blitzed by social media and a general distrust of facts snd science. And no clue as to the future of fossil fuels
Exactly, a majority of my fellow Albertans from the Premier on down are ignorant about the real cost of climate change. What is actually happening. Blitzed by social media and a general distrust of facts snd science. And no clue as to the future of fossil fuels
Isn't it ludicrous? That we should deny our children a liveable future because our poor widdle feewings can't handle the language chosen to communicate the truth of the climate emergency? Conservatives and Republicans and deniers of any ilk sure are going to have a lot to answer to. And the first of these people to cry, "Why didn't they warn us?!" is going to get [insert description of me losing my commitment to pacifism here].
Yeah, agreed. One of the most successful strategies of the wholly amoral cons is to be the first political party in Canada to blatantly " go bad boy rogue," with their narrative, Trump-style, thereby garnering all the media attention and/or the oxygen in the room.
Since that seems to have worked so spectacularly well for them, thanks to algorithms (the ultimate enabler that needs to be stopped somehow or we're all f**ked), and has also proven how many people succumb to sheer repetition, why not TRY fighting fire with fire, to Max's point here?
We'd have the power of surprise because we're not supposed to do that; we're the stolid Canadian standard-- civilized and decent, but SO BORING, even stodgy but what about the whole con/Trump insanity reaching a saturation point now so has ALSO become "boring?"
The media should strike boldly in order to turn the tables on the braying intransigence of PP and his "convoy" crew?
Fair point about communication, though that's seriously depressing. It is a crisis. And an atrocity that Canadians disproportionately contribute to. That the public are so unwilling to be the least bit honest about it is unsurprising for a settler colonial country built on greed and destruction. On that note, does anyone know how moralistic languages fares? It would make sense that it would make people immediately defensive, but hearing enough of it over time may make them actually care so as not to be seen as evil. All it takes is enough people saying something for long enough and you slowly see sentiments shift. Are there enough of us willing to call it what it really is, and would this be effective in the long run?
Being more aggressive in the CBC's climate coverage, will only justify the far-right desire to defund the CBC. Pierre "Snake oil Salesman" Poilievre would love that to happen to further justify defunding the CBC, where the conservative have had an issue with for some time. This would be a major fail by the climate alarmists.
They'd do it no matter what, there's no point appeasing them.
There's no point communicating ineffectively, but there is also no point in doing what people you despise are trying to intimidate you into doing.
Exactly.
Hi, Max.
I disagree with your comments about the CBC and the climate emergency.
CBC journalists should not be content to do their work in peace. These people should be as worried about the lack of strong, daily accurate information about what everything on Earth is facing as anyone. This is not a time for peacefulyl doing the job, as usual.
The far right is going to do what they always do, be the agents of chaos and say whatever will help them. Not say what is best for the majority of Canadians.
I agree with David Suzuki and "all" those who have spoken-up and offered a good idea so that more people would stop driving around and flying just for a fun time because we all have to change how we live in order to reduce the harm that is already in motion.
Canadians should hear, daily, what is really going on and why we are not faced with climate change. We are in a climate and environmental crisis.
CBC could be a very important voice in encouraging everyone to realize what is really taking place. After all, not everyone reads (and appreciates!) Canada's National Observer.
Michael Jones
At this point, CBC has nothing to lose. If Poilievre becomes PM, the CBC is on the chopping block regardless of its climate coverage.
Fawcett makes a logical leap between "more urgent climate coverage" and "alarmist language".
CBC can provide "more urgent climate coverage" while avoiding undue, unsubstantiated alarmism. Reality is bad enough. No hyperbole or emotionalism needed. Just report the facts.
CBC can do a public service simply by connecting the dots: this is how climate change affects our lives, our pocketbooks, our children's future.
This won't save CBC from Poilievre's axe. But CBC should improve and expand its climate coverage, anyway. For years, CBC has trailed The Guardian, The Washington Post, and The New York Times in its climate coverage. For years, CBC indulged climate deniers, even its own ranks. For years, CBC was far too industry friendly.
The Liberals and NDP need to make the case for not just keeping but expanding the CBC as part of their election campaigns.
All too quiet on this front.
Well said, GP. I agree 100%. Regular, factual reporting is a necessity. The CBC requires secure and sufficient funding to accomplish its essential mandate for Canada.
Absolutely Geoffrey, "the Liberals AND the NDP need to make the case as part of their election campaigns" despite the fact that an election hasn't even been called yet. See how that works? Everyone is following the fervor without even considering what has precipitated it, which is what has become the accepted and unquestioned norm with all media-- the unprecedentedly successful vilification via algorithms of the deliberate, avid and malicious machinations of the cons.
This current fever around forcing Trudeau out has predictably been followed assiduously by the media but I haven't heard about that entirely relevant context despite its uniqueness in our political history, not even ONCE.
I would add to that list France 24, DW (Germany) and Times Radio. There are others of course, but these 24 hour English language networks offer immensely informative, commercial-free public broadcasting of unbiased news and analysis. I would add the BBC, but their news organization is susceptible to undue influence by political and commercial special interests, even though their drama is top notch and easily syndicated internationally at great profit. The US PBS network is also pretty good, however, they are always seeking corporate donors, some of whom seek to influence the message. Their 'Frontline' is one of the best documentary sources on the continent.
The CBC needs to grow and mature using these models. Poilievre, if elected, won't be in power forever, so if the Mother Corp is obliterated by his executioners, it can always come back under another government much leaner and meaner.
Within Canada I would add BC's Knowledge Network and TV Ontario as potential models to reform the CBC.
There is polling that shows a large number of Canadians don't understand the causation of burning of fossil fuels leading to global heating. I've heard better language from the CBC on this recently, but this ignorance certainly needs to be blamed on poor journalistic practices across the western nations, and can easily be fixed by including this connection in the all-too-frequent climate disaster stories.
it's also fascinating to suggest that stating the truth (existential crisis, civilizational collapse is possible) is consider partisan and exaggerated, when it is simply the facts.
We're in trouble
Poilievre has a passion of anti CBC bred by Preston Manning and Harper. He will try to make Canada one of the few Western Democracies without a public broadcaster. CBC is a public not state broadcaster but Conservatives are ignorant of the difference. We Canadians have no idea how Poilievre will unleash his anti-democratic forces to kill the CBC with no evidence except polarized politics