Climate Coverage Recedes Amidst Tide of Disinformation

In an era of escalating climate impacts and urgent scientific warnings, media coverage of climate change, particularly in local and regional outlets, has shown signs of receding, a trend exacerbated by a persistent deluge of misinformation, notably from prominent political figures. This decline in sustained journalistic attention, especially when juxtaposed with the consistent efforts to sow doubt about clean energy and climate science, risks leaving large segments of the public less informed about a crisis that increasingly shapes their daily lives and futures.

The Retreat of the Climate Narrative

Recent studies reveal a concerning bifurcation in how climate change is reported across the American media landscape. While national, "elite" news organizations, often concentrated in coastal and metropolitan areas, have significantly expanded their climate desks and increased coverage by nearly 300% between 2011 and 2022, smaller news sources in America's "heartland" have increased their coverage at a considerably slower rate—around 144% over the same period. This disparity means that in 2011, a heartland newspaper had a 30% chance of running a climate change story on any given day; by 2022, that probability plummeted to approximately 3%.

This uneven distribution leaves a vast swathe of the country with less access to comprehensive climate reporting, potentially fostering an "echo chamber" effect where climate issues are predominantly discussed among those already engaged. Overall, despite the mounting evidence of climate change, global media coverage saw a decrease in 2020, with a significant drop in Australia and a 22% reduction in US newspaper coverage from January 2020 levels, largely attributed to the surge in COVID-19 reporting. Broadcast networks further reduced their climate coverage by 25% in 2023, even as the year experienced record-breaking heat and numerous billion-dollar extreme weather events.

The Misinformation Offensive

A significant factor contributing to this complex media environment is the sustained campaign of misinformation surrounding climate change and clean energy. Former President Donald Trump has consistently played a central role in this narrative, frequently dismissing climate change as a "hoax" or a "con job" and attacking renewable energy sources as "too expensive" or a "scam." His administration has actively promoted fossil fuels, often relying on "political talking points" that lack factual basis to push back against renewable energy development.

These efforts extend beyond rhetoric into policy, with the administration dismantling environmental regulations, slashing climate research funding, and even attempting to erase scientific data from government websites. For instance, a 2025 Department of Energy report, designed to justify the rollback of environmental regulations, was found to contain at least 100 false or misleading statements, according to a Carbon Brief fact-check. Experts have described such reports as "chock-full of climate misinformation" and akin to "shop worn, decades-old, discredited climate denier talking points, dressed up in the clothing of some sensible new set of revelations." The administration's focus on "energy dominance" through increased fossil fuel production has also been linked to rising energy bills for consumers, contrary to promises of cost reduction.

Public Perception and Policy Ramifications

The persistent spread of misinformation and the varying levels of media coverage have tangible effects on public opinion and, consequently, policy. While a majority of Americans continue to believe climate change is happening, political affiliation plays a significant role in perceptions of its urgency and preferred solutions. Pew Research Center data indicates that support for wind and solar power has waned since the first Trump administration, particularly among Republicans. For example, 65% of Republicans prioritized renewable energy in 2020, but that figure dropped to 47% in 2021.

However, public concern is not entirely static. Recent polling from Yale University suggests that most American voters now connect the worsening climate crisis with their rising cost of living, with 65% believing global heating affects expenses. A significant majority also disagree with the Trump administration's moves to gut climate research and halt wind farm development, indicating a disconnect between elite political discourse and broader public sentiment. Despite calls from some politicians and activists to de-emphasize climate discussions due to cost-of-living concerns, experts argue that "climate solutions are also cost-of-living solutions."

Challenges Beyond Misinformation

Beyond the direct influence of misinformation, several factors contribute to the challenging environment for sustained climate journalism. Media outlets often prioritize other pressing issues such as geopolitical tensions, economic crises, and national security, leading to climate change being relegated to less prominent positions. There is also the challenge of "public fatigue in the face of excessive doom-mongering," a phenomenon where constant negative reporting can lead to disengagement rather than action.

The complexity of climate science and its long-term implications make it a difficult story to cover consistently and engagingly. As one study noted, "When concern falls, the climate loses political relevance. And when it loses political relevance, the media covers it less." This creates a "vicious circle" where reduced media attention leads to less public conversation and research, ultimately hindering collective action. Historically, media coverage has often overemphasized extreme outcomes, which, while attention-grabbing, can misrepresent scientific findings and contribute to public confusion or alarm fatigue.

The Enduring Need for Robust Reporting

The confluence of shrinking media coverage in key regions and the relentless propagation of climate misinformation presents a significant challenge to public understanding and effective action on climate change. While national media continues to invest in climate reporting, the declining attention in local outlets means many Americans may lack accessible, relevant information connecting global climate trends to their daily lives. The ongoing efforts by political actors to discredit established climate science and undermine clean energy initiatives only compound this issue, creating an environment where fact and fiction often compete for public attention.

In this landscape, the role of objective, factual, and engaging journalism is more critical than ever. Bridging the gap between scientific consensus and public perception requires not only consistent reporting but also a focus on localized impacts, actionable solutions, and clear communication to counteract pervasive misinformation. Without robust and widespread climate coverage, the ability of communities to adapt and governments to enact necessary policies will remain severely hampered, leaving society vulnerable to the escalating consequences of a changing climate.