This past month, Texas was devastated by an ice storm of unprecedented severity that caused power outages for days and at least 86 deaths in just the Austin area [1]. The state government and electricity corporations were seemingly unprepared which has led to a lot of heated discussion focusing on what actually happened, how it did, and who is to be blamed. Depending who you get your news from, there’s a chance you have one of two understandings of the issue. The first being: that the storm may have been intensified by the effects of climate change and that Texans lost power because Texas has its own grid (which can’t be assisted unlike other states’ grids) and because the privatized electricity sector focused on profit at the expense of maintenance. The second understanding is that the storm was just a storm and that ERCOT failed Texans, but that this does not mean the electricity sector should be overhauled or de-privatized. Demonstrating this, Republican Rep. Roger Williams tweeted that the blackouts “reinforce the need to maintain energy independence and increase Texas oil and gas production, not less [2].” Each one of these two perspectives are built on a few base assumptions which is what I’ll discuss as I analyze the situation further. I argue that the media does not place a great enough emphasis on climate change’s role in this (followed by our responsibility to do something about it) and if they do, the language used explains it in a way that reduces the importance of acting quickly to stop it.
As for figuring out exactly what happened, I selected an article from Fox and one from CNN each published on the same day (Feb. 20) after the worst of the storm had passed. The Fox article begins with a description of the storm as “generational” and focuses on the main consequences of the storm as infrastructure failure, “ lone star state is just beginning to deal with the fallout: millions … on boil water notices… and officials working to restore power and clean water to residents. “ The CNN piece begins with an explanation of how unprecedented the storm was and how it affected Texans, but stresses that it was not random and that climate change may have played a role in its intensity. Already a few key differences can be noted – Fox paints a more blameless situation and the statement is built on the assumption that nothing exacerbated the storm and events like this will not be a recurring issue. Climate denial and the emphasis on individual strength to overcome events like these (making them unimportant) are central to the ideology of a majority of Fox viewers. The CNN article focuses more on the human aspect of the consequences, “ Grid meltdown… left millions to fend for themselves,” but still did not fully commit to the idea that climate change may have intensified the storm, “what role climate change played… is a matter of scientific debate.” Some assumptions present in CNN’s discussion of the situation: that government action is necessary and best for constituents (they were ‘left to fend for themselves’ without sufficient aid from the government) and that while climate change exists, we are not entirely certain of its nature or what to do about it. These principles are endorsed by the majority of CNN viewers. Finally, it is worth a quick look at Twitter to see how these ideas are reflected in the debate between average twitter users. Lawrence Reid tweeted, “It’s the grid not the fuel source.” In reply to the tweet from Rep. Williams I mentioned earlier. In reply Steve Detmer said, “If we had more NG (natural gas) power generation and less wind, there wouldn’t be any problems in Texas right now.” In my opinion, this displays how pointless debate is, either side remains unconvinced by the other’s efforts because they disagree on fundamental parts of the argument. Next, I’ll try to explain how the news media has partially created this situation.
While each station does have some set of principles they abide by, at the end of the day their goals are to know their audience and make sure their news coverage aligns with what they want to hear. This is so essential because it determines how profitable a media corporation will be and profit tends to be the final consideration of for-profit corporations. Combining that with the tendency of groups to become more intense in their beliefs and the tendency of news coverage to become more sensational slowly over time in an effort to collect higher profits, this explains why the political and ideological landscape is so polarized today. The modern ‘debate’ over the existence and effects of human-caused climate change is emblematic of this and displays how the news media can gently shape or control debate.
Why is this important? Because sooner or later – or frankly as soon as possible – a shift in policy needs to occur if the world will avoid the worst of the self-inflicted consequences of climate change. The time for debate has passed with the vast majority of climate scientists in agreement with the call for immediate and substantial action to mitigate emissions and environmental destruction. With Fox supporting the do-nothing plan of casual denial and CNN placing a lacking importance on climate action, popular debate is made up of an unproductive mix of climate deniers and people who have been misled to the degree of severity of the crisis and the level of action and policy creation required. The media does not control what we think or determine the outcome of elections, but it legitimizes ideas and determines which ones are socially acceptable in discourse – which does determine a lot. Throughout the modern mass news media age, this has created a situation where progressives and progressive ideas are shunned for an apparent or perceived disconnect from reality for supporting policies that exist outside of the day to day discourse. Very rarely do people encounter new perspectives or ideologies on TV dramas or talk shows, and the media landscape encourages the notion that this means they are fringe ideas, unworthy of critical evaluation. However, the world desperately needs these ‘fringe’ ideas on climate change regarding a serious policy shift because anything else might be lethal. If debate stays stuck in the same place and ideas that exist outside of the discourse that got us in this situation are shunned, we will suffer the worst predicted consequences. Hope exists because the domination of media outlined above does not exist across the entire landscape; still there are some groups who discuss and share the ideas the world needs to hear.
Bibliography
Alund, N. (2021, February 26). How did at least 86 people die in Austin area during Texas FREEZE? It remains a mystery. Retrieved March 11, 2021, from https://www.statesman.com/story/news/2021/02/25/texas-power-outage-death-toll-medical-examiner-processing-86-cases/6808150002/
Rep. Roger Williams. (2021, February 15) Tweet retrieved March 11, 2021 from
Best, P. (2021, February 21). Warmer temperatures bring welcome relief to Texas and southern States as recovery begins. Retrieved March 11, 2021, from https://www.foxnews.com/us/warmer-temperatures-brings-welcome-relief-to-texas-and-other-southern-states-following-deadly-winter-storm
Kann, D. (2021, February 20). Texas’ dangerous week in the dark is a wake-up call for the country’s infrastructure. Retrieved March 11, 2021, from https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/20/weather/texas-winter-storm-power-outages-climate-change/index.html
Wreid, L. (2021 February 15) Tweet retrieved March 11, 2021 from https://twitter.com/lawrencewreid/status/1361377217528418311
Detmer, S. (2021 February 15) Tweet retrieved March 11, 2021 from
https://twitter.com/DetmerSteve/status/1361388424331100162
