Journalists need to report on who is causing the climate crisis, so that the EU public feels it can make a change

Public opinion polls show that a large majority of people in the EU are worried about climate change and want governments to address it. And science is crystal clear about the causes: climate change, which is supercharging extreme weather, is primarily caused by burning fossil fuels. So why, in times of wildfires and deadly heatwaves, aren’t there overwhelming public protests and demands for governments to accelerate the shift from fossil fuels to solutions like renewable energy? I’ve written previously about how activists themselves are partly responsible for scaring the public with fear-based messaging that pushes people outside their base into paralysis. But the greater problem lies with media outlets, which have far more influence over public thinking. Media reporting shapes public opinion because it determines the way people understand the facts they receive. The academics who study this refer to ‘media framing effects’. For example, does the media tend to talk about people who migrate as folks like us who come to build a better, safer life for their families or as threats to security, culture, and public services? Even if journalists themselves aren’t purposefully characterising migrants negatively, when they neutrally and objectively report on the (predominantly negative) way political figures talk about the issue, this becomes the dominant frame the public relies on to understand what’s going on. There’s ample evidence of how attitudes on migration are heavily influenced by the tenor of media coverage. Another study shows the direct influence of the virulently anti-EU newspaper The Sun on support for Brexit. And multiple studies (on a Klu Klux Klan rally, Black Lives Matter protests, and environmental demonstrations) show a direct impact of the tenor of media coverage on attitudes towards protestors. A recent analysis found that most UK media reports on the June 2026 heatwave failed to talk about global warming. It’s probably the case that media outlets in most countries are not including an explanation for why extreme weather is happening, who is responsible, or how to solve it. Reporting has tended to focus on naked facts (record temperatures, the size of fires, amount of damage, number of deaths), how we can adapt (go to the beach or get more AC), or asking scientists to explain the current weather pattern. But rarely do reports look at the root causes: that oil, gas, and coal companies got us here, because it’s making them very rich and that they’re using their resources to sow confusion and lobby governments to delay the solutions we need. As a result, even though the public is really worried about climate change and want action, they also think governments aren’t capable or interested. So why aren’t the masses kicking their governments into action? Research by academics and campaigners and our own focus groups show that most people feel a sense of fatalism. That is, they feel powerless when faced with big society-scale problems. Climate change is too big, scary, complicated, or difficult to solve. People look for ways to cope with that uncomfortable feeling. And, for most, that means finding ways to adapt personally (buy a fan) or just sticking their heads in the sand. Overcoming fatalism The good news is that there’s plenty of research and message testing by academics and practitioners to show that people can overcome this sense of fatalism if they have the right information. This information includes: knowing who is responsible for the problem; seeing that the problem has been caused by decisions made by people and is therefore capable of being solved by people deciding to do things differently; and knowing that solutions are available. This isn’t just about helping the audience rationally and consciously connect the dots. Giving the audience this information has an emotional impact. It stimulates feelings of injustice and anger that provide the initial spark of motivation and then channels it into action by prompting a sense of hope and empowerment. In my work I help campaigners incorporate this information in their messages. Campaign messaging includes other things that aren’t part of a journalists’ job. These include reminding people of their values, giving them a call to action or pointing to times in the past when we achieved things that once seemed impossible, like creating a welfare state. But giving the audience a frame to help them understand the causes and solutions behind the facts they’re reporting falls squarely within a journalist’s job. This is not to say media outlets are on a mission to stymie efforts to tackle climate change, though some clearly are. But even well-intentioned journalists can end up contributing to the problem by reporting facts without giving their audience a way to interpret them. Even if a journalist thinks they’re giving pure facts, this isn’t how our brains work. The audience interprets unframed facts according to the (often faulty) frames that are already in their heads (referred to as confirmation bias). Which means all facts are framed. The choice journalists have is whether to provide accurate frames to help their audience interpret the facts or abdicate that responsibility to others who might not have the public’s best interests at heart.