WEBVTT - How the Media Has Helped to Criminalize Climate Protest with Evlondo Cooper

0:00:00.200 --> 0:00:02.600
<v Speaker 1>Next week, we're going to start our new season, The

0:00:02.640 --> 0:00:07.159
<v Speaker 1>Real Free Speech Threat, covering the growing criminalization of environmental

0:00:07.200 --> 0:00:11.600
<v Speaker 1>protest around the world. It's our first big cross border series,

0:00:11.640 --> 0:00:14.080
<v Speaker 1>and it will include dozens of stories both in the

0:00:14.120 --> 0:00:17.599
<v Speaker 1>podcast and online. One thing we'll be looking at in

0:00:17.640 --> 0:00:21.040
<v Speaker 1>that series is the media's role in enabling this trend.

0:00:21.560 --> 0:00:26.280
<v Speaker 1>Before you can criminalize protest, you have to vilify the protesters,

0:00:26.800 --> 0:00:29.600
<v Speaker 1>and to do that effectively, you need the media's help.

0:00:30.440 --> 0:00:34.920
<v Speaker 1>Ivlando Cooper at Media Matters reviewed media coverage of climate

0:00:34.960 --> 0:00:38.440
<v Speaker 1>protest in the US from May thirtieth, twenty twenty two

0:00:38.960 --> 0:00:42.519
<v Speaker 1>to July thirty first, twenty twenty three for a new study.

0:00:43.120 --> 0:00:46.360
<v Speaker 1>He documented a trend that we've been seeing too. Not

0:00:46.479 --> 0:00:49.839
<v Speaker 1>only has the US media perpetuated the idea that climate

0:00:49.880 --> 0:00:55.520
<v Speaker 1>protesters are uniquely disruptive and radical, but their general failure

0:00:55.600 --> 0:00:59.320
<v Speaker 1>to cover anything about climate protest other than the disruption

0:00:59.480 --> 0:01:05.440
<v Speaker 1>that they call further perpetuates this thinking. Ivlando's research found

0:01:05.480 --> 0:01:08.800
<v Speaker 1>that while multiple national outlets have run stories about climate

0:01:08.840 --> 0:01:14.080
<v Speaker 1>protesters being annoying and destructive, not a single broadcaster has

0:01:14.160 --> 0:01:18.080
<v Speaker 1>run even one story on the fact that nearly half

0:01:18.240 --> 0:01:20.880
<v Speaker 1>of the states in the US have now passed laws

0:01:21.000 --> 0:01:27.640
<v Speaker 1>criminalizing protest. That fact is both shocking and worrisome. We're

0:01:27.640 --> 0:01:29.240
<v Speaker 1>going to get into all of that and more with

0:01:29.319 --> 0:01:33.040
<v Speaker 1>Avlando after this quick break. I am Westervelt and this

0:01:33.360 --> 0:01:41.080
<v Speaker 1>is drilled. So I wanted to start by just asking

0:01:41.120 --> 0:01:45.040
<v Speaker 1>you what prompted you to start looking at how media

0:01:46.080 --> 0:01:48.520
<v Speaker 1>was covering climate activism.

0:01:49.800 --> 0:01:54.600
<v Speaker 2>Yeah. So I had been seeing these infrastructure laws, the

0:01:54.600 --> 0:01:58.680
<v Speaker 2>Steady March, and state of the state of the criminalization

0:01:59.280 --> 0:02:06.640
<v Speaker 2>of protest climate protests specifically, and so I wanted to

0:02:06.640 --> 0:02:08.840
<v Speaker 2>see how the media was covering it. The problem was,

0:02:08.880 --> 0:02:13.160
<v Speaker 2>we knew that the media wasn't covering specifically the criminalization

0:02:13.360 --> 0:02:17.280
<v Speaker 2>of climate protests, and so seeing this kind of global

0:02:17.320 --> 0:02:23.480
<v Speaker 2>surge and climate activism specifically around kind of provocative climate

0:02:23.760 --> 0:02:27.400
<v Speaker 2>actions and civil disobedience, we thought that was a way

0:02:27.440 --> 0:02:30.079
<v Speaker 2>that we could kind of get at understanding how media

0:02:30.200 --> 0:02:33.200
<v Speaker 2>was covering climate protests generally and to see if they

0:02:33.200 --> 0:02:36.120
<v Speaker 2>were adding some context to these protests.

0:02:36.160 --> 0:02:39.080
<v Speaker 1>So, yeah, I know that just purely anecdotally. Whenever I

0:02:39.320 --> 0:02:43.920
<v Speaker 1>pitch a story that's related to protest, it's kind of

0:02:43.919 --> 0:02:48.160
<v Speaker 1>a hard sell, you know, It's like, what's really happening?

0:02:48.400 --> 0:02:51.760
<v Speaker 1>Is it new? Nobody wants to cover a particular action,

0:02:52.000 --> 0:02:55.920
<v Speaker 1>because then it feels like you're just doing pr for

0:02:56.080 --> 0:03:01.440
<v Speaker 1>the environmental organizations. What do you outlets when they do

0:03:01.560 --> 0:03:04.840
<v Speaker 1>cover protests at all, What are the sorts of stories

0:03:04.880 --> 0:03:05.560
<v Speaker 1>that you're seeing.

0:03:05.800 --> 0:03:10.760
<v Speaker 2>So the vast majority of the stories were kind of

0:03:10.880 --> 0:03:14.639
<v Speaker 2>dry recitals of what happened, you know, first, there still

0:03:14.680 --> 0:03:16.720
<v Speaker 2>wasn't even that much coverage of I guess these more

0:03:16.760 --> 0:03:19.640
<v Speaker 2>controversial climate actions, right, So we had to put that

0:03:19.680 --> 0:03:23.640
<v Speaker 2>in context that I think a lot of these actions

0:03:23.680 --> 0:03:26.800
<v Speaker 2>are designed for kind of social media of ability. But

0:03:27.840 --> 0:03:31.520
<v Speaker 2>it's important for me to understand that, you know, social

0:03:31.560 --> 0:03:34.079
<v Speaker 2>media is its own kind of activism. But I think

0:03:34.160 --> 0:03:37.480
<v Speaker 2>there are also a lot of persuadables, older people, older

0:03:37.560 --> 0:03:41.960
<v Speaker 2>voters who were trying to get on board with understanding

0:03:42.000 --> 0:03:45.600
<v Speaker 2>the need for urgent climate action, who still get most

0:03:45.600 --> 0:03:49.160
<v Speaker 2>of their news from mainstream sources. So that's why we

0:03:49.160 --> 0:03:51.640
<v Speaker 2>wanted to kind of focus on the kind of traditional

0:03:52.200 --> 0:03:57.440
<v Speaker 2>corporate news media environment. And but all you would see

0:03:57.480 --> 0:04:01.360
<v Speaker 2>really is just a dry recital of, you know, a

0:04:01.400 --> 0:04:07.440
<v Speaker 2>specific action. You didn't get any context about the urgency

0:04:07.960 --> 0:04:11.520
<v Speaker 2>behind the action, why the people were protesting, And to me,

0:04:11.760 --> 0:04:13.560
<v Speaker 2>it called to mind there have been a lot of

0:04:13.720 --> 0:04:17.520
<v Speaker 2>really great justice movements that have employed controversial tactics, and

0:04:17.520 --> 0:04:21.400
<v Speaker 2>their good faith disagreements within those movements themselves about which

0:04:21.480 --> 0:04:23.599
<v Speaker 2>tactics to deploy. But I think a lot of those

0:04:23.600 --> 0:04:27.600
<v Speaker 2>would have been much less successful if people didn't really

0:04:27.640 --> 0:04:30.599
<v Speaker 2>understand why they were protesting in the first place. And

0:04:30.640 --> 0:04:34.839
<v Speaker 2>so the media presenting these climate activists is disruptors, as nuisances,

0:04:34.960 --> 0:04:38.040
<v Speaker 2>as knucklehead kids who don't really know what they're doing

0:04:38.320 --> 0:04:41.919
<v Speaker 2>or why they're doing it. Paved the way for me

0:04:42.000 --> 0:04:44.200
<v Speaker 2>which I think is a more dangerous trend, which is

0:04:44.240 --> 0:04:48.320
<v Speaker 2>where you have an organization like Fox News, which covered

0:04:48.320 --> 0:04:52.600
<v Speaker 2>the protests with way more than other mainstream news outlets,

0:04:53.520 --> 0:04:57.920
<v Speaker 2>and their coverage was full of derision, climate denial, and

0:04:58.520 --> 0:05:02.440
<v Speaker 2>mocking and even calls for violence against the protesters. So

0:05:02.560 --> 0:05:06.800
<v Speaker 2>I think you have a mainstream news environment that when

0:05:06.800 --> 0:05:08.800
<v Speaker 2>they cover these protests, they cover them is just the

0:05:08.839 --> 0:05:12.680
<v Speaker 2>most basic kind of headline news rundowns these activists did

0:05:12.680 --> 0:05:16.320
<v Speaker 2>this at this gallery, or they protested this sports event.

0:05:16.560 --> 0:05:20.040
<v Speaker 2>There's no climate context, there's no context about the escalating

0:05:20.120 --> 0:05:23.599
<v Speaker 2>criminalization of their protests, there's no context about the violence

0:05:23.640 --> 0:05:27.080
<v Speaker 2>being directed at them. And then you have a network

0:05:27.400 --> 0:05:31.279
<v Speaker 2>swooping in and filling that gap with These are bad

0:05:31.320 --> 0:05:33.880
<v Speaker 2>people who are protesting a fake thing, and they deserve

0:05:33.960 --> 0:05:35.799
<v Speaker 2>whatever they have coming to them.

0:05:36.480 --> 0:05:40.440
<v Speaker 3>That's so interesting just how much the vacuum creates the

0:05:40.480 --> 0:05:44.560
<v Speaker 3>ability to kind of do the Fox News style coverage

0:05:44.560 --> 0:05:47.680
<v Speaker 3>and have it land too. But yeah, it's been very

0:05:47.680 --> 0:05:52.760
<v Speaker 3>interesting to me to see how much the coverage focuses on,

0:05:53.480 --> 0:05:56.840
<v Speaker 3>you know, how disruptive these kids are, and like, like

0:05:56.920 --> 0:05:59.919
<v Speaker 3>even so, the example that is top of mind me

0:06:00.160 --> 0:06:04.880
<v Speaker 3>right now is the recent New York Times piece where they.

0:06:05.120 --> 0:06:10.120
<v Speaker 1>Talked about the Arn't protests and how they're costing museums money, right,

0:06:11.560 --> 0:06:16.680
<v Speaker 1>and I like completely coincidentally, I happened to be interviewing

0:06:17.400 --> 0:06:21.800
<v Speaker 1>Joanna Altman Smith the same day that that story came out, Right,

0:06:21.920 --> 0:06:24.719
<v Speaker 1>so like, this is she's one of the people who

0:06:24.880 --> 0:06:31.360
<v Speaker 1>protested at the National Gallery. They put water soluble kid's

0:06:31.720 --> 0:06:36.760
<v Speaker 1>fingerpaint on the display case of a dagd statue in

0:06:36.800 --> 0:06:40.479
<v Speaker 1>the National Gallery, so like, not an incredible amount of damage,

0:06:40.680 --> 0:06:43.640
<v Speaker 1>very easy to clean up. You know, they read a

0:06:43.720 --> 0:06:47.599
<v Speaker 1>manifesto and talked actually a lot about why they were

0:06:47.600 --> 0:06:52.040
<v Speaker 1>doing this and whatnot. And she she told me she's

0:06:52.120 --> 0:06:56.200
<v Speaker 1>like I spent hours, hours and hours talking to the

0:06:56.320 --> 0:06:59.799
<v Speaker 1>reporter who wrote that piece about all of the reasons why,

0:07:00.160 --> 0:07:02.760
<v Speaker 1>like it was worth the risk for us. And and

0:07:02.800 --> 0:07:05.599
<v Speaker 1>by the way, this is someone who's facing a charge

0:07:05.680 --> 0:07:11.160
<v Speaker 1>as a person who is conspiring against the United States. Yes,

0:07:11.240 --> 0:07:15.160
<v Speaker 1>it's which is insane. She's facing ten years in jail

0:07:15.200 --> 0:07:20.720
<v Speaker 1>and half a million dollars in fines for this action.

0:07:21.760 --> 0:07:25.520
<v Speaker 1>She has had her passport taken, and none of that

0:07:26.160 --> 0:07:31.120
<v Speaker 1>was in the story, Like it's there was nothing about

0:07:32.080 --> 0:07:37.080
<v Speaker 1>the reason for the protest. There's nothing about the overwhelming

0:07:37.120 --> 0:07:41.560
<v Speaker 1>weight of the charges compared to what the action itself

0:07:41.640 --> 0:07:46.400
<v Speaker 1>actually cost. So anyway, it's just it's really interesting because

0:07:46.480 --> 0:07:53.200
<v Speaker 1>I feel like that kind of framing really helps the

0:07:53.240 --> 0:07:57.760
<v Speaker 1>criminalization of protests because it makes all of these protesters

0:07:57.800 --> 0:08:02.680
<v Speaker 1>seem like annoying mosquitos, right, It's very dehumanizing. Was there

0:08:02.720 --> 0:08:06.120
<v Speaker 1>anyone that you saw doing a good job of covering this,

0:08:06.320 --> 0:08:09.400
<v Speaker 1>and like, did it tend to break down across sort

0:08:09.440 --> 0:08:14.240
<v Speaker 1>of expected lines in terms of mainstream media versus smaller

0:08:14.440 --> 0:08:15.920
<v Speaker 1>or more independent outlets.

0:08:16.240 --> 0:08:20.680
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, well, okay, so on on the broadcast side. Note,

0:08:20.800 --> 0:08:22.800
<v Speaker 2>I mean they didn't they didn't cour it enough for

0:08:22.840 --> 0:08:29.160
<v Speaker 2>it to even be meaningful on cable not really either.

0:08:29.240 --> 0:08:29.640
<v Speaker 1>I mean.

0:08:31.200 --> 0:08:33.599
<v Speaker 2>It was with sparse coverage, and what it was was

0:08:33.679 --> 0:08:35.840
<v Speaker 2>kind of, like you said, just a kind of dry recitation,

0:08:36.559 --> 0:08:42.000
<v Speaker 2>no context. The newspapers provided a more nuanced picture. Washington

0:08:42.040 --> 0:08:46.400
<v Speaker 2>Post published the most stories. And this is just looking

0:08:46.440 --> 0:08:48.360
<v Speaker 2>at print, because I know there were some on like

0:08:48.440 --> 0:08:53.600
<v Speaker 2>online specific articles that were really harsh against the client protesters,

0:08:54.280 --> 0:08:56.040
<v Speaker 2>and there were someone that were that were really kind

0:08:56.120 --> 0:08:59.959
<v Speaker 2>of wonderfully defensive of their actions. And you saw that

0:09:00.160 --> 0:09:03.480
<v Speaker 2>kind of coexisting on the print side too, which to

0:09:03.559 --> 0:09:06.880
<v Speaker 2>me is problematic because you're sending mixed messages to your

0:09:07.080 --> 0:09:08.719
<v Speaker 2>to your readers. You know, I know you're trying to

0:09:08.760 --> 0:09:11.960
<v Speaker 2>present a kind of broad outlook on this, but like

0:09:12.000 --> 0:09:14.560
<v Speaker 2>you said, any any article that doesn't include the context

0:09:14.640 --> 0:09:18.000
<v Speaker 2>about the scale of the protests versus the scale of

0:09:18.000 --> 0:09:22.440
<v Speaker 2>the response, to me is not doing its job. So

0:09:23.120 --> 0:09:25.880
<v Speaker 2>but you did have a more nuanced picture among the

0:09:25.920 --> 0:09:28.920
<v Speaker 2>print outlets. The New York Times published one or two

0:09:29.000 --> 0:09:32.640
<v Speaker 2>decent pieces, so I think the overall, I can't say though,

0:09:32.679 --> 0:09:36.480
<v Speaker 2>that there were very many standouts because among print, any

0:09:36.559 --> 0:09:41.800
<v Speaker 2>standouts were kind of negated by harsh, chastising or decontextualized

0:09:42.440 --> 0:09:46.360
<v Speaker 2>articles that didn't present the whole picture. And I think

0:09:46.400 --> 0:09:50.559
<v Speaker 2>part of what what angers me about this is that

0:09:50.720 --> 0:09:53.360
<v Speaker 2>a lot of these papers, and especially on CAB when

0:09:53.400 --> 0:09:57.480
<v Speaker 2>you see ANEMBC, present themselves as democracy defenders, right, But

0:09:58.640 --> 0:10:01.360
<v Speaker 2>when it comes down to it, the people who are

0:10:01.400 --> 0:10:07.640
<v Speaker 2>actually practicing democracy in the best tradition civil disobedience on

0:10:07.679 --> 0:10:14.120
<v Speaker 2>behalf of a righteous cause, there these draconying responses to them,

0:10:14.120 --> 0:10:18.000
<v Speaker 2>whether it's legally or through the police. You had a

0:10:18.000 --> 0:10:23.199
<v Speaker 2>forest defender murdered in Atlanta for protesting police facility, and

0:10:23.280 --> 0:10:26.640
<v Speaker 2>this doesn't get covered, it doesn't get contextualized. And so

0:10:26.800 --> 0:10:30.440
<v Speaker 2>instead of being democracy defenders, while they're good on you know,

0:10:30.640 --> 0:10:35.280
<v Speaker 2>the kind of right wing Trump stuff, they are completely

0:10:35.320 --> 0:10:38.000
<v Speaker 2>falling down to me on the people who pose the

0:10:38.040 --> 0:10:41.840
<v Speaker 2>biggest threat to with the system, which are climate activists,

0:10:41.920 --> 0:10:45.959
<v Speaker 2>leftist protesters who are being demonized and humanized as you mentioned,

0:10:46.520 --> 0:10:49.280
<v Speaker 2>and being criminalized, and this gets no attention in this

0:10:49.800 --> 0:10:50.800
<v Speaker 2>corporate media sphere.

0:10:51.559 --> 0:10:54.720
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, did you look at all at whether there was

0:10:54.760 --> 0:11:00.599
<v Speaker 1>any difference in how publications covered different types of activism,

0:11:00.760 --> 0:11:05.000
<v Speaker 1>whether there's any difference in how they cover a climate

0:11:05.080 --> 0:11:11.280
<v Speaker 1>protest versus something that's more like general interest democracy kind

0:11:11.280 --> 0:11:14.400
<v Speaker 1>of thing. I feel like I see a lot more

0:11:15.240 --> 0:11:19.640
<v Speaker 1>annoyance with the climate protesters that I've seen with other

0:11:19.720 --> 0:11:23.360
<v Speaker 1>types of protesters, and it's really interesting to me. I'm like,

0:11:23.400 --> 0:11:24.319
<v Speaker 1>where is this coming from.

0:11:24.600 --> 0:11:26.200
<v Speaker 2>So we don't have a data point for this, but

0:11:26.240 --> 0:11:29.280
<v Speaker 2>I can definitely say that there is no small measure

0:11:29.320 --> 0:11:33.559
<v Speaker 2>of respectability politics at play with regards to these specific protests,

0:11:33.640 --> 0:11:37.240
<v Speaker 2>right because you know, they they cover Earth Day, right,

0:11:37.400 --> 0:11:41.280
<v Speaker 2>you know, it's not well, it's not particularly great coverage,

0:11:41.320 --> 0:11:45.079
<v Speaker 2>but Earth Day receives generally positive coverage, at least amongst

0:11:45.080 --> 0:11:48.160
<v Speaker 2>the mainstream news. The youth climate protests for a few

0:11:48.200 --> 0:11:52.160
<v Speaker 2>years ago, right, we're generally well received. You know, they're

0:11:52.200 --> 0:11:56.000
<v Speaker 2>deemed to be you know, proper way of protesting, you know,

0:11:56.120 --> 0:11:59.800
<v Speaker 2>marching in the streets, holding signs. When it comes to

0:11:59.800 --> 0:12:03.960
<v Speaker 2>any anything slightly more subversive or direct, you do see

0:12:04.000 --> 0:12:06.320
<v Speaker 2>a lot of this handing, specifically with regardless of climate.

0:12:06.600 --> 0:12:10.800
<v Speaker 2>You know, you can argue that the BLM protests were disruptive,

0:12:10.920 --> 0:12:15.280
<v Speaker 2>they were allowed, they were aggressive, and you know, they

0:12:15.320 --> 0:12:18.680
<v Speaker 2>got their point across, but the media didn't cover them

0:12:18.720 --> 0:12:24.280
<v Speaker 2>like they cover climate activists, right because rightfully so, criminal

0:12:24.440 --> 0:12:28.880
<v Speaker 2>justice demand for criminal justice and racial justice are deemed

0:12:28.920 --> 0:12:33.520
<v Speaker 2>to be worthy causes and their protests given more leeway

0:12:33.600 --> 0:12:37.480
<v Speaker 2>and how they agitate for those causes. But something about

0:12:37.760 --> 0:12:40.000
<v Speaker 2>climate or if it's not done, and it's a very

0:12:40.040 --> 0:12:44.520
<v Speaker 2>specific way, it's very kind of old school style protests.

0:12:45.360 --> 0:12:50.880
<v Speaker 2>Anything slightly provocative is really integrated, and it's viewed as illegitimate.

0:12:51.040 --> 0:12:53.640
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, you know, we did this episode Mary and I

0:12:53.720 --> 0:12:56.199
<v Speaker 3>when we were doing hot Take. We did this episode

0:12:56.280 --> 0:12:59.120
<v Speaker 3>maybe like two or three years ago talking to Reverwood

0:12:59.320 --> 0:13:03.439
<v Speaker 3>about how like, in the early days of the environmental movement,

0:13:03.600 --> 0:13:08.360
<v Speaker 3>a lot of the environmental organizations were very specifically not

0:13:08.559 --> 0:13:10.280
<v Speaker 3>wanting to engage.

0:13:09.880 --> 0:13:13.760
<v Speaker 1>In either class struggle or racial equity, and part of

0:13:13.840 --> 0:13:16.880
<v Speaker 1>why they had created this whole separate environmental thing was

0:13:16.920 --> 0:13:19.440
<v Speaker 1>to be like, we're not engaging with that, you know.

0:13:20.080 --> 0:13:25.040
<v Speaker 1>And now I feel like climate has become a broader

0:13:25.559 --> 0:13:29.400
<v Speaker 1>movement and it has become more of a challenge to

0:13:30.800 --> 0:13:36.160
<v Speaker 1>certain class and racial problems as well. And I wonder if, like,

0:13:36.520 --> 0:13:38.920
<v Speaker 1>I don't know, maybe it's just as simple as like, hey,

0:13:38.960 --> 0:13:40.280
<v Speaker 1>it's a threat to capital.

0:13:40.920 --> 0:13:42.480
<v Speaker 2>I mean, let's get to the core of it, right,

0:13:42.520 --> 0:13:44.520
<v Speaker 2>I mean, the core of the of the problem is

0:13:44.520 --> 0:13:48.319
<v Speaker 2>that the media, you know, despite you know, certain instances

0:13:48.960 --> 0:13:53.559
<v Speaker 2>we're talking about broadcasts and cave of news right now,

0:13:54.679 --> 0:13:56.480
<v Speaker 2>they're they're kind of they don't really do a great

0:13:56.559 --> 0:13:59.320
<v Speaker 2>job on climate already. Right climate is not a top priority.

0:14:00.080 --> 0:14:02.320
<v Speaker 2>It's not covered like it needs to be. It's not

0:14:02.360 --> 0:14:05.400
<v Speaker 2>providing the context and substances it needs to be right

0:14:05.400 --> 0:14:08.120
<v Speaker 2>outside of a few moments in a few instances. So

0:14:08.160 --> 0:14:12.280
<v Speaker 2>already climate isn't taken seriously enough by these corporate news outlets.

0:14:12.480 --> 0:14:15.319
<v Speaker 2>Then on top of it, you add climate driven protests,

0:14:15.960 --> 0:14:17.880
<v Speaker 2>and then you add a climate during protest that are

0:14:17.920 --> 0:14:23.920
<v Speaker 2>deemed disrespectful or illegitimate because of the form of protest.

0:14:24.080 --> 0:14:27.720
<v Speaker 2>You know, you have this ready made recipe to either

0:14:27.760 --> 0:14:30.320
<v Speaker 2>ignore or distort what the protests are. And then you

0:14:30.320 --> 0:14:33.560
<v Speaker 2>add on the threat that they posed to vested interests

0:14:33.560 --> 0:14:36.440
<v Speaker 2>like the FALSS fuel industry, because all of the demands

0:14:36.480 --> 0:14:39.800
<v Speaker 2>are you know, immediately transition away from a false fuel

0:14:39.840 --> 0:14:42.880
<v Speaker 2>economy in order to thwart climate change. You got to

0:14:42.880 --> 0:14:44.960
<v Speaker 2>add that messaging in as well. I mean, it's just

0:14:45.160 --> 0:14:49.920
<v Speaker 2>it's a perfect recipe for poor coverage.

0:14:50.200 --> 0:14:53.680
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, have you gotten any sense in looking at all

0:14:53.760 --> 0:14:56.360
<v Speaker 3>of the coverage that may be part of it too.

0:14:56.480 --> 0:14:59.920
<v Speaker 1>Is the way that controversy sells. Having a bad guy

0:15:00.080 --> 0:15:04.280
<v Speaker 1>always kind of you know, brings people into a story.

0:15:04.520 --> 0:15:08.640
<v Speaker 1>There's just that kind of framing happening too, to make

0:15:08.680 --> 0:15:10.080
<v Speaker 1>the story more interesting.

0:15:11.560 --> 0:15:13.760
<v Speaker 2>I mean, definitely on a I mean, that's that's the

0:15:13.840 --> 0:15:18.760
<v Speaker 2>thing right on the Fox side, definitely. You know, however

0:15:18.760 --> 0:15:21.080
<v Speaker 2>you feel about these protests, they are designing to get

0:15:21.200 --> 0:15:23.600
<v Speaker 2>media attention, and they do get a lot of social

0:15:23.680 --> 0:15:26.800
<v Speaker 2>media attention. I thought they would be getting a lot

0:15:26.840 --> 0:15:30.360
<v Speaker 2>more attention on broadcasting cable news, but they didn't, which

0:15:30.400 --> 0:15:33.120
<v Speaker 2>is why Fox saw a ready made villain for their

0:15:33.160 --> 0:15:36.040
<v Speaker 2>audience and they seized it. You know, they seized that

0:15:36.160 --> 0:15:39.560
<v Speaker 2>narrative and they hammered it home time and again what

0:15:39.680 --> 0:15:44.480
<v Speaker 2>you got from the from mainstream corporate news was basically indifference. Yeah,

0:15:44.480 --> 0:15:48.400
<v Speaker 2>which to me, you know, yeah, so it's weird. You

0:15:48.440 --> 0:15:52.720
<v Speaker 2>have protests designed to write media attention and it got

0:15:52.800 --> 0:15:55.960
<v Speaker 2>mostly indifference from the from the main from the mainstream

0:15:56.160 --> 0:15:59.920
<v Speaker 2>media sources. But Fox definitely saw that narrative that you point,

0:16:00.040 --> 0:16:03.040
<v Speaker 2>know of already made villain. I think you know you

0:16:03.120 --> 0:16:07.520
<v Speaker 2>were talking about the weird tenor of the coverage mounted protests. Yeah,

0:16:07.600 --> 0:16:10.040
<v Speaker 2>another weird thing for me, which I would have at

0:16:10.120 --> 0:16:13.400
<v Speaker 2>least captured in some of the methodology, right, is, Yeah,

0:16:13.480 --> 0:16:17.480
<v Speaker 2>the media is complete lack of concern for the surveillance

0:16:17.520 --> 0:16:21.720
<v Speaker 2>capitalism state that is literally being built around us in

0:16:21.720 --> 0:16:24.680
<v Speaker 2>the shadows, and you don't hear about it at all,

0:16:24.720 --> 0:16:27.080
<v Speaker 2>and to me, more so to even protests, it's a

0:16:27.080 --> 0:16:29.080
<v Speaker 2>direct threat to how journalists can do their job.

0:16:29.160 --> 0:16:29.560
<v Speaker 1>Totally.

0:16:29.880 --> 0:16:34.040
<v Speaker 3>Yes, it's really interesting, and I wanted to ask you

0:16:34.080 --> 0:16:37.280
<v Speaker 3>too about the I know I've seen several stories in

0:16:37.320 --> 0:16:41.040
<v Speaker 3>this vein and I'm curious if you saw this emerging

0:16:41.080 --> 0:16:43.720
<v Speaker 3>as sort of a thread, But I do see coverage

0:16:43.760 --> 0:16:45.520
<v Speaker 3>of like who's.

0:16:45.200 --> 0:16:48.600
<v Speaker 1>Funding these activists, and not not just in the Fox

0:16:48.680 --> 0:16:51.440
<v Speaker 1>News you know, Sorrows Checks kind of way, but like

0:16:51.960 --> 0:16:55.880
<v Speaker 1>you know, the Near again, the New York Times, sorry

0:16:55.880 --> 0:16:59.200
<v Speaker 1>New York Times, but they read they ran a story

0:16:59.400 --> 0:17:03.600
<v Speaker 1>I don't know, maybe two years ago where the focal

0:17:03.640 --> 0:17:06.640
<v Speaker 1>point was that like a lot of the organizations that

0:17:07.000 --> 0:17:11.280
<v Speaker 1>are funding activism, their money comes.

0:17:10.880 --> 0:17:15.639
<v Speaker 3>From oil airs basically. But it was very much in

0:17:15.680 --> 0:17:19.840
<v Speaker 3>this like Soros checks kind of framing, and again there

0:17:19.880 --> 0:17:23.639
<v Speaker 3>wasn't much in there about why the individual people showing

0:17:23.720 --> 0:17:27.800
<v Speaker 3>up to these actions felt compelled to be doing this work.

0:17:27.880 --> 0:17:32.080
<v Speaker 3>And the idea that someone would be engaging in activism

0:17:32.480 --> 0:17:36.400
<v Speaker 3>as their job is like really vilified in the media

0:17:36.440 --> 0:17:42.760
<v Speaker 3>like that automatically means you're not credible, you're biased or whatever,

0:17:42.880 --> 0:17:45.520
<v Speaker 3>like you're a paid actor, that kind of thing. And

0:17:45.640 --> 0:17:51.239
<v Speaker 3>I mean, I don't know, I'm like, people have to

0:17:51.280 --> 0:17:53.639
<v Speaker 3>eat and pay rent. I don't think it's terrible for

0:17:53.680 --> 0:17:58.080
<v Speaker 3>someone to devote their life to something that they actually

0:17:58.560 --> 0:18:02.280
<v Speaker 3>feel strongly about. You know, that's usually applauded in many

0:18:02.680 --> 0:18:07.080
<v Speaker 3>areas of society. So yeah, I'm just I'm curious what

0:18:07.119 --> 0:18:10.600
<v Speaker 3>you've seen on the coverage of the money side of things.

0:18:11.080 --> 0:18:15.120
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, I remember reading that article, and they seem more

0:18:15.160 --> 0:18:18.920
<v Speaker 2>upset that she was a class trader than you know,

0:18:20.040 --> 0:18:25.680
<v Speaker 2>than anything, right. I mean, you know, I think transparency

0:18:25.720 --> 0:18:27.960
<v Speaker 2>and funding of journalists can dig into that stuff and

0:18:28.680 --> 0:18:32.840
<v Speaker 2>highlight it. I think an informous public discourse. But you know,

0:18:32.920 --> 0:18:37.120
<v Speaker 2>it's very one sided because ALEC is pushing a lot

0:18:37.119 --> 0:18:39.679
<v Speaker 2>of these infrastructure laws, and the false few industry is

0:18:39.680 --> 0:18:44.040
<v Speaker 2>behind them. It's funding them to push these criminalization of protests,

0:18:44.440 --> 0:18:47.600
<v Speaker 2>domestic terrorism, all this kind of draconian stuff. But you

0:18:47.680 --> 0:18:51.359
<v Speaker 2>never hear about this industry who's being greenwashed in the

0:18:51.359 --> 0:18:56.560
<v Speaker 2>mainstream media on the backhand pushing laws that would that

0:18:56.720 --> 0:19:02.800
<v Speaker 2>literally undermine democratically protected protest. So yeah, yeah, if you

0:19:02.840 --> 0:19:06.080
<v Speaker 2>want to cover the money trail, cover it for both sides,

0:19:06.119 --> 0:19:08.439
<v Speaker 2>and I think you'll find much deeper pockets on a

0:19:08.480 --> 0:19:11.600
<v Speaker 2>fossil fuel and then you will on a few rich

0:19:11.640 --> 0:19:14.280
<v Speaker 2>progressives funding some climate activist groups.

0:19:14.720 --> 0:19:18.600
<v Speaker 1>Yeah. I can't think of a single mainstream outlet that

0:19:18.640 --> 0:19:22.159
<v Speaker 1>I've seen even cover the critical Infrastructure laws, which like

0:19:24.200 --> 0:19:27.600
<v Speaker 1>seems like a pretty big deal. Post has covered it,

0:19:27.720 --> 0:19:32.040
<v Speaker 1>The Intercept, Unicorn Riot, you know, these kinds of outlets.

0:19:32.119 --> 0:19:35.440
<v Speaker 1>The Guardian has covered it. That seems like it would

0:19:35.480 --> 0:19:37.920
<v Speaker 1>make for really good TV. That story.

0:19:38.200 --> 0:19:41.760
<v Speaker 2>You know, I always think, like the generalists print and

0:19:41.840 --> 0:19:45.200
<v Speaker 2>online during has worked so hard. These stories are already prepackaged, right,

0:19:45.400 --> 0:19:47.920
<v Speaker 2>so building a news segment around it, to me doesn't

0:19:47.920 --> 0:19:49.639
<v Speaker 2>seem like that big of a stretch because most of

0:19:49.680 --> 0:19:54.679
<v Speaker 2>the work's been done, but you still don't see it.

0:19:54.680 --> 0:19:57.920
<v Speaker 1>It's been very well documented that the fossil fuel industry

0:19:58.080 --> 0:20:01.760
<v Speaker 1>funded that work. American fuel and petrol chemicals helped to

0:20:01.880 --> 0:20:07.680
<v Speaker 1>write the legislation. I mean, it's literally it's all there

0:20:08.640 --> 0:20:09.000
<v Speaker 1>in some.

0:20:08.920 --> 0:20:12.000
<v Speaker 3>Ways, you know, like we're doing this series and some

0:20:12.080 --> 0:20:14.479
<v Speaker 3>of the stories I'm kind of like, isn't that old news?

0:20:14.520 --> 0:20:17.879
<v Speaker 1>But I'm like, well, it hasn't actually really broken through

0:20:17.960 --> 0:20:21.440
<v Speaker 1>somehow to people that this is happening. And I also

0:20:21.440 --> 0:20:26.920
<v Speaker 1>feel like, actually it has bipartisan appeal when I talk

0:20:26.920 --> 0:20:31.479
<v Speaker 1>to people who are otherwise fairly right wing about and

0:20:31.520 --> 0:20:33.800
<v Speaker 1>I don't even tell them that it's related to climate

0:20:33.840 --> 0:20:38.679
<v Speaker 1>protest in particular. I just criminalization of protest. They're like,

0:20:39.080 --> 0:20:42.600
<v Speaker 1>that's not right, you know what es should be happening,

0:20:42.800 --> 0:20:46.480
<v Speaker 1>you know, So I don't. I don't know. It's very strange.

0:20:47.520 --> 0:20:50.639
<v Speaker 2>I mean, there are people in my life who, you know,

0:20:50.640 --> 0:20:54.359
<v Speaker 2>who I love, but who get their news primarily from

0:20:55.280 --> 0:20:57.439
<v Speaker 2>kind of the main corporate They don't get much of

0:20:57.440 --> 0:21:00.920
<v Speaker 2>their news from online news sources, independent news sources, and

0:21:01.000 --> 0:21:03.280
<v Speaker 2>yeah they don't you know, every time I publish something

0:21:03.359 --> 0:21:04.919
<v Speaker 2>or share something with them, they have no idea that

0:21:04.960 --> 0:21:07.600
<v Speaker 2>this stuff is going on. Yeah, I mean, no idea.

0:21:07.800 --> 0:21:10.439
<v Speaker 2>And to me that's a complete dereliction of duty.

0:21:11.800 --> 0:21:17.280
<v Speaker 1>Yes, especially when you're talking about laws that criminalize sort

0:21:17.320 --> 0:21:20.960
<v Speaker 1>of a key part of democracy in this way. I

0:21:21.080 --> 0:21:25.359
<v Speaker 1>just it's really shocking that it's not everywhere. In general,

0:21:25.400 --> 0:21:28.440
<v Speaker 1>I feel like the we just are so far away

0:21:28.440 --> 0:21:31.719
<v Speaker 1>from the media kind of taking any responsibility for this stuff.

0:21:31.840 --> 0:21:33.440
<v Speaker 2>I mean, I guess it wouldn't matter as much if

0:21:33.480 --> 0:21:37.760
<v Speaker 2>so many voting age people still didn't primarily get their

0:21:37.800 --> 0:21:41.960
<v Speaker 2>news from one of these mainstream news sources. And I

0:21:41.960 --> 0:21:43.439
<v Speaker 2>think these are these are people that we need to

0:21:43.480 --> 0:21:47.280
<v Speaker 2>reach in order to actually drive climate action, to put

0:21:47.320 --> 0:21:51.000
<v Speaker 2>profession on politicians and policy makers, and you know, I

0:21:51.040 --> 0:21:53.560
<v Speaker 2>think that's why it's so important. If they're not hearing

0:21:53.600 --> 0:21:57.920
<v Speaker 2>about any of this stuff, Yeah, it's it's just only

0:21:58.200 --> 0:21:58.840
<v Speaker 2>going to get worse.

0:21:59.680 --> 0:22:02.960
<v Speaker 1>Yeah. Is there anything that you've found in the study

0:22:02.960 --> 0:22:04.879
<v Speaker 1>that we didn't talk about already that you want to

0:22:04.880 --> 0:22:07.159
<v Speaker 1>make sure people know about.

0:22:07.359 --> 0:22:10.520
<v Speaker 2>I think the media they think that if they mentioned

0:22:10.520 --> 0:22:12.600
<v Speaker 2>climate change or connected to an extreme whether you're in

0:22:13.040 --> 0:22:15.040
<v Speaker 2>you know, that is an improvement. But this is what

0:22:15.280 --> 0:22:18.000
<v Speaker 2>should have been happening ten twenty years ago. What they

0:22:18.000 --> 0:22:21.560
<v Speaker 2>don't understand is that they have to rapidly improve their

0:22:21.600 --> 0:22:24.080
<v Speaker 2>coverage to catch up to where we are now. We're

0:22:24.119 --> 0:22:27.359
<v Speaker 2>way past just mentioning climate change. I mean, like you

0:22:27.480 --> 0:22:30.080
<v Speaker 2>mentioned climate I mean, thank you for doing it again.

0:22:30.240 --> 0:22:34.720
<v Speaker 2>Keep doing it, Yes, but you have to like rapidly

0:22:34.760 --> 0:22:38.640
<v Speaker 2>scale up the quality of your courage and I just don't.

0:22:38.920 --> 0:22:41.080
<v Speaker 2>I think they're still caught up in well, we were

0:22:41.080 --> 0:22:44.320
<v Speaker 2>mentioned in climate, we're saying extreme weather. But we're way

0:22:44.400 --> 0:22:47.520
<v Speaker 2>past that and they need to really and the more people,

0:22:47.680 --> 0:22:51.840
<v Speaker 2>more groups can agitate for that kind of rapid improvement, yes,

0:22:52.000 --> 0:22:53.840
<v Speaker 2>shame shame them, I think the better