The media doesn’t know what to do. Are Trump’s tweets as important as Ivanka’s bracelets, or more? Does Mar-a-Lago have the same importance as Chris Christie? Or is the main Christie angle the meatloaf part? Are Trump’s Cabinet nominees fully qualified to destroy the departments they were named to head? Or not quite?

AD

Getting lost in all the commotion, as it always does in U.S. media, is the climate. Big ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ’s! As ever.

AD

Is there a “deep media,” like the deep state? Is there a cabal of media players who made an agreement 30 years ago to treat climate change as a peripheral news story? There might as well have been, because that’s the way it has always been covered. How do we know this? Because if impact is the correct measure of news, climate change would have been getting banner headlines just about nonstop for decades. Instead it has been covered as a sideline curiosity, and a stupidly debatable one at that.

The warnings and dangers were clear from the beginning, as simple as arithmetic and basic chemistry, as scientists calculated. And so did Exxon.

AD

And yet here we are, far, far behind the action curve, with a cretinous president about to purposely fumble our last best opportunity to save some semblance of a stable climate. But where is the attention? Where is the focus? Where are the banner headlines?