The article ”Why won’t US TV news say ‘Climate Change'” by Mark Hertsgaard, which was published by The Guardian on the second of September 2021, tackles reports on current natural catastrophes.

Hertsgaard claims, that major news platforms such as ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox, NBC and MSNBC do not include the words ‘climate change’ in their reports. He backs this up by saying that out of 774 reports only 34 included it. He states that this is a problem because viewers will not make a connections between the reported events and the bigger picture. Furthermore he refers to reporters that put forward how the climate change is “super-charge” the events. Lastly, Hertsgaard quotes specialists such as Kerry Emmanuel who suggests: “This is exactly the kind of thing we’re going to have to get used to as the planet warms.”

To some extend this is a successful report as it fulfills criteria that make a good article. The article talks about a relevant topic, as the hurricane Ida is a disaster that affects many people in the US. Further more the event is current and therefore even more relevant. The author also connects these current events to the general topic of climate change and therefore uses the latest events and the public interest to create awareness for an ongoing topic such as global warming. Hence, this makes what the author says timeless at the same time, as it will still be relevant once the hurricane Ida is not present in the news and media anymore. The hurricane Ida was also compared to hurricane Katrina, known for its immense impact and damage in 2005. Therefore, the historical prominence of the topic is what makes the article more relevant. Finally, the article also encounters topics of conflict, as there is a disagreement amongst the population to whether or not climate change exists and to what extent it is caused by humans.

Climate change is a topic where opinions separate. There is scientific evidence that climate change and global warming does exist, however a portion of people still do not believe in it. When looking at the article, it becomes apparent that the author sees climate change as a severe problem and he allows his opinion to affect his writing. This can be seen at the negative connoted words he uses when referring to the lack of connection to climate change such as “inexcusably”, “malpractice”, “mistake” and “egregious”.

Further, the author involves himself in his writing by saying: “My own survey of the coverage confirmed the trend.” This underpins the lack of objectivity because he already has shown a negative attitude towards the topic and his research is therefore not going to be neutral.

Overall, the article strategically implements itself well in what it wants to address and achieve, however, it could have been written in a more sober tone. The lack of objectiveness by the author make the statements less credible as it seems as if he wants to convince the reader of his viewpoint, which is that everyone should be worried about climate change and take it effects serious.