Oh, great. Another hard-to-read study with a title so boring it might as well be paired with a pillow for a nap: Localizing (or not localizing) climate change in U.S. Spanish-language newspapers. Don’t let this pseudo-neutral title fool you. This paper is the academic equivalent of a toddler stamping her foot because she doesn't get her way. Not enough climate panic in Spanish-language newspapers? It's time to listen to the lecture!
abstract
Most studies of climate change news coverage have examined single countries or cross-national comparisons and have focused primarily on mainstream news media. Scholars have not yet thoroughly examined minority media as a primary source of information for racial minorities, such as Latino immigrants, who are the primary audience for Spanish-language publications in the United States. This study uses thematic analysis to examine Spanish-language newspaper coverage of climate change in the United States. The results show very limited news coverage in 2010 and 2013, followed by positive trends in 2014 and 2019. For their audiences, this suggests a huge information gap for millions of immigrants.
…
This study uses thematic analysis to examine Spanish-language newspaper coverage of climate change in the United States. Most past research on climate change news coverage has examined single countries or cross-national comparisons (e.g. Hase et al., Citation 2021). This research has focused primarily on mainstream news media and more recently on professional publications (e.g. Russell et al., Citation 2023). Researchers have not examined ethnic or immigrant media as primary sources of information for minority groups such as Latino immigrants, who are the primary audience for Spanish-language publications. This study explores the extent to which climate coverage in U.S. Spanish-language media positions this issue—similar to other important issues in Spanish-language publications. Climate briefings pose a challenge for immigrant media, which often prioritizes content that supports community assimilation, such as local news, legal services, and health care, over specialized tech topics that seem less directly relevant to their audiences’ daily lives (Takahashi et al., 2017).
What follows is a masterpiece of tone-deaf paternalism, filled with enough buzzwords and catchy jargon to suffocate climate-conscious EVs. Let's break it down.
paternalistic tone
Authors Bruno Takahashi and Maria Fernanda Salas must have been wearing capes while writing this article. You can almost hear them whispering, “Don't worry, marginalized communities! We'll show you the way!” This paper reeks of an elitist arrogance about construction workers in Florida or farm workers in California. It takes academics to teach them about the real dangers of life. Spoiler alert: they don't.
Author complains about Spanish-language newspapers like Opinion and daily news Not alarmist enough about climate change. Apparently, stories about the local impact of hurricanes, wildfires, or rising temperatures are not “local” enough. According to these ivory tower heroes, these newspapers should be covering climate hysteria across the board instead of focusing on the things their readers actually care about — like immigration policy, health issues, and, you know, rent.
The author failed to realize that these newspapers would prioritize community-relevant content and instead swooped in to criticize like a malfunctioning drone. How dare these media outlets focus on real issues when there is an abstract “climate crisis” that demands attention? Takahashi and Salas seem to believe that the Spanish-speaking community is simply waiting to be enlightened by headlines about Antarctica's melting glaciers.
Offensive Jargon: “Latino” and Friends
We have to talk about the linguistic crimes committed here, starting with “Latin”. Even though 97% (really 97%, by the way) of Hispanics reject this strange concoction, academics just won't let it go. It's like a bad fashion trend that no one asks for but keeps showing up on the catwalk. The author sprinkles “Latin” throughout the paper as if it is universally accepted, blissfully unaware that most Spanish speakers find it unnecessary at best and offensive at worst sexual.
But wait – there’s more! Enter the term “minority” and it sounds like it was created after one too many pumpkin spice lattes at a college activist seminar. “Minorization” should be an upgraded version of “marginalization,” because why use a perfect word when you can create a clunky replacement that makes you sound more important? The authors argue that the term is widely used to describe communities that have fallen victim to the failure of their own media to adequately spread climate panic.
The Folly of “Localization”
One of the author's main complaints is the failure of Spanish-language newspapers to “localize” climate change coverage. Let’s cut through this nonsense. According to Takahashi and Salas, articles about hurricanes devastating Florida or wildfires scorching California are not local enough because they don't always explicitly link these events to climate change. Clearly, describing the direct effects of natural disasters is not enough without a lecture on global carbon emissions.
Here's a thought: Maybe the local audience is more concerned with finding resources for post-hurricane recovery than the IPCC report. But this is not the case, and the authors insist that these newspapers are failing their communities by not adequately integrating climate science into disaster coverage. This is the academic version of yelling at people who don’t read the ingredients on their cereal boxes when they’re hungry.
“Raising awareness” is not the solution
As expected, the authors fall back on the cliché of “raising awareness.” You know, because if people just Know Regarding the climate crisis, they'll stop driving, plant trees, and hold hands around solar panels. The authors provide no evidence that more local climate coverage would inspire meaningful changes. They just assumed that if newspapers in Spanish-speaking communities published more articles blaming climate change for extreme weather, they would suddenly embrace net-zero policies.
This blind faith in the transformative power of consciousness is profoundly naive. If mainstream media coverage hasn’t made much of a difference for decades, why is the Spanish-language media suddenly changing the game? But hey, facts don’t matter when you live in the bubble of academic groupthink.
The Paris Agreement: A familiar villain
A large part of the newspaper's analysis focused on coverage of the Paris Agreement, because nothing says “local news” like a global climate summit. The author praises newspapers for increasing climate coverage during Trump's presidency and attributes this to his withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. Of course, they couldn't resist a fierce attack on Trump, calling his climate skepticism extremely dangerous. The story is so predictable that it could have its own theme music.
At the same time, the authors lament the decline in climate coverage during the COVID-19 pandemic. Imagine how frustrated they feel when newspapers prioritize a global health scare over their favorite topic. But in climate academia, nothing — not even coverage of a global pandemic — should overshadow the climate crisis.
The “solution” for Spanish-language media
The author concludes with a list of “real impacts,” which boil down to telling Spanish-language media to copy and paste mainstream climate narratives. They suggest these outlets adopt “solutions journalism” and practice “solidarity journalism” which is just a fancy way of “being less objective and pushing our agenda.” The paper also recommends providing these newspapers with more training and resources so they can hire professional climate journalists. Because what underserved communities really need is more articles about carbon sequestration, not about jobs or housing.
final thoughts
This paper is a master class in scholarship. It criticizes Spanish-language media for failing to center climate change while ignoring the possibility that these media understand their audiences better than some researchers with word processors and superiority complexes.
Perhaps the authors should spend more time addressing the actual priorities of the communities they claim to care about, rather than punishing these newspapers for not toeing the climate line. Until then, they will continue to publish unreadable studies filled with terms like “Latino” and “minority” that serve only themselves.
For Takahashi and Salas, here's the hard truth: Spanish-language newspapers don't need your help. What they need is for you to stop treating their audience like ignorant pawns in the climate movement.
Relevant
