The following is a guest article by Charles Rotter.

Oh, fantastic. Another unreadable study with a title so boring it might as well come with a pillow for nap breaks: Localizing (or Not) Climate Change in Spanish-Language Newspapers in the United States. Don’t let that faux-neutral title fool you. This paper is the academic equivalent of a toddler stomping its feet because it didn’t get its way. Spanish-language newspapers aren’t panicking enough about the climate? Time for a lecture!

ABSTRACT

Most research on climate change news coverage has examined individual countries or cross-national comparisons and has focused largely on mainstream news outlets. Scholars have not thoroughly examined ethnic media that serve as a main source of information for minoritized people, such as Latin American immigrants, the primary audience for Spanish-language publications in the United States. This study examines Spanish-language newspaper coverage of climate change in the United States using thematic analysis. Results show that news coverage during 2010 and 2013 was very limited, followed by a positive trend between 2014 and 2019. Coverage dipped in 2020 and 2021. Results show that the coverage resembles coverage in mainstream English-language media, and does not localize the issue for their audiences, which suggests a significant information gap for millions of immigrants.

…

The present study examines Spanish-language newspaper coverage of climate change in the United States using thematic analysis. Most past research on climate change news coverage has examined individual countries or cross-national comparisons (e.g. Hase et al., Citation2021). That research has mostly focused on mainstream news outlets, with a recent focus on specialized publications (e.g. Russell et al., Citation2023). Researchers have not examined ethnic or immigrant media that serve as a main source of information for minoritized people, such as Latin American immigrants, the primary audience for Spanish-language publications. This study examines the extent to which climate coverage in US Spanish-language media localize the issue – similar to other issues of importance to Spanish-language publications. Climate reporting poses challenges for immigrant media, which often prioritize content that supports community assimilation – such as local news, legal services, and health care – over specialized, technical topics that may seem less immediately relevant to their audience’s daily lives (Takahashi et al., Citation2015).

What follows is a tour de force of tone-deaf paternalism, packed with enough buzzwords and woke terminology to choke a climate-conscious electric vehicle. Let’s break it down.

The Paternalistic Tone

The authors Bruno Takahashi and María Fernanda Salas must have been wearing capes while writing this. You can almost hear them whispering, “Don’t worry, marginalized communities! We’ll show you the way!” This paper oozes the kind of elitist arrogance that assumes a Florida construction worker or California farmhand needs academics to teach them about the real dangers in their lives. Spoiler alert: they don’t.

The authors complain that Spanish-language newspapers like La Opinión and El Diario la Prensa aren’t sufficiently alarmist about climate change. Apparently, stories about hurricanes, wildfires, or the local impacts of rising temperatures aren’t “localized” enough. According to these ivory-tower heroes, these papers should be running wall-to-wall climate hysteria rather than focusing on things their audiences actually care about—like immigration policies, health concerns, and, you know, making rent.

Instead of recognizing that these newspapers prioritize content their communities find relevant, the authors swoop in with the grace of a malfunctioning drone to criticize. How dare these outlets focus on practical matters when there’s an abstract “climate crisis” to spotlight? Takahashi and Salas seem to believe that Spanish-speaking communities are just waiting to be enlightened by headlines about melting glaciers in Antarctica.

Offensive Jargon: “Latinx” and Friends

We have to talk about the linguistic crimes committed here, starting with “Latinx.” Despite the fact that 97% , (a real 97% btw) of Hispanic people have rejected this bizarre concoction​, academics just won’t let it go. It’s like a bad fashion trend that no one asked for but keeps showing up on the runway. The authors sprinkle “Latinx” throughout the paper as if it’s universally embraced, blissfully unaware that most Spanish speakers consider it at best unnecessary and at worst offensive.

But wait—there’s more! Enter “minoritized,” a term that sounds like it was created in a college activism seminar after too many pumpkin spice lattes. “Minoritized” is supposed to be an upgrade from “marginalized,” because why use a perfectly good word when you can create a clunky replacement that makes you sound more important? This term gets deployed liberally to describe communities that, according to the authors, are victims of their own media’s failure to adequately fearmonger about the climate.

The Idiocy of “Localization”

One of the authors’ main gripes is that Spanish-language newspapers fail to “localize” climate change coverage. Let’s unpack this nonsense. According to Takahashi and Salas, articles about hurricanes devastating Florida or wildfires scorching California aren’t localized enough because they don’t always connect these events explicitly to climate change. Apparently, describing the immediate impacts of natural disasters isn’t sufficient without a lecture about global carbon emissions.

Here’s an idea: maybe local audiences care more about finding resources to rebuild after a hurricane than about a report from the IPCC. But no, the authors insist that these newspapers are failing their communities by not sufficiently integrating climate science into their disaster reporting. It’s the academic version of yelling at someone for not reading the ingredients on a box of cereal while they’re starving.

“Raising Awareness” Is Not a Solution

As expected, the authors fall back on the tired cliché of “raising awareness.” You know, because if people just knew about the climate crisis, they’d stop driving cars, plant trees, and hold hands around a solar panel. The authors provide no evidence that more localized climate coverage would inspire meaningful change. They simply assume that Spanish-speaking communities would suddenly embrace Net Zero policies if their newspapers ran more articles blaming extreme weather on climate change.

This blind faith in the transformative power of awareness is painfully naive. If decades of mainstream media coverage haven’t moved the needle much, why would Spanish-language outlets suddenly change the game? But hey, when you live in a bubble of academic groupthink, facts don’t really matter.

The Paris Agreement: A Familiar Villain

A significant chunk of the paper’s analysis centers on coverage of the Paris Agreement, because nothing says “local news” like a global climate summit. The authors praise newspapers for increasing climate coverage during Trump’s presidency, attributing the spike to his withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. Of course, they can’t resist taking a swipe at Trump, framing his climate skepticism as uniquely dangerous. This narrative is so predictable it might as well come with its own theme music.

Meanwhile, the authors bemoan the dip in climate coverage during the COVID-19 pandemic. Imagine their dismay when newspapers prioritized, you know, a global health panic over their pet topic. But in the world of climate academia, nothing—not even the global pandemic coverage—should overshadow the climate crisis.

“Solutions” for Spanish-Language Media

The authors conclude with a list of “practical implications,” which boil down to telling Spanish-language media to copy-paste mainstream climate narratives. They suggest these outlets adopt “solutions journalism” and practice “solidarity journalism,” which are just fancy ways of saying, “Be less objective and push our agenda.” The paper also suggests that more training and resources be funneled into these newspapers so they can hire specialized climate reporters. Because what underserved communities really need is more articles about carbon sequestration and fewer about jobs or housing.

Final Thoughts

This paper is a masterclass in academic tone-deafness. It critiques Spanish-language media for failing to center climate change while ignoring the possibility that these outlets know their audiences better than a couple of researchers with word processors and a superiority complex.

Instead of chastising these newspapers for not toeing the climate line, perhaps the authors should spend more time addressing the actual priorities of the communities they claim to care about. Until then, they’ll continue producing unreadable studies filled with terms like “Latinx” and “minoritized” that serve no one but their own egos.

Here’s the harsh truth for Takahashi and Salas: Spanish-language newspapers don’t need your help. What they need is for you to stop treating their audiences like clueless pawns in your climate crusade.

This piece originally appeared at WattsUpWithThat.com and has been republished here with permission.