An Iowa meteorologist started talking about climate change on newscasts. Then came the harassment
HANNAH FINGERHUT, HEATHER HOLLINGSWORTH and SUMMER BALLENTINE
Sat, 8 July 2023 at 1:05 am GMT-4·5-min read
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — The harassment started to intensify as TV meteorologist Chris Gloninger did more reporting on climate change during local newscasts — outraged emails and even a threat to show up at his house.
Gloninger said he had been recruited, in part, to “shake things up” at the Iowa station where he worked, but backlash was building. The man who sent him a series of threatening emails was charged with third-degree harassment. The Des Moines station asked him to dial back his coverage, facing what he called an understandable pressure to maintain ratings.
“I started just connecting the dots between extreme weather and climate change, and then the volume of pushback started to increase quite dramatically,” he said in an interview with The Associated Press.
So, on June 21, he announced that he was leaving KCCI-TV — and his 18-year career in broadcast journalism altogether.
Gloninger's experience is all too common among meteorologists across the country who are encountering reactions from viewers as they tie climate change to extreme temperatures, blizzards, tornadoes and floods in their local weather reports. For on-air meteorologists, the anti-science trend that has emerged in recent years compounds a deepening skepticism of the news media.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/harassment-tv-meteorologists-reflects-broader-050521800.html?soc_src=social-sh&soc_trk=tw&tsrc=twtr
( Weird I know, but I wish we could give the cons their own island mass, since they're not worried about climate change. Please, just get out and leave us to address the needs of the present and future. )
= new reply since forum marked as read
Maybe we should ask them about that
Notably, Eisenhowever-the-supreme-commander rose as a result of extremism overseas. Then Roosevelt-the-progressive-conservative president followed and no doubt was part of the continuing reaction against the era of surging extremism, both R and L, here.
I'm sure looking forward to when we've "followed."
Bruce Bartlett, amazing turn around....sincere, honest. Hope springs eternal!
I presume masses would just do what they're told, whatever direction they're herded at the time.
In our democracy, like Canada's and others, it'll happen when when enough citizens decide to vote for those advocating it, the kind of people who have the required independence from pernicious mass influencers. Mostly Democrats these days, of course.
of course, but somehow tribal and ideological dynamics in our country have mostly stabilized around two. Yes, they've tended to tamp efforts to form more parties, but it's a mistake to imagine the wealthy and powerful have kept the will of hundreds of millions of people confined all this time. This has been studied for over 200 years. More parties even when successfully formed ultimately fail for other reasons.
The NDP, and similar factions, is relegated to backbenches by its minority size, views that appeal to few, including inappropriate righteousness and belief that everyone else must change dramatically, opposition to "the establishment" that liberal Democrats always strive to get control of and put to big use, and inability to respect and ally with others.
Importantly, liberal ideals and ideology lead to the creation of our liberal democracy, the Democratic Party is America's liberal party, and liberals believe in finding ways to work with and accommodate people with other views. We're as naturally wired for it as some are not.
Maybe consider that some 80M mainstream Democratic voters and their reps (sent to work with the establishment they helped create and believe works well when allowed to) would be unable to agree with, much less admire!, being regarded as a fundamental problem requiring elimination. They don't see themselves as a "mass." Their roles and rights are as individuals and citizens.
The sad reality for minority factions who want what most don't, but are constitutionally incapable of cooperating with others to form alliances that can win elections, is that majorities get to rule. Elections are won by those who can and do.
You might take another, different look for anything that's workable about the Democratic Party. The vast majority of America's ideological groups, racial, religious and ethnic groups, and other special interest groups choose to belong to and work through the Democratic Party. Think what that says about us!
And almost all elected Democratic representatives (all those able to make a difference) come to work expecting to continually squabble, ally, and negotiate with colleagues who have other views and goals, year after decade after century, to get their constituents' share. Republicans are currently trying to destroy our democracy by refusing to do their job, and there's a clue in that.
Fwiw, I would never join a faction that doesn't believe in the pluralism and cooperation required by representative government. But then I'm liberal, not illiberal, and committed to continuation of our democracy.
It's not all oceanfront, and apparently a lot people, with HVAC as their ace card, choose threats of giant hurricanes over guarantees of snow shovels and giant blizzards.
We will see very significant, in some areas prohibitive, land value increases up north, no doubt already are. At one time I really seriously wanted to invest for the future, for us and whoever we left it to, but my husband, who hates the cold, wanted to invest in living now.
Kick in to the DU tip jar?
This week we're running a special pop-up mini fund drive. From Monday through Friday we're going ad-free for all registered members, and we're asking you to kick in to the DU tip jar to support the site and keep us financially healthy.
As a bonus, making a contribution will allow you to leave kudos for another DU member, and at the end of the week we'll recognize the DUers who you think make this community great.
