Research/Study
Cable news coverage of the Supreme Court’s West Virginia v. EPA ruling was a mixed bag
Coverage dropped significantly after day one and failed to apply an environmental justice lens to the story or explore the fossil fuel industry’s role in the decision
Published
The Supreme Court’s recent decision in West Virginia v. EPA, which severely curtailed the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate greenhouse gases, was widely covered across the three major cable news networks. On June 30, the day the decision was announced, original programming on CNN covered the ruling for approximately 62 minutes across 21 segments, while MSNBC covered it for approximately 47 minutes across 20 segments. Fox News, which predictably celebrated the decision, covered it for 37 minutes across 16 segments.
With only 10 segments mentioning the fossil fuel industry — 8 mentions on MSNBC and 2 on CNN — cable news outlets missed a key opportunity to mention how the fossil fuel industry helped shape the ruling or stands to benefit from it. They also failed to frame the decision via an environmental justice lens with only 1 MSNBC segment mentioning how the decision would impact socially marginalized communities.
Despite this, CNN’s and MSNBC’s coverage during the first 24 hours after the decision was announced was broadly substantive, focusing on the high-level details of the ruling and explaining how it will limit the ability of the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases from power plants. The better segments, some of which we highlight below, went a little deeper by detailing the fossil fuel industry’s role in shepherding the ruling, explaining how the decision would hinder the EPA’s ability to take ambitious climate action, and/or featuring a climate scientist or activist.
Unfortunately, the quantity of coverage dropped significantly over the next few days. By scaling back coverage, the networks’ limited their ability to dig deeper into key elements of the story such as who the decision could affect — primarily minority and low-income communities and who the decision benefits — the fossil fuel industry and its political allies.