How Several Magazines Would Handle the Topic of Climate Change

The Economist article would be mostly exposition presented with a sense of humour meant to appeal to a conservative British bureaucrat. It would focus on the financial impacts to international corporations of various climate change scenarios. It would be full of wonky policy language and numerical figures, presented skillfully enough to slide it over the threshold of readability. The tone would be that of an Oxford textbook combined with one of Ross Douthat's more recent columns, insofar as it would ooze disgust for the common rabble and their inaccurate concerns about the issue. Alongside the article they'd place a photo of a coal plant belching black smoke into the atmosphere, under which would be a dryly ironic caption, probably a non-sequitur, such as “Coal is expected to deliver up to 86% of global energy demand by 2020.” The headline would also be ironic. The subhead might be a pun. Quotes would be fragmented and presented out of context. Readers would have no idea who wrote the piece, but it would sound the same as all the rest of the articles.

O magazine: even if the lead story was about global warming, the cover would still feature nothing but a portrait of Oprah. The story would be titled something like “Oprah Tackles Climate Change: Are We Doing Enough?” The story would revolve entirely around Oprah's token gestures to reduce flight time in her Leer jet, and her initiative to accomplish something ambitious represented by a tall number. The assumptions regarding climate change would all conform to those that the mainstream press bandies about and upon which everyone already agrees. The article would transparently advocate several unoriginal solutions to global warming, and appeal to sentiments about “the future of our children.” There would be a box about “What You Can Do.” The tips would be things like “Carpool” and “Use Less Styrofoam.” The article's vocabulary would not exceed Flesch–Kincaid grade level 6. Its tone would be chatty and optimistic.

The Nation would feature a lengthy reported essay in which the author would lay out a reasoned critique of everything the US government and America as a whole has ever done in regards to climate change. It would sound like a policy paper combined with Howard Zinn's People's History of the United States. Somehow, the author would tie in a social-justice angle. Over and over he would coolly describe the ways in which greedy capitalists, our obtuse citizenry and compromised politicians have led us to the brink of global doom. He would describe how the marginalized elements of society would be even more vulnerable to the destruction climate change is poised to wrought, and how the rich have insulated themselves from such problems. The rich would come out looking like a cabal of bloodthirsty crooks. All of our attempts to address the problem would be similarly demolished. Many of the sources would be bitter academics left over from the 70s. They would use anachronistic ideological terms like “Trotskyism.” They would blame right-wing administrations of the distant past. The author would present no realistic solutions to the problem, but would suggest that the government spend large amounts of money rectifying it.

Mother Jones would have a strongly-researched expose of wholesale corruption written in an accessible narrative style. The article would be in first-person perspective and start out with an anecdote, and then go on to deliver a blistering volley of indicting facts. The author would illustrate at least ten instances of mind-boggling hypocrisy and bold-faced lying. He would identify specific villains. They would be obscure, influential people, probably business executives. There would be pictures of these people in their natural habitats. The author would indict at least one prominent person that the readers had assumed was alright. The editorial tone would appeal to intelligent, informed, white bourgeois liberals. The layout would be aesthetically pleasing and would include infographics.

The National Review article would be about the dangerous steps liberals are taking in response to global warming. The title would be “Global Warming: The Hidden Agenda.” There would be an obscene cartoon of Al Gore dancing around on the cover. The article would focus entirely on the risks of doing anything to try to curtail global warming. The author would demolish the liberals' suggested approaches to climate change. The tone would be pushy, loud, and full of fear. Money would be the dominant theme. The author would confidently claim that the liberals had already sowed the seeds of their own destruction, and that their downfall was imminent. Most claims would be hyperbolic. The author would be a coal industry lobbyist.

FINIS.