This reminds me of an exercise that my Environmental Studies class did in high school in which different groups were tasked with giving a presentation on climate change aimed at different demographics: coal miners, third graders, and high school students. The audience to the presentation (the other students in the class) would pretend to be that audience and ask questions afterwards related to their specific concerns. It really highlighted how the focus depends on audience and how a variety of communication is necessary to reach every audience.

Is relating an "unbiased" or less alarmist view on climate change actually very partial to those who do not believe in it? By "hearing everyone out" with climate change, it calls into question the entirety of the phenomena and directs the focus away from actual action.

While I was reading this, and as this chapter began exploring very specific frames and subtleties related to climate change media, I found myself wanting to refocus to the bigger picture: what is the goal of understanding all of this if we are not to be journalists ourselves? This cycle of media being sold to people who are too preoccupied with their own lives to consider these issues deeply will continue. It made me wonder if communicating these issues (including the issue of how difficult it is to communicate) in as simple and universal language as possible should be the goal. In this way, it is a bit ironic that this reading is so technical, because it makes understanding how climate change is communicated less accessible to the public, meaning that they will continue to misinterpret the issues at hand.