[csallen]

How would that explain things? If there were significantly more pro-climate action press releases than anti-, you'd expect to see similar a proportion of coverage, not the opposite. A better explanation is that the news likes to focus on rare, novel, and/or controversial statements.

It's also worth noting that the article doesn't seem to differentiate between positive and negative coverage. So anti-climate action press releases might be receiving significantly more negative coverage.

[cptnapalm]

The old explanation that "dog bites man" is not news, but "man bites dog" is. I do wonder what the effect is when the news on a topic is all "man bites dog". Does an appreciable percentage of readers begin thinking that "man bites dog" is so incredibly common now that something must be done and that "dog bites man" is just a myth?

[imtringued]

When you "consume" a new piece of information you have are three options: verify it yourself, believe without proof or dismiss it without proof.

The problem is that some claims are hard to verify so you immediately have to believe or dismiss the claim without proof. However, when you receive new information it is possible to change your stance on unproven claims. Over time you develop a network of claims that strengthen each other. This makes you less susceptible to obviously wrong information because you can easily cross check it based on several existing claims. The downside is that when you see a new obviously correct claim it could potentially require you to throw out a large portion of your existing beliefs. It's less risky to just deny the claim even if it had substance.