My view on this is that in all news there is editorial. If you choose not to report on the latest goings on in Ghana you are changing what information will get to your readers. Reporting is inherently done with a perspective, even if it is only in the sense of choosing what to report on.

The key issue for climate change is that things are changing due to human activity. There are lots of ancillary issues, for example how exactly things are changing or who is responsible for causing the situation. These are all valid parts of the overall story of climate change and each one adds to the knowledge of your readers. Adding another story of a bushfire does provide more context to your readers, but at some point diminishing returns starts to rear its ugly head.

If you only focus on the harms and never talk about solutions you are in fact biasing the information given to your readers. Recognising that you have not been providing a full context for your readers and then changing your reporting practises to fix that seems like good journalism to me.

We should absolutely be talking about the harms of climate change. This information is vital to actually making changes in who we vote for and what policies we support. But if we have no information about solutions we can't make informed decisions about whether a new technology is viable or vapourware, or whether a financial mechanism is useful or extractive. We need good information covering the causes and solutions so we can make good choices.

This sounds like constructive hope, rather than the “it will all be fine” type. Good. Exposing us to the idea of positive change is probably something we need more of.