The Institute for Public Policy Research categorized the coverage as such:
The news outlets criticized (criticised?) argue that they are simply calling attention to an important issue. Ian Birrell, deputy editor of the Independent – which was identified in the study as one of the "alarmist" publications – told the BBC: "You put on your front page what you deem important and what you think is important to your readers." He added that charges that the paper didn't include more solution-oriented stories are inaccurate: "while we're campaigning on big issues such as ice caps, we also do a large amount on how people can change their own lives, through cycling, installing energy-efficient lighting, recycling, food miles; we've been equally committed on these issues."
Alarmism, characterised by images and words of catastrophe Settlerdom, in which "common sense" is used to argue against the scientific consensus Rhetorical scepticism, which argues the science is bad and the dangers hyped Techno-optimism, the argument that technology can solve the problem
Retallack argued otherwise: "Every newspaper is a commercial organization and when you have a terrifying image on the front of the paper, you are likely to sell more copies than when you write about solutions." Makes you wonder which of these two magazine covers sold more copies.