Drawing on five Climate News Tracker studies, this analysis finds that who audiences heard from depended heavily on the story being told. Public voices were prominent during heatwaves, farmers during drought and impacted people during the Nepal floods, while the mix also varied across platforms.

by Rosie Frost (Journalism Insights Analyst), Alina Sandauer (Content Analyst),  Dr Lissa O’Reilly (Content Analyst), Sam Cardwell (Content Analyst) &  Odyssée Ferrillo (Content Analyst) 

 2 October 2026

The summer of 2026 brought a run of extreme weather to the UK. Heatwaves were followed by drought, water restrictions and wildfires, while a glacial collapse in Nepal at the end of August caused flash flooding that left hundreds dead or missing, including more than 30 UK nationals reported missing.

The events also coincided with rising public concern about climate change.

But these stories did not just differ in what happened. They also differed substantially in who audiences heard from.

This synthesis brings together five of Climate News Tracker’s studies of coverage by the BBC, ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5 and Sky News between 23 May and 6 September 2026. It examines the external voices in coverage of two heatwaves in May and June, drought, the UK’s transition away from fossil fuels and the Nepal floods.

The mix of voices depends on the topic

Across the five studies, there was no single group of voices that consistently dominated climate coverage. Instead, who audiences heard from changed with the story and with the role the news organisation gave to climate change within it.

Members of the public were the most common external voices in both heatwave studies, while farmers topped the drought study. Scientists and politicians were the joint-largest categories in energy-transition coverage, and impacted people were the most common voices in coverage of the Nepal floods.

Some of these differences reflect the nature of the stories themselves and the way the studies were constructed. Heatwave coverage frequently featured members of the public describing their experience of high temperatures. Drought coverage brought in farmers discussing water shortages and crop failures, alongside water companies and public agencies. Energy-transition coverage featured more scientific and political voices in discussions ranging from North Sea oil to renewables and emissions reductions.

Out of all the research Climate News Tracker carried out, the two heatwave studies provide a particularly useful comparison.

Two heatwaves with different voices

The two heatwave studies show how the focus of coverage can shift even when journalists are reporting on broadly the same type of event. In May, coverage largely captured people’s experience of unusually hot weather. By June, the voice mix was broader and included more people connected to the health and social consequences of extreme heat.

The contrast shows that even coverage of similar weather events can produce substantially different sets of external voices.

In the May heatwave study, members of the public made up 25% of external voices, largely being interviewed at beaches and lidos. Water safety experts made up 11%, emergency services 10%, and Met Office staff and meteorologists another 10%.

By the June heatwave, the public still formed the largest category, but their share had fallen to 13%. Impacted people accounted for 11%, followed by business people at 9%. Health experts, education and social care staff, and emergency services each made up 7%.

The June study therefore drew on a wider range of voices, with more emphasis on the consequences of extreme heat rather than simply people’s experience of hot weather.

There was also a marked platform difference. Members of the public made up 23% of external voices on short-form social video, compared with 13% on TV and radio and 10% online.

The social video sample was smaller, so the figures should be treated with some caution. The difference suggests that audiences encountered a different mix of voices depending on the platform.

Scientists were most prominent in energy-transition coverage

Scientists were a relatively small part of the external-voice mix in most of the five studies, but their prominence increased sharply when coverage turned to the UK’s transition away from fossil fuels. They accounted for 14% of external voices in energy-transition coverage, making them joint with politicians as the most frequent category.

By comparison, scientists accounted for between 5% and 6% of external voices in each of the other four studies and did not appear among the three most frequent categories. Where scientific voices featured, coverage was more likely to address the wider causes of climate change and how the UK might respond, rather than focusing only on the immediate experience of extreme weather.

The picture is slightly different when looking specifically at Met Office staff and meteorologists. They were particularly prominent in the heatwave coverage, making up 10% of external voices in May and 5% in June. They accounted for 5% in the drought study and 4% in energy-transition coverage, while none appeared in the Nepal floods study.

This relatively limited presence of scientific voices is notable given the level of trust audiences place in scientists. Reuters Institute research in 2025 found high levels of trust in scientists (71%) as sources of climate information. The two measures are not directly comparable, but together they raise a question for future research about when scientific expertise enters climate reporting and what role it plays.

Drought brought farmers to the fore

Farmers were the most common external voices in drought coverage, accounting for 16% of all voices recorded. Government bodies, including the Environment Agency, followed at 12%, with politicians and water companies each at 11%.

The prominence of farmers reflects how closely the drought story was tied to its practical effects. Coverage focused on the consequences of prolonged dry conditions for agriculture, water supplies and the wider environment, giving people directly dealing with those effects a prominent role alongside the organisations responsible for managing them.

Scientists accounted for 6% of external voices and Met Office staff and meteorologists for 5%. As with the other extreme-weather studies, scientific voices were present but less prominent than people and organisations dealing directly with the consequences of the conditions.

Where did coverage focus on people impacted by events?

This research distinguishes between members of the public, interviewed for their everyday experiences of the weather, and people directly impacted by an event, such as relatives of people missing or killed or people whose homes and communities have been affected.

Members of the public were particularly prominent in the heatwave coverage, while impacted people featured more strongly when coverage focused on the consequences of a disaster.

Impacted people accounted for 7% of external voices in the May heatwave study, 11% in June, and 4% in both the drought and energy-transition studies. The Nepal floods were the clear exception, with survivors, relatives of missing people and residents of affected areas becoming a much more prominent part of the coverage.

The voice mix also differed considerably by platform. Impacted people accounted for 50% of external voices on television and radio and 35% online, rising to 68% on TikTok and 76% on Instagram. The different platform patterns suggest that the prominence of first-hand accounts varied considerably depending on where audiences encountered the coverage.

The contrast with the heatwaves is notable, although the events and the way their mortality is measured are very different. The UK Health Security Agency provisionally estimated 2,877 heat-associated deaths in England during the May and June heatwave periods. Yet people directly affected by those health consequences were much less visible among the voices recorded in heatwave coverage.

In Nepal, deaths and disappearances were an immediate and visible part of the unfolding disaster, giving coverage direct access to survivors, relatives of missing people and affected communities.

What does this tell us about climate coverage?

Across these five studies, the voices in climate coverage were closely shaped by the story being told. There was no consistent hierarchy of voices. Members of the public were prominent in heatwave coverage, farmers in drought coverage, scientists and politicians in coverage of the energy transition, and impacted people in the Nepal floods.

The studies also show that the role of climate change within a story can affect who gets heard. Scientific voices were much more prominent when coverage addressed the transition away from fossil fuels, while extreme-weather stories more often centred on people’s experiences and the immediate consequences of an event.

Platform mattered too. The prominence of members of the public and impacted people varied between TV and radio, online and short-form social video, suggesting that audiences can encounter quite different voices depending on where they get their news.

Taken together, the findings show how strongly the voice mix reflected the immediate demands of each story. Heatwave reporting frequently brought audiences everyday experiences of hot weather; drought brought farmers and water managers; energy-transition coverage brought more scientific and political expertise; and the Nepal floods brought survivors and relatives to the fore.

That raises a wider question for climate journalism: how can coverage retain the voices best placed to describe what is happening while also bringing in the expertise needed to explain why it is happening, its wider consequences and the possible responses?

Methodology

This analysis draws on five separate Climate News Tracker studies, each looking at coverage of one event or topic between 23 May and 6 September 2026:

• May heatwave (23–28 May)
• June heatwave (20–28 June)
• Transition (19 June – 31 July)
• Drought (1–31 July)
• Nepal floods (26 August – 6 September)

The studies were not designed as a single sample. They show how the voices in coverage varied between stories and platforms, not the overall balance of voices in UK climate coverage. Full details of each study’s search terms and methods are in the individual studies linked above.

Coverage came from BBC (including Radio 4), ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5 and Sky News flagship TV and radio programmes, the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Sky News websites, and those outlets’ Instagram, TikTok and YouTube Shorts accounts. Not every study covered every platform. Each study used its own set of keywords to identify TV, radio and online coverage, and every result was reviewed in full. Full search terms are in the individual studies. Social media posts were reviewed manually.

External voices were recorded wherever a person or organisation was quoted, interviewed or featured as a source, and assigned a category. Members of the public are people interviewed about their everyday experience of the weather. Impacted people are those directly affected by an event, such as relatives of people missing or killed, or people whose homes or communities were damaged. Figures are shares of all external voices recorded in each study.

Time periods, search terms and platforms also differ between studies, so comparisons show differences in emphasis, not like-for-like measurements.