Fact check: The Just Oil movement's action that were directly targeting big oil companies' infrastructure was not covered sufficiently by mainstream media.

1. Summary of the results

The claim about insufficient media coverage is more nuanced than initially presented. While mainstream media did cover Just Oil's actions extensively, the coverage was predominantly focused on:

• The disruptive nature of protests rather than their core message about climate change ^[1]
• Violence and negative aspects of the protests ^[2]
• Cultural disruptions like art exhibitions and sporting events ^[3]

A significant protest of 100,000 participants by Restore Nature Now received minimal coverage ^[4], suggesting selective reporting based on controversy rather than significance.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

Several important contextual elements were omitted from the original statement:

• Media Coverage Patterns: Academic analysis shows that media tends to focus on protest methods rather than underlying climate issues ^[5]
• Notable Figures' Criticism: Environmental figures like Matthew Todd, Zoe Cohen, and Chris Packham have specifically criticized BBC's coverage approach ^[4]
• Extensive but Biased Coverage: Rather than insufficient coverage, the issue appears to be biased coverage - Just Stop Oil's actions were widely discussed and criticized ^[6]

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original statement's claim of "insufficient coverage" is misleading for several reasons:

• It fails to distinguish between quantity and quality of coverage
• The movement actually received extensive media attention ^[6], but:
• Coverage was often hostile ^[1]
• Media used derogatory language and focused on controversies ^[7]
• The actual advocacy positions were rarely addressed ^[7]

Who benefits from these narratives:

• Climate activists benefit from claiming insufficient coverage to push for more favorable media attention
• Mainstream media benefits from controversial coverage that drives engagement
• Oil companies benefit from media focus on disruption rather than environmental messages
• Political figures benefit from portraying activists negatively to maintain status quo policies