Media coverage of climate change has evolved significantly over the past few decades, yet it continues to reflect deep tensions in representation, language, and the economic and political structures that shape environmental journalism. While the issue has moved from the margins of public discourse to the center of global debate, the way it is framed in news media profoundly influences public understanding, policy responses, and collective action. A critical examination reveals persistent challenges related to balance, sensationalism, inequality in representation, and the influence of corporate and political interests. In terms of representation, early media coverage often framed climate change as a scientific controversy rather than a scientific consensus. Journalistic norms of “balanced reporting” led to the practice of presenting climate scientists and climate skeptics as equal voices, despite the overwhelming agreement within the scientific community regarding anthropogenic global warming. This false equivalence distorted public perception and delayed recognition of the urgency of the crisis. Even today, some media outlets continue to amplify fringe voices in the name of neutrality, thereby undermining the credibility of scientific evidence. Another representational issue lies in the geographic and social framing of climate impacts. Coverage has frequently focused on dramatic events in Western countries—wildfires in California, heatwaves in Europe, hurricanes in the United States—while underreporting chronic and severe impacts in the Global South. Vulnerable communities in small island states, sub-Saharan Africa, and South Asia often receive limited sustained attention, despite bearing disproportionate consequences of climate change. This imbalance reinforces global inequalities and perpetuates a narrative that climate change is primarily a distant or episodic disaster rather than a structural and ongoing crisis