Have you ever watched a TV show, loved the drama, but walked away feeling like you’d just sat through an advertisement for Big Oil? That’s not a coincidence. In Landman, the Paramount+ series, critics argue that oil industry propaganda in TV shows isn’t subtle, but it’s woven into the dialogues, plot points, and even in how renewable energy is dismissed. While the show bills itself as gritty, authentic storytelling about oil rigs and the Permian Basin, many of its arguments and facts are questioned or exaggerated (or simply misleading) to favor fossil fuel interests.

Source: Prime Video

What Is Oil Propaganda in TV Shows?

Before we dig into Landman, let’s define what we mean by oil industry propaganda in TV shows. Propaganda here means content that:

• Presents messaging favorable to the oil industry (e.g., minimizing environmental cost, portraying oil as inevitable and heroic).
• Uses selective facts, misleads, or omits counterarguments (especially about renewables).
• Normalises the oil industry’s social, political, and environmental harms or frames them as unavoidable.

TV as a medium is especially powerful: visuals + drama + emotional characters = messages that stick. When a show like Landman includes monologues or scenes where characters argue that wind turbines, solar panels, or electric vehicles have worse carbon footprints because of manufacturing or “embedded oil in everything,” the audience may take those claims at face value, especially if no one challenges them in the narrative.

Also Read: The Mind-Blowing Thing We All Get Wrong About Energy

Case Study: Landman’s Rhetoric and Misleading Numbers

Landman has become a hot topic not only for its drama, but for how it deploys oil industry propaganda in TV shows. Here are concrete examples of where they go sideways:

The Viral Wind-Turbine Monologue

• In one scene, character Tommy Norris argues that wind turbines require so much steel, concrete, and oil (for manufacturing and transport) that they won’t offset that “carbon debt” in their 20-year lifespan. Newsweek fact-checked it and found the claim misleading: real lifecycle analyses for modern turbines show payback periods globally often under 10 years, depending on location, energy mix, and technology. The show gives the impression that the industry stance is undisputed.

Edited Real-World Voice Used to Suggest Big Oil Support

• A lawsuit filed by the estate of radio host Paul Harvey alleges that Landman took a 2008 voiceover (“Gas Crisis”) from Harvey’s show and edited it to misrepresent his position, making it sound like he was endorsing fossil fuels. In reality, his original monologue was more critical of government fossil fuel policies and supportive of alternative energy options.

Selective Storytelling and Lack of Environmental Context

• While Landman shows the human, gritty side of oil work, it often glosses over broader climate impacts. Critics say that oil industry propaganda in TV shows like Landman downplays oil spills, climate change, environmental justice issues, and health impacts on local communities, in favor of rugged individualism, family loyalty, and the risks oil workers face. NPR’s review noted that women are underdeveloped, but also that the show sanitizes environmental damage.

Numbers Without Nuance

• There are scenes where characters claim that “plastic is everywhere, it comes from petroleum,” therefore, we need oil to survive, so we should keep burning it in fuel because it has wide use. These kinds of statements leverage partial truths (plastics do use petrochemicals) but ignore the distinction between material use vs. fuel combustion emissions, or the potential for alternative feedstocks. Also, when Norris claims that the infrastructure for renewables is unworkable, “it would take 30 years to build the transmission lines” if we switched overnight, that kind of speculative number is not backed by data, yet repeated in the show in a way that sounds authoritative.

Also Read: Is Earth’s Core Energy The Key To Meeting Global Energy Needs?

Data & Examples of Propaganda-like Effects

(Note: The above table reflects comparisons based on public data and reports contrasted with statements in Landman and commentary around it.)

Also Read: Osmotic Power—Blue Energy From River Meets Sea Could Revolutionize Renewables

Why These Distortions Matter

Understanding how oil industry propaganda in TV shows sneaks in is important because these shows are not inert entertainment. They shape beliefs, perceptions, and political culture.

• Public Opinion: Many viewers who lack detailed information on renewables may accept dramatic claims in shows as fact. The viral spread of the wind turbine rant from Landman, for example, has been reposted millions of times, leading viewers to believe the arguments are “common sense.”
  
• Delay in Policy Support: When renewable energy is presented as fragile, impractical, or full of hidden trade-offs, it can reduce public and political willingness to invest aggressively in green solutions.
• Reinforcement of Fossil Fuel Narratives: These shows normalize oil dependence, make oil workers sympathetic, portray oil crises as unavoidable, and present renewable energy as “pie in the sky.” That is a form of soft power for fossil fuel industries.

Also Read: The Biggest Blind Spot In Climate Change: Military Emissions Nobody Reports

Is It All Bad? Where Landman Rises Above

Just to be fair, oil industry propaganda in TV shows doesn’t mean every oil-centric show is purely propaganda. Landman does some things well:

• It shows oil workers as full characters, not just villains: the pressure, danger, and financial instability.
• The show is inspired by real events (the podcast Boomtown) and tries to capture parts of the tension and complexity in oil boom regions.
• There are glimpses of internal conflict over environmental regulation, safety, etc., though often these are less prominent.

So the problem is not that such shows exist, but how unbalanced or misleading their presentation becomes, especially when viewers don’t have the full context or fact-checks.

Also Read: How Fixing Landfills Can Help Fight Climate Change

How Movies, Podcasts, and Dramas Slip in Numbers That Aren’t Close to Real

Let’s look at patterns of how oil industry propaganda in TV shows works, especially in how numbers and facts are used.

• Use of plausible but unverifiable numbers: E.g., saying “It takes X amount of oil, steel, concrete, etc., to build wind turbines and you won’t recoup that carbon cost in their lifespan.” The specific number is often not cited and shown as unchallenged.
  
• Cherry-picking worst-case data: Studies show emissions from wind are around 9 g CO₂/kWh, a fraction of coal or gas. Choosing a location with poor wind conditions, low solar output, or outdated materials makes the general case appear weaker.
• Voice-overs or quotes taken out of context: As with the Paul Harvey monologue lawsuit, editing made his words appear to support fossil fuel policies rather than criticize them. Viewers without the original are misled. A tactic well-documented in misinformation research
  
• Rhetorical repetition without opposition: The characters (especially those aligned with the oil industry) are given unchallenged airtime for anti-renewables arguments, while counterpoints are minimized or omitted.
• Framing environmental cost as inevitability: Phrases like “We depend on oil infrastructure; you can’t just shut it off overnight,” “Oil is in everything,” “It’s part of who we are”, these normalize the idea that oil is necessary and immutable.

Also Read: How Corporations Fight Green Policies And Undermine Climate Action

What We Can Do: Being Media-Savvy Viewers & Pushing for Better Portrayals

If oil industry propaganda in TV shows is sneaking into our living rooms, what can we do about it?

• Check the facts: When you see dramatic claims, look up lifecycle analyses, peer-reviewed emissions data (e.g., IEA, IPCC).
• Ask critical questions: Who is saying this? Do they have a stake in oil? Is the renewable energy side given a voice? Are the numbers cited or vague?
• Support media that do better: Documentaries, shows that engage with environmental experts, that show both sides, that don’t romanticize pollution or hide harm.
• Demand accountability: Writers, producers, and streaming platforms should be transparent about whether they consulted experts. If using real quotes, ensure context is preserved.
• Policy and regulation: Some countries are discussing the regulation of misinformation, even in entertainment media (e.g., deepfakes, misleading edits). Extending that kind of oversight into climate claims in scripted dramas may become necessary.

Also Read: Could Wildfire Smoke Kill 71,000 Americans Every Year? The Alarming Projection

Final Thoughts

At the end of the day, oil industry propaganda in TV shows isn’t just harmless fiction; it shapes how many people think about energy, climate, and the future. With Landman, many viewers are encountering fossil fuel talking points wrapped in drama, presented as facts, and pushed without much pushback. That doesn’t mean the story or characters aren’t compelling; it means we need to watch, listen, and think more carefully.

The truth is, we don’t have to accept oil as inevitable, nor renewables as a fantasy. We can call for better storytelling, demand transparency around the numbers, and hold entertainment accountable just like we hold media, politics, or advertising responsible. Because when an unchecked TV monologue influences public belief, that influences policy, investment, and ultimately, our planet.

Also Read: How A Leading Indonesian EV Supplier Covered Up Toxic Pollution

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1: Is Landman the only TV show accused of pushing oil propaganda?

No. Many shows, movies, and podcasts have been critiqued for presenting biased or one-sided portrayals of oil and energy issues. Landman is high-profile right now, but the phenomenon isn’t new.

Q2: Were all the statements in Landman found to be false?

Not all. Some depictions (working conditions, oil boom challenges, land negotiations) reflect real events. But many specific claims, especially around renewables’ efficiency, carbon payback periods, or infrastructure lifespan, are misleading or lack proper context.

Q3: Can entertainment shows still be accurate while being dramatic?

Yes. It’s possible to tell a gripping story while also including fact-checked data, opposing viewpoints, and a realistic representation of environmental impacts. Some documentaries and series do this well.

Q4: Why do viewers believe the oil-friendly statements in shows like Landman?

Because drama + emotion + confident delivery make statements seem authoritative, if there’s no counterpoint built into the show, viewers may assume what they hear is true. Also, viral clips (on TikTok, X, etc.) often remove nuance and amplify single statements, spreading them widely.

Q5: What can creators do to avoid pushing oil propaganda unintentionally?

• Hire environmental science consultants
• Use real data and reveal sources when presenting claims
• Let renewable energy arguments be voiced meaningfully, not just dismissed
• Make sure quotes or historical material used are not edited to invert meaning, honor the original context

Also Read: Jeff Bezos-Backed Renewables Alliance Eyes $7.5 Billion Boost For Developing Nations