In TV there’s been this saying forever: “if it bleeds it leads” referring to what story would be the lead story in the TV newscast. It stands to reason then that “environmental catastrophe” would get more airplay and print. This study confirms what I’ve known for a very long time – chaos sells newspapers and makes ratings. Except…now people are getting saturated. AGW has become the O.J. Simpson story of our time, it has worn out its welcome. – Anthony
Media Tend To Doomsay When Addressing Environmental Issues
ScienceDaily (July 9, 2009) — This study, undertaken by researchers from the University of the Basque Country (UBC), analyses the role played by the media in creating and spreading a stance regarding the protection of the environment, sustainable development and natural heritage.
This research, published in the latest issue of the Revista Latina de Comunicación Social (Latin Journal of Social Communication in English) proposes and performs an analysis of the dialectic strategies used by the daily press to treat environmental information. Jose Ignacio Lorente, a lecturer at the UBC and one of the researchers who participated in the project told SINC that the study was concerned with “the way in which social communication media, particularly news media, contribute to creating and spreading social visions of sustainable development and the conservation and protection of the environment in general and natural heritage in particular”.
The research team studied the information published in connection with the environmental summit held in Bali in 2007. Apart from this analysis, the researchers complemented this information with a survey carried out in Urdaibai the Basque Country. The questions referred to the perceptions, attitudes and willingness to participate in mitigating the adverse effects of climate change, aspects in relation to the social representations identified in the analysis of the contents of the study.
The extensive analysis of the dialectics included an evaluation of the so-called news agendas, as well as framing procedures (the way in which the media determine how they will consider and publicly present information) and priming procedures (which ensure the relevance of certain aspects of the news that sustain the reasoning behind a given interpretation of the facts).
Lorente believes the conclusions of this study suggest that “the media make an active contribution to tackling the complexity of the sustainability crisis of the current model of development, by confining their interpretation to environmental problems, but also fail to consider the social, economic and cultural aspects of a production system based on growth and the massive exploitation of natural resources”.
What Happens and What the Media Says
According to the results of the study, the news agenda that the media developed regarding the Summit in Bali focused on scientific evidence of the global dimensions of climate change, the fact that its potentially devastating effects could be immediate and its anthropogenic nature. However, according to the researchers, this agenda “avoided addressing the real reasons behind the political argument in detail, by means of a narrative strategy in which dramatising conflicts, threats and delays regarding CO2 quotas prevailed,” becoming the top priority for the Bali Summit.
However, Lorente adds, “the emphasis the media placed on scientific evidence regarding the human nature of the causes for climate change was not linked to citizens’ sphere of activity, despite fact that their everyday decisions and behaviour – transport, energy saving, recycling – account for 20% of the problem”.
According to the research by the UBC, alarmist and catastrophist news focusing on the risk of natural disasters and the urgency of political and economic action “places the emphasis on the heroic efforts of abstract and distant individuals whose motives are not always clear”. This approach, they say, appears to lack references to or be based on citizen’s everyday life.
Furthermore, the prominence of the eco-efficient approach (based on expectations that techno-scientific development is enough to mitigate the effects of climate change) results in the media not covering the debate in connection with the social, economic and cultural model that citizens are willing to assume and share, reinforcing instead, according to Lorente, the perspective that our current way of life, production and consumption is the only option available when it comes to interpreting development and sustainability.”
Journal reference:
- José Ignacio Lorente; José Enrique Antolín; Francisco Javier Doblas. La construcción mediática de lo ecológico. Estrategias discursivas en la información de actualidad. Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, Number 64, pages 315-327
There are a few salient points to make:
1. Would you expect calm and reasoned analyses from hypochondriacs, those suffering from manic depression (journos) and those with egos larger than a whale’s penis (editors)?
2. The whole thing is ‘shaping the market and shaping the products’. It’s a well known business tactic, perfectly legitimate if a genuine need has been identified (e.g. a new drug treatment for an incurable disease). It’s just that here, the market should be securing reliable affordable power for the forseeable future, not phantom scaremongering about climate (which is generally aiming to blind, not to inform).
3. In capitalism, you only tell the truth when the opposition is dead and you will enjoy superprofits for decades. That’s reality…….so wait until the war for new market share is completed before you expect truth: we’ll all be long dead by then, I’m afraid……
4. I’m coming increasingly to the conclusion that the traditional media is actually contributing significantly to ill-health. I’m seriously wondering about stopping worrying about news and finding a life where ‘news’ isn’t necessary. If enough of us do that, maybe news will return to reality?
5. There seems a small possibility that our ‘energy guy’, Ed Miliband, may try some sensible sustainable energy projects, championing microgeneration locally. He’ll be fighting huge bureaucratic inertia. I truly wish him well – it’d be truly great for Britain to actually do something sensible for once……
6. Whether we’ll also be doing CCS large scale I don’t know………R+D in the next economic cycle, me thinks……….
I got a letter into our local newspaper in Wallowa County (The Chieftain). It provided the link to the House role call vote on the energy bill and my admonition of any politician, red, blue or multi-colored, who voted yes. It also stated that I would work to see that these politicians, whether they were from my state or not, were kicked out of office next election and that I would never again vote the “democratic ticket”. If there is one thing that will stop this madness, it is the idea that the party in power could very quickly lose that power.
Ron de Haan (17:19:35) :
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1893/Gore-US-Climate-Bill-Will-Help-Bring-About-Global-Governance
This is another indication that the UN initiated World Revolution is much more than a conspiracy theory. http://green-age
What this last link provides is an inconvenient list of those who should be prepared to answer for the damage AGW has inflicted. They need not answer queries about agenda – that is clear – they need to tell the world why they chose to fabricate a lie and destroy honest science (and scientists) on the way. They will need to answer. If only before the court of public opinion. But likely before a more ominous court.
TomLama —
During the 30’s & 40’s the communists took over most of the media and infilterated many parts of the federal government as well as much of the CIO unions. In the late 40’s I wa unable to work as an electrical engineer since I refused to join a union that supported the communist international org.
OT—
For years I considered the JackAss as the perfect symbol for the Democrat Party, but now I’m not too sure. The leadership, (to twist a book title) is “Not Stupid Just Evil”, so I would borrow an acronym from our friends “down under” and name them the “American RAT* Party”.
* RAT = “Regulate And Tax” or “Ration And Tax”
A Democratic representative from the I-5 Oregon corridor voted against the bill. Target individual people with a very sharp lazer beam. You will be far more effective than trying to use a broad soft paint brush. Get rid of the Democratic Party? Won’t happen. Vote out specific individuals and de-stablize the party? Very much could happen. And did. Just to the wrong party. And I am partly to blame for that.
Pamela Gray (07:48:53) :
It also stated that I would work to see that these politicians, whether they were from my state or not, were kicked out of office next election and that I would never again vote the “democratic ticket”.
I’m with you on this issue. I faxed my reps stating that I would work ever hard to make sure they do not return to Washington if they voted for the Cap and Tax Bill. Mary Jo Kilroy voted for the Cap and Tax. I didn’t help send her to Washinton to be stupid.
Returning to the topic…
The man-in-the-street rarely stops to think too deeply about issues like global warming.
He’s heard a barrage of propaganda – and if he lives in the UK, his children have been exposed to colossal volumes of propaganda in schools. He feels “there may be something in this”.
So he’s already doing many of the gestures.
Recycling bus tickets. Check.
Sitting in the dark for an hour every year. Check.
Tried some organic food and it was OK. Check.
He’s doing these either because he believes in it all or because he wants a quiet life. And it’s not a big sacrifice.
But in spite of doing all the right things, and his friends and neighbours are also all doing the right things, he hears every day that the problem is now worse than ever.
So he tunes out.
And if he stops to think he quickly realises that these gestures are not going to make any difference. If we really are going down the gurgler then drastic action is needed right now – not gestures and not conferences about conferences and reports about reports and vague plans for 2050.
So he tunes out again.
Here’s a story about how foreign lawyers use the media and environmental laws to game the international legal system: click
Smokey (07:06:15) :
Here’s a story about how foreign lawyers use the media and environmental laws to game the international legal system:
Actually the case you link to conflicts the U.S. press. On one hand they love to slam international corps like Dole on pesticide and pollution issues. But they cannot afford to alienate their biggest advertisers. Looks like both sides have dirt all over them on this one. No doubt Nicaragua is tipping the scale. But Judge Chaney has a major problem with her reliance on secret/sealed testimony.
Secret testimony in civil cases does not pass “rule of law” scrutiny anymore.
A nostalgic review, 50 years of CO2, time for a vision test.
This is where the media are panicking about, unbelievable.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/50-years-of-co2-time-for-a-vision-test/
July 13, 2009
Laugh of the day
“The days when science was blighted by a press interested only in “scare stories” are over, according to the Science Minister.
Most coverage of science by the media is now balanced, accurate and engaging, Lord Drayson said. …
In a debate staged at the World Conference of Science Journalists last week in London, Lord Drayson argued that the British media were the “best in the world” at covering science. …
“Sensational science reporting is fine as long as it is accurate and it is good science,” he said. “We need good reporting that also transmits the ‘wow factor’ of science … We need a society that is awestruck by science, not dumbstruck by it.”
Lord Drayson’s positive view was countered by John Martin, an expert in heart disease from University College London, who argued that the headlines and sensationalism in science journalism could have an “incredibly negative” effect.
He told of having to inform 160 people who had written to him in the hope of getting treatment that their expectations had been “raised inappropriately” by press accounts of his work.
Professor Martin argued that such sensationalism was the result of a “structural problem” in the media caused by profit motives driving the news agenda. He also accused some scientists of hyping their own stories to receive coverage.
“I think scientists are driven to overexaggerate the possibilities and their results in order to get limited funding,” he said.” “Official: scientists no longer need fear the press” http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=407327&c=1
I agree with you Wade. Bad news gets attention faster than good news. The Internet is a wonderful place; there are more objective and better news sources if people take time to find them. For every one bad printed article or TV news segment, there are dozens and probably hundreds circulating in the Internet thanks to social bookmarking sites.
ASTM D6866