Television Has Less Effect on Education about Climate Change than Other Forms of Media
From a press release at George Mason University
[picapp src=”5/5/d/6/HOUSEHOLD_GERMS_6899.JPG?adImageId=5824247&imageId=6085911″ width=”500″ height=”333″ /]
FAIRFAX, Va.–Worried about climate change and want to learn more? You probably aren’t watching television then. A new study by George Mason University Communication Professor Xiaoquan Zhao suggests that watching television has no significant impact on viewers’ knowledge about the issue of climate change. Reading newspapers and using the web, however, seem to contribute to people’s knowledge about this issue.
The study, “Media Use and Global Warming Perceptions: A Snapshot of the Reinforcing Spirals”, looked at the relationship between media use and people’s perceptions of global warming. The study asked participants how often they watch TV, surf the Web, and read newspapers. They were also asked about their concern and knowledge of global warming and specifically its impact on the polar regions.
“Unlike many other social issues with which the public may have first-hand experience, global warming is an issue that many come to learn about through the media,” says Zhao. “The primary source of mediated information about global warming is the news.”
The results showed that people who read newspapers and use the Internet more often are more likely to be concerned about global warming and believe they are better educated about the subject. Watching more television, however, did not seem to help.
He also found that individuals concerned about global warming are more likely to seek out information on this issue from a variety of media and nonmedia sources. Other forms of media, such as the Oscar-winning documentary “The Inconvenient Truth” and the blockbuster thriller “The Day After Tomorrow,” have played important roles in advancing the public’s interest in this domain.
Politics also seemed to have an influence on people’s perceptions about the science of global warming. Republicans are more likely to believe that scientists are still debating the existence and human causes of global warming, whereas Democrats are more likely to believe that a scientific consensus has already been achieved on these matters.
“Some media forms have clear influence on people’s perceived knowledge of global warming, and most of it seems positive,” says Zhao. “Future research should focus on how to harness this powerful educational function.”
###
Here is Table 3 from the paper (PDF), provided to me by the press office.
From the article…
“Other forms of media, such as the Oscar-winning documentary “The Inconvenient Truth” and the blockbuster thriller “The Day After Tomorrow,” have played important roles in advancing the public’s interest in this domain.”
Probably because of their entertainment value rather than any factual content.
Well on the bright side, it means nobody is watching any of that Discovery Channel/ Tom Brokaw “we’re all doomed” nonsense.
But then again that doesn’t matter to our AGW betters.
On ABC World News Tonight: A record October storms hammering the NE. Images of plenty of snow.
Record snow.
Earliest snowfalls in history.
Temperatures fit for January, not early October.
Nor’Easters.
“Nother one on the way.
Ah, but it’s just weather. Isn’t it?
OceanTwo, If people are willing to spend only 2 minutes thinking about a topic, they’ll get more varied points of view from the first couple pages of Google hits than they’ll see on an hour of TV. In a way, people might be using the internet more because they are lazy, and this is a noble virtue 😉
For fifty years television was the gateway to world news and information. It empowered a new group of arbiters who controlled the editorial process. Since then there has been a continuous dilution of television’s influence and audiences. Both have been replaced by a huge expansion of media and resources representing millions of perspectives on life.
One major benefit of the failed AGW campaign is to make the general public far more skeptical of claims to “consensus” and “official” and “peer-review.” Will this prevent scandals and hoaxes in the future? Not unless people remain vigilant about thinking for themselves. If you want even a semblance of truth – you gotta go out and look for it.
Most people don’t want to do the work. But then there’s these folks called AGW skeptics who look for and publish their version of truth. Happily.
But on CBS Evening News this Saturday, Oct 17th, the story was the historical opening of the NE passage and the shocking discoveries of the Caitlin Survey, with an interview on Chief Expedition Scientist Pen Hadow.
At least he admitted they had to abandon thier Icy Trek halfway to the Pole.
The only thing warming up is the unvetted Ice Folly stories, faster than anyone had expected.
The real story, though, is the double-whammy early Noreaster.
Too bad TV has lost most of it’s journalists.