I found this article on the NY Times website extremely interesting. It is a response to a blogger's (J. Romm) view on media's role in global climate change issues. He believes that the media doesn't adequately cover the issue while the author of the article, Revkin, believes that this isn't necessarily the job of the media to change people's way of living but it is, in fact, that role of society and a change in societal nature is necessary. He believes that writing and creating documentaries on global warming won't curb population growth and carbon emissions. He says Romm should really be asking the question regarding if words will bring change, not if the media is worthless concerning climate change. People may be writing about the issues but nothing is being done about them because, as Revkin says, people aren't seeing the direct effects of climate change.
I found this article extremely interesting and relevant to what we have been discussing in class. I believe(d) the media has played a large role in getting information out to people about global warming and making green practices such as recycling and the use of CFC light bulbs mainstream (and therefore, less of a hippie practice). However, although people have been making little changes in their daily lives, will it be enough to make a difference? That is the big question at hand. With the onset of the primaries and unrest around the world, global warming doesn't seem to be on the front pages of many papers recently. However, I believe that the mass media does have an essential role in climate change information in that it is responsible for the "green revolution" we are seeing now and can further entice people to act to combat global warming. Media is essential in public health campaigns and getting the information out- that is for sure. But I also think it's responsible for making people act. And a bit more coverage of global warming and what people can do can never hurt. There must be a way to use words to get people to act. There has been in the past.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Just take Al Gore's Inconvienent Truth. He won a Nobel Peace Prize for Science Communication. His presentation made global warming real. And even though not everyone experiences the effects first hand, seeing can be believing if the visuals are exceptional.
Media plays an important role of making us aware and providing us with knowledge, the first 2 important steps to changing a person's behavior. But it is then dependent on the person to use the awareness and knowledge to alter his/her attitudes, in order to have the intention of curbing global climate change in some small way, before acting on it.
I agree with you Jessica. The media has a big hand in curbing the problem. The only thing campaigners need to do is find ways of making climate change "fresh" to the public eye, so it does not become "same old news."
The debate of global warming is a key example of how the media can fuel public perception of environmental issues. Many agree that this debate can be divided into two sectors: those who believe it is “global warming” and those who believe it is “climate change”. Clearly, there is a distinction between those who think that this is an environmental problem whereas others think that it is simply a change in temperature. The film “The Denial Machine” that can be found at www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/, explains how the media has contorted scientific information into something completely different. The film shed light on how the majority of the scientific community agrees that global warming is in effect, yet the media is able to manipulate existing scientific information. The main spokespeople advocating that global warming is not an issue in the film share an interesting past. These four main individuals were also key defendants of the defense council for the tobacco industry several years prior. Given the power of the fossil fuel industries, there exists similar if not more monetary incentive for these “scientists” to speak out against global warming. Clearly, these spokespersons are not professionals in the field of climatology and yet they are given attention and legitimacy simply because they work in the science arena. The majority of the scientific community believes that global warming is actually happening compared to a minute number of people who disagree. Yet, both parties get equal media coverage. The environmental issue of climate change or global warming is shaped into a debate when many scientists agree that there is not much to debate given the facts at hand. The global warming debate demonstrates how the media can fuel the public’s perception of an environmental issue by simply giving a particular side more media time.
Post a Comment