Climate Change - comment & win
In class this week, I gave a print out of this piece on "Climate Porn". The idea was going to be to get you to summarise the reasons why emphasising risks of climate change is a bad thing, as well as considering reasons for sensationalism. We didn't have time for this, but I thought we could discuss it here.
So, press on the yellow "comments" link at the end of the post and give your reasons for and against sensationalism in risk reporting. You might like to read the article linked to above (and the comments - it's a blog entry) but you don't have to.
As incentive, before next week's class I'll write down the name of all the students who comment, and draw one at random to get a (chocolate based) prize. If there are lots of comments, I might draw out a few names (I'll see if the holiday spirit catches me). If you put more than one comment, you will be entered twice, so it's worth checking back to debate your points further.
The picture is meant to be a "baked" person (from climate change. Sorry, bad link...).
7 comments:
Wow, the debate is really raging so far.
So here is my two penny's worth to start us off: Sensationalism sells papers. That seems to me to be just how it is, and I can't think of a way to get round that. Journalists (even the nice liberal ones at the Guardian - the phrase "climate porn" isn't exactly neutral either) will keep writing 'sensationalist' stories as long as people keep wanting to read them. And I count myself within 'people' there...
Sensationalism does sell papers but I don't believe you can use that term in the case of climate change. Our lifestyle is incredibly wasteful and the time has come for us to live more responsibly. The media is a way to get the public to do something, as even small changes on their part will make a big difference overall.
I think Noora is right to suggest that maybe climate change should be considered seporately (though equally, the case could be made that we shouldn't sensationalise other particular topics, e.g. MMR)
The point of the "climate porn" idea is that the sensationalism here is suggesting something catastrophic we just do nothing.
I found this piece on the bbc "green room" which suggests we should at least listen to "climate skeptics" - worth a glance at oleast.
I think that unless people are given more information (ideally from both sides) then, if you believe the sensationalised stories in the media, you do begin to think that it's all too late and what's the point? It's all very well being told that turning a few light switches off and not putting things on stand by is going to make the difference...but you don't see or hear that difference immediately so it puts people off from doing it in the first place.
So is the argument is that it's not sensationalism if it's true? I.e. climate change really could "radically alter human existance" - and therefore journalists are right to say so.
I think journalists would argue that they always report true things. It gets tricky to define 'sensationalism'...
Incidentally, Ella, I think you're right; we do get overwhelmed and end up not doing anything at all. The guy writing the Guardian article suggests that journalists need to start pointing a 'big' things people can do that would really make a difference - buying a hybrid car, for example, or stopping flying. Do you think that would help?
I've just got round to listening to guardian science podcast this week... it's mainly about this issue! They have David Bellamy complaining there is too much doom-mongering, and Jim Lovelock saying we should call it "global heating" (rather than warning) to scare people more.
The interesting point is that the difference comes down more to dissagreement in the science, rather than PR approach. I thought this is quite relevent in terms of Sarah's point about it not being sensationalist if it's true.
I think that in the case of global warming, sensationalism is necessary because people aren't going to change their lifestyle if they have no incentive to. I agree with Noora that people are influenced by the media and that by 'scaremongering', people can be kick-started into doing something about the environment.
Post a Comment