Search blog.co.uk

In a nutshell ...

by cassandra05 @ 26/06/08 - 19:30:47

The Daily Mail gets serious ...

... as does the Guardian

Max Boykoff and J. Timmons Roberts of Oxford’s Environmental Change Institute hit the nail on the head:

“One could summarize ... that the media has at times kept the issue of climate change alive, but has also limited the extent to which real change in the organization of society [has] been called for. To put it plainly, the press has been quite reformist in its portrayal of the needed action on climate change, when the scientific projections suggest the issue may call for truly revolutionary changes. The difficult position of the media in capitalist society is that commercial news outlets require huge amounts of advertising to pay their salaries and other expenses, and the greatest advertisers are for automobiles, real estate, airlines, fast food, and home furnishings. To create demand for real mitigation of climate change emissions would require the media to repeatedly and insistently call for truly revolutionary changes in society, precisely away from consumption of the products of their advertisers.”

Governments can’t act. The media can’t tell the truth. The crisis in which we find ourselves, it becomes clearer by the day, is not simply ecological - it is a crisis of democracy, in which our most vital institutions have been compromised. Fiddling about at the edges - changing a candidate here, a lightbulb there - makes little difference: the tyranny of vested interests remains in control.

Trackback address for this post:

authimage

Comments, Trackbacks: Hide subcomments

SeasideManSeasideMan pro
26/06/08 @ 20:19

That note is quite correct and it's something I've complained about myself many a time: when a media company in a capitalist society is required to make a profit, it's reliability and partiality are necessarily compromised.

There are only 3 real alternatives:

1. A truly independent news agency funded by reader subscription. This would probably end up as unfeasibly expensive, resulting in a small readership of wealthy people, and/or compromised quality.

2. A good, honest state-run news agency. This is what the BBC should be but isn't quite.

3. An agency run not for profit by a massively wealthy philanthropist. Would this be any more reliable and impartial?

As I've mentioned before, there are two massive stumbling blocks to action on climate change: People who don't care, and people with a vested interest in keeping things as they are. Add government delays and incompetencies and we have a long-term tragedy on the way.

Tom.

CassandraofTroyCassandraofTroy [Member]
28/06/08 @ 17:16

Hi namesake, good to meet you, and to see Tom here too.
Some of the debates that Tom and I have been involved in lately have convinced me more than ever that this is a lost cause. Now that the effects of climate change are starting to become obvious and undeniable, people are comforting themselves with the mantra 'it's a natural cycle, nothing to do with us, the climate has always changed'. In fact, I have decided to stop trying to convince people on BCUK because they just shut down and refuse to listen, and I'm tired of wasting my energy on them.
Sorry, I have no words of comfort to offer. Just wanted to make contact.

Cassandra

SeasideManSeasideMan pro
28/06/08 @ 17:40

Coincidentally, I've given up trying to convince people too. It's like trying to fight a giant jelly: no matter how much apparent success you might have pushing it back, it just springs out again somewhere else. Too many minds are closed.

Tom.

CassandraofTroyCassandraofTroy [Member]
28/06/08 @ 20:58

Yep, spot on.
The more passionate you are about it, the more they turn round and say you're biased and not being rational.
Some of the recent discussions on BCUK have just made me realise what a hopeless task it is - same for you, I guess.
I've been thinking since I responded to this about that 22% - it's just not going to get any better is it? Because if the other 78% won't accept the arguments when they're staring them in the face, it's never going to happen.

SeasideManSeasideMan pro
28/06/08 @ 21:40

I agree. The deniers have done their job well: if you say you think humans could be affecting the planet you get labelled as a conspiracy theorist and hence a nutjob.

I'm very pessimistic at the moment, although Gordon Brown's recent announcement about alternative energy is at least a hope. I'm very skeptical about it though - he's promised money for this before and it hasn't happened.

*sigh*

Tom.

cassandra05cassandra05 [Member]
29/06/08 @ 04:57

As I say, I think there are real reasons to be hopeful, though I often share exactly the same pessimism as you. We have reached a point where a majority of people in wealthy nations, and across the world, acknowledge the problem, are concerned, and want action, generally serious action. This is not the kind of atmosphere in which to give up hope! If people don't believe partisan sources, they are at least more likely to acknowledge people like the Royal Society, for instance. People also know we need to replace our energy source very soon, and overwhelmingly favour renewables. In this context, a fossil fuel-based economy looks indefensible.

safrizsafriz [Member]
http://www.conspiror.blog.co.uk
01/07/08 @ 18:49

same way,banish the condoms.They too clog the drains and pollute the environment.

Leave a comment :

Your email address will not be displayed on this site.
Your URL will be displayed.
Allowed XHTML tags: <!, p, ul, ol, li, dl, dt, dd, address, blockquote, ins, del, a, span, bdo, br, em, strong, dfn, code, samp, kdb, var, cite, abbr, acronym, q, sub, sup, tt, i, b, big, small, img>
URLs, email, AIM and ICQs will be converted automatically.
Options:
 
(Line breaks become <br />)
(Set cookies for name, email & url)
Validation code:
Please enter the above code here:
For protection from spambots (case-sensitive).

Footer

The content of this website belongs to a private person, blog.co.uk is not responsible for the content of this website.