According to a widely-respected paper published by Jules Boykoff and Maxwell Boykoff, published in 2004, the media has failed to convey the true scientific consensus over global warming due to a tendency to discuss “both sides” of the issue that actually results in an unfair bias toward global warming deniers. Journalists have been trained to always look at both sides of an issue in their reporting, and this is certainly an admirable goal in most cases. When writing about the science of global warming, however, the result has been that reporters first discuss the view held by the vast majority of climate scientists that global warming is real, and then elevate the concerns of a tiny minority of largely industry-paid scientists who continue to deny global warming’s existence. To the public reading a newspaper article, it then looks like the views of leading climate scientists and industry deniers are equally valid – when, of course, this is not actually the case. In this way, according to Boykoff and Boykoff, the media attempt at “balance” actually leads to an unintended “bias” toward the views of deniers. Since publication of the 2004 study, some media outlets have attempted to correct the problem, and some progress is being made on that front. However, the mainstream media still has a long way to go to get to the point where its coverage of the climate debate actually reflects to realities of the scientific discussion.
I agree. Too often people think being balanced in media means presenting both side of an argument. While that is a good idea, it is not productive when the idea is embedded in science and not up for debate. Moreover, there are a growing number of people who’s livelihood depends are certian people and companies being in power, and those people have great influence. Some lobbyists and politicians are completely against climate change because of what it will do to their income. Their influence can also be seen on television in the form of Fox News, a station completely against Obama and the democrats, and that has recently been seen as claiming that snow fall and cold weather is reason enough to deny global warming. Such a simplistic and biased view is not good for the discourse and not good for the country.
i think the media are noot doing enough about the climate change i mean they sit around telling us lot to do something about the way we go about our life but since when do we ever see them ( them being celebraties and big names and companys and stuff like that) actualy doing anything i mean they say the little things count but to be honest the way they potray it on the television and radio it seems that climate change is a really big problem so to me i think well is just putting a milk carton in recycle in sted of a normale bin really going to make much difference i mean if we reallly want our future kids to see po;ar bears and to see places like egypt and stuff then shouldnt we all be trying to work together to do something massive and originale like if we didnt have so many big manufaactors building so many cars at one time then hardly any people would bye them like i think there should be a shortage in cars and like and there should only be some mane roadsa nd a few short street roads were cars can go through so then we would all be able to use what sciantist call legs more offten wich is therefore not using as much fuel and petrol in cars wich therefore is helping the planet and if it is really that a big fuking problem then raise fuel prices amd every one should stop talking about it and actuale get of there fat fucking arses and do something about it !!!!!!!!!!
I do not think that the media portrays global warming as controversial still. Nevertheless, even if they were they are definitely changing. There has been much news and information coming out on climate change due to the BP oil spill.
Click here to cancel reply.
Sorry,At this time user registration is disabled. We will open registration soon!
Don't have an account? Click Here to Signup
© Copyright GreenAnswers.com LLC