• FrankGSterleJr
    94
    (A related study to the post below is at: http://jspp.psychopen.eu/article/view/96/37 AND article: http://journews.concordia.ca/?p=234) ....
    Although conservative mainstream news-media in North America (and perhaps even Britain) might generally be expected to behave implicitly apologetic towards big environmental polluters, such as the corporate crude-oil sector, the relatively few yet equally mainstream outlets of an outwardly liberal slant, conversely, might be expected to vastly voice the alarm on all ecological threats, both potentially and in ongoing practice.
    However, from what I’ve observed over the last half-dozen years or so, the latter fail to do so, even though basic common sense, at least to me, would dictate that genuine ecological threats and disasters would be given the highest priority.
    Meanwhile, those progressive-reputation newspapers are very zealous in printing numerous stories (which I find have an unfortunate distractive effect away from even serious eco-concerns) on persecuted and disadvantaged minority groups, most notably those of race (and perhaps that of relevant related religion), sexuality, gender, and especially stories involving society’s most disenfranchised -- the homeless and those with mindbogglingly decrepit living quarters very few of us would even think of inhabiting; and, to not be mistaken, I find stupendous and crucial such journalistic social activism. (As it were, the current and potently effective distraction, especially in conservative media, is that of the Omar Khadr compensation story.) But to me it’s clearly counterproductively absurd to stop that fervent extensive-coverage activism short of including the environment and eco-systems gravely threatened by big industries.
    (As an aside, I believe that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, at this point in time anyway, has his re-election hopes pinned on the above-mentioned politics of race, gender and gender-bending, the three major social issues most enthusiastically covered by the overtly socially progressive Canadian newspapers, The Toronto Star and Metro.)
    Furthermore, very disturbing is the corresponding tendency, in general, for polled voters heading into an election to rate the environment as the least, or next to it, of their listed election issues of importance and, equally troubling, the economy as their primary concern. After all, seemingly goes the prevailing mentality, what back and brain busting labourer will readily retain the energy to worry about such things immediately unseen regardless of their most immense importance?
    Even worsening the entire situation, such widely published poll findings can perpetuate such skewed-logic priorities, as can a negligence of otherwise meriting eco-threat coverage erroneously imply there are no real, serious environmental concerns out there about which to worry (another two relevant articles at: https://www1.udel.edu/htr/American/Texts/campcov.html AND http://gcml.org/corporate-media-and-big-oil-coup).
    To me, I see it somewhat like a cafeteria lineup consisting of diversely socially represented people, all adamantly arguing over which identifiable traditionally marginalized person should be at the front and, conversely, at the back of the line; and, furthermore, to whom amongst them should go the last piece of quality pie -- all the while the interstellar spaceship on which they’re all permanently confined is burning and suffering some serious storage-tank-breach spillage of lethally toxic chemicals at onboard locations that cannot be immediately seen.
    On the other hand, I could understand why a more palliative approach to our Earthly fate might be in order, such as significantly correcting primary social injustices amongst the planet’s populaces, had humankind’s fate been irreversibly solidified in regards to global warming,
    as believed by a responding editor with a British monthly climate-concerned publication as well as many reputable climate scientists (a few examples being: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/dec/09/poznan-copenhagen-global-warming-targets-climate-change & http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/donald-trump-climate-change-policy-global-warming-expert-thomas-crowther-a7450236.html & https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/have-we-passed-the-point-of-no-return-on-climate-change).
    As a species, we really can be so narrow-mindedly over-preoccupied with our own admittedly overwhelming little worlds, that we’ll miss the most critical biggest of pictures.
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k
    Mistake #1: you're assuming that some things really are more important than other things.
  • FrankGSterleJr
    94
    "Terrapin Station: Mistake #1: you're assuming that some things really are more important than other things.”
    _______

    At first I thought your bold statement may hold some truth had our home planet been not only in current good natural environmental condition, but also somehow magically immune from humankind’s collective recklessness as mass polluters. But then I thought I may be missing some other qualifiers.
    First, perhaps not all people find most important the fundamentals of human-life survival, those being in the order of clean air, water and food, without which all other corporeal “things” are rather imminently rendered irrelevant.
    Secondly, there’s the possible scenario in which a person, for whatever reason, doesn’t care about his corporeal existence and, perhaps by extension, nor does he care about that of his fellow humans; and, also by extension, most important to him is to live some sort of finite physical existence until his lights go out (albeit not by his own hand).
    Thirdly, the person may simply not believe that, for example, the polar ice caps are increasingly melting due to global warming, thus causing rising tidal levels and catastrophes like the unprecedented storm-surge effects of Hurricane Katrina upon New Orleans.
    Lastly, the person may be theologically inclined, convinced that humanity is indeed in our Book of Revelations last days, with God’s judgment nigh, anyhow, so it all doesn’t really matter; or the person believes God will not allow the recklessness of humankind to have final destructive say on His Earth’s otherwise pristine natural environment, or perhaps our destructive recklessness must be His will in the first place. Evidence of this was Canada’s previous prime minister, Stephen Harper, and some of his most influential cabinet ministers (one example site: thetyee.ca/Opinion/2012/03/26/Harper-Evangelical-Mission).
    But even with all of the above considered, when it comes to the fundamentals of physical survival, the life-and-death needs of the vast majority of the global populace should far outweigh the important-thing needs of the figurative few and especially the one.

    P.S. What might be Mistake #2, etcetera?
  • BC
    13.6k
    As an aside, I believe that my Canadian prime minister, Justin Trudeau, at this point in time anyway, is banking on eventually getting re-elected by the politics of race, gender and gender-bending, the three major social issues most enthusiastically covered by the overtly progressive Toronto Star and Metro newspapers.)FrankGSterleJr

    I'm pretty sure that there are too few gender-bending, anti-racist, and anti-sexist people in Canada to re-elect PM Trudeau--or to elect him in the first place. These issues (race/sex/gender identity)--which I am also sick and tired of hearing about, even though I am a leftist, are symbolic and for liberals they are a "watershed issue". Liberals want to be on one side of the watershed, conservatives on the other. Neither side has to be terribly invested in the details of the issues.

    As for your OP title -- News Media Creates Much of Their Consumers' Reality -- that has been shown to be true for decades. For instance, people who get all of their news about "the world" and their city from local television media tend to greatly over-estimate the amount of violence being perpetrated in their city. Local media tends to focus on fires, shootings, gang activity, accidents -- that sort of thing. If it bleeds it leads.

    The media -- even the best metropolitan newspapers like the New York Times or London Guardian or PBS / NPR, ProPublica, etc. -- tend to promote an overly simplified skewed view of political life. This is a problem during this time of political realignment. The old left, right, and center don't exist anymore. The political distribution has shifted rightward, and "upward" and "downward" so to speak, as other dividing lines come into play. Being "pro-environment" or "anti growth" aren't strictly liberal/conservative issues anymore. That, however, is too complicated when you have 130 seconds to present a story on the 7:00 pm news.

    A local affiliate of National Public Radio chided the legislature for "acting like squabbling children in the sand box" because they were having difficulty deciding on the net biennial budget. No, they weren't behaving like children -- they were behaving like representatives of diverse and conflicting interests. Similarly, this station's news department (otherwise head and shoulders above the crowd) has been referring to "divided government" -- one party controlling the legislature, one party controlling the governor. It's misleading. Should one party have control of everything? I don't think so.

    The PBS NewsHour has the right approach: A quick summary of the news then 3--at the most 4--stories during the hour long news broadcast. 15 to 20 minutes is enough time to present more complex information. Plus, they do this 5 nights a week. (I don't watch TV any more; I looked at the NewsHour a couple of years ago, and thought it seemed like the same program I had watched 5 or 10 years earlier. Kind of stale.

    One last issue: the best newspapers and electronic media do cover environment, global warming, and science news reasonably well. However, the best newspapers and electronic media all have fairly limited audiences. (I'm not counting ABC, CBS, NBC or Fox among "the best".)
  • mcdoodle
    1.1k
    Over here in the UK the Greens and green issues got swamped in the last election. It felt like a revival of late 20th century politics, with added Brexit. Who even acknowledged the environment had problems?

    I'm wary of generalisations about 'the media', though. Mainstream press here missed the minor leftist revival, which happened on 'social media' and in the streets. The Guardian for instance is in trouble, partly because it seems to be misreading some of its core readership. I for one have gone over to the Independent.

    Like BC I'm a leftist who's not very interested in identity politics. That may just show our age. But politics is partly about alliances and I'm game to make space for identity claims that hold up if they in turn are game to ally with my kind who want renewable energy and greater income redistribution.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.