Climate Change and a Free Press
I’m at an event hosted by the New York Press kicked off with a wonderful plenary panel discussion including folks from The National Review, Huffington Post, Fox News, Democracy Now, and The Hill.It’s said that the media doesn’t tell us what to think, but it does tell us what to think about. Here are a few notes:
Why doesn’t corporate media cover climate change? In four debates, moderated by the mainstream media elite, there was not a single question on the subject.
The debate on the war in the Middle East is narrowed to air strikes vs. boots on the ground. Why not mention the fact that an enormous swath of Americans want a cessation of the endless wars?
Why did the media cover Donald Trump so much (creating his nomination), while ignoring Bernie Sanders (and destroying his chances)?
The answer? Money.
As a senior executive at CBS (in)famously said (this may be inexact, but it’s very close), “The Trump phenomenon may be terrible for the republic, but it’s the single most lucrative event for CBS in our history. Go Donald! Keep it up!”
The irony of all this, of course, is that Donald Trump, if elected, would shred the First Amendment and the freedom of the press. Under his “leadership,” anyone who writes something displeasing to another person can be sued. That would be the beginning of the end for this great nation.
Craig,
You wrote: “The irony of all this, of course, is that Donald Trump, if elected, would shred the First Amendment and the freedom of the press. Under his “leadership,” anyone who writes something displeasing to another person can be sued.”
That assumes that Trump, if elected, would have the power to do that. The president is not a dictator. Without the coöperation of Congress, he could not do that. Whether he could ever get sufficient coöperation from congress to undermine the first amendment is unclear. However, I suspect that attempts to do so would sufficiently alarm the people that congress would reject the attempts.
Craig,
If I may, I would like to add my support to Fran’s wise observation. No President can unilaterally change the US constitution. Nor has Trump said anything of the sort.
Trump has complained about the abuse of the First Amendment to allow individuals to be unfairly pilloried defamed by malice. That’s a popular veiw, and far cry from wanting to restrict the right to free speech, which on many occasions Trump has defended. (also cheerfully abused !).
In reply to the main contention of your article, I would suggest that you are basically complaining the mainstream media isn’t devoting enough coverage to a subject which interests you.
From this you conclude that the media is corrupted by money, and not motivated by idealism by failing to concentrate on promoting to it’s audience primarily one subject of information.
That’s not news, that’s propaganda!
The mainstream media is by it’s nature fairly transitory and shallow. It leaves lengthy, complex,in depth debates to more specialist publications. In dong so, mainstream media serves the requirements of it’s audience.
The mainstream media concentrates on satisfying the demands of a mass audience. That audience knows what it wants and media outlets must balance the demand of the audience while incorporating some journalistic comment. Mainstream media must inform, entertain, but above all, reflect the views of the society in which it operates while also appealing to and retaining it’s core audience.
Above all, to stay in business it must attact a large audience.
You may find this difficult to accept, but the majority of the populace isn’t very interested in global warming/climate change. In fact, it’s safe to say, they’re largely bored with the subject and tired of extremist advocates crying “wolf” !
This isn’t the fault of the mainstream media, but just a natural tendency of humans to lose interest in anyhing complicated and long term. Some of the blame can be attributed to the bitter, even fanatical claims by extreme advocates.
Climate change receives it’s fair share of favourable media coverage, not as much as during the high point of the “green boom”, but still is refelcted in many articles.
Marcopolo,
The media ARE corrupted by money, and that IS a problem. I have written about this before.
Contrary to popular belief, the purpose of the media is NOT to inform the public. Rather, it is to maximize profits. Maximizing profits requires maximizing audience size to maximize advertising revenue. Maximizing audience size is more effectively done by ENTERTAINING the audience than by informing the audience. That is why there are lurid headlines and introductions which really grab the attention of the audience. It is why serious road accidents are reported over and over during the same news broadcast instead of doing a thorough job one time. It is why accurately reported stories which would alienate the audience are either ignored or slanted to make them more palatable. It is why some of the time during newscasts is devoted to telling jokes. Ignored is providing sufficient background information to understand current events.
Note that during TV news broadcasts, there are usually a man and a woman who read alternate lines. Obviously that does not add to the information broadcast; it is done only to add to the entertainment value. Considering that the commercial media are dependent on audience size and advertising revenue, probably the deficiencies in reporting are inevitable.
PBS does better than commercial TV stations, but even PBS is not totally immune to the above problems. However, PBS does a more thorough job of reporting. It also includes background information and often interviews people who have opposing viewpoints.
I’m aware of the limits of the US President’s power. And there is a good chance that Trump would be unsuccessful in pulling off what he claims he will do.