Robert Hong -- News Media Blog

By Robert Hong

Global climate change is not an unheard of term - at least not in the age that we live in. The media constantly trawls over this highly debated topic: with naysayers on one side, extremists on the other, and every other middle ground in between. With every side throwing around stories and news laced with their own versions of science and opinions, it can be hard for the average media consumer to know what to take in and what is actionable information. The basics for this major issue is that while deniers may claim global warming is natural, many top scientists believe that our world is currently in a sped up warming cycle caused by human action - pollution, CO2 emissions, etc. - all byproducts of our industries and technologies. In fact, this trend is already accepted by the majority of the scientific community. The main concern rests on calculations and projections that warn us that continued temperature escalations will lead to widespread global environmental catastrophes: more powerful storms, floods, and droughts. In this post, I will be collecting and analyzing some of the top current events in order to understand how different media outlets handle the issue of climate change today.

With a quick search of “global climate change” in the news section of online search engines, we can see that some of the top stories involve the U.S. and China - with China being the world’s current top polluter and the U.S. coming at a close second. According to Reuters, the next few top polluters include Russia, India, Japan, and then various European nations. Because the world is so interconnected today, the news is littered with stories of these nations striking deals to lower their own emissions - yet can anyone believe that action will be taken through politics? I think if the voice comes from a nation’s top administrators then the government will be transparent enough to feel the need to address the issue. This is what we see in a March 2015 article “Climate Change: China Official Warns of ‘Huge Impact.’” BBC, a London based public service mass media company, is the world’s largest broadcaster by size, and its reach spans multiple regions in multiple languages. In it’s article, we are greeted with a brown-tinted photo of pollutants from smokestacks blocking the sun. The article itself is fairly straightforward - short and informative - but with emphasis on how China’s administrative admission of climate change is rare. This article seems to aim to show us that 1. Westerners are keen on China’s policies and are ready to accept any form of change in its industrial policies, and 2. China is aware of it’s own internal demands for action against climate change. I believe that it is especially important that superpowers and nations developing their industries need to keep their numbers in check, and with articles like these, we can see that active efforts to curb emissions are taking effect in the parts of the world that are causing the most pollution. The idea is that if highly developed nations start controlling their industries, other developing nations may take note and follow in their footsteps. 

Smaller countries that do not have large carbon footprints also participate in discussions, as can be seen by the interaction between France and the Philippines. In this February article by Euronews, we are told by author Tobunko Salako that the two nations are striking an agreement to be proactive which is, according to the Philippine president,  “vital for the planet’s future.” These partnerships between developing countries and larger countries are a common affair in today’s world. The topic of climate change is graced with mention of Hollywood stars in this article, and the picture we get are the two political figures shaking hands. The article gives a sense of action between governments and their policies toward the future of the climate. It portrays a sense of urgency, but overall, it is worded very impartially as it is only stating a development that has occurred.

On the other spectrum, London based conservative news and opinion website, Breitbart, published an article “New Climate Paper Gives Global Warming Alarmists ‘One Helluva Beating.’” From the top of the page, we are given the choice to share this article on various social media outlets - even before the article starts. Instead of smog, we get a picture of an individual wearing a smiling polar bear suit with a sign that reads “Climate Change Devastates Lives.” The feel from this picture is very satirical. The article goes on to describe in detail how the information of one paper defeats the data given by previous climate change models. The tone of the piece is quite casual - as seen when the author, James Delingpole, describes how aerosols contribute to global warming, then finishes with “...often cited by alarmists to excuse the awkward fact that the world has stubbornly failed to warm at the disastrous rate they predicted it would.” Delingpole seems to alienate these alarmists with words like “failed,” “stubborn,” and “awkward.” The writing does indeed cite many scientific sources - but only to reference how the first article is able to defeat their evidence. While I believe we do need thorough and considerate opinions and facts from both spectrums, this article gives me difficulty judging its fairness. Although riddled with verifiable sources, the injection of assertive opinions in between every paragraph creates an air of bias - even if we were to ignore the irony of using an image that is supportive of the very climate change models the author is trying to disprove.  

Closer to home, American broadcasting company CBS has published a recent article titled “Answers Sought After Reports Of ‘Climate Change’ Ban.” As a reputable news network, we can expect to see that the article does give references to interviews as well as equal footing to each side in question. We are told that certain politicians are covering up global climate change in the media by telling spokespeople of various agencies to not use the words “global climate change” or “global warming.” This leads us to believe that in fact, politicians are very intent on shrouding media coverage of these controversial topics - especially when it refers to plans they plan on proposing. You can expect to see whistleblowers from many of these agencies calling for more transparency because there is clearly a divide in the agency that manages the environment and agencies that manage money. The article puts a face to the name of Gov. Rick Scott, allegedly directing offices to keep quiet with the mentioned volatile words. In the spirit of balance, we hear the governor’s side of the story as well - mentioning how he has spent millions on preserving Florida’s environment and parks. I believe this is a well-written piece of news which gives the consumer the freedom to weigh the facts and make their own opinions of the agencies and people involved. 

Another format that I have explored exists on the Letters page of The Guardian. It’s title states its intention as a simple sentence: “There are ways to tackle climate change: now we must find the will.” This page is a collection of comments in the form of letter replies in response to a recent campaign that the company promoted. In the related campaign, it referenced many sites and articles about how people are working to combat global climate change as well as facts about the issue. However, when you focus on this standalone page, we can see how media actually has affected these individuals - the majority of commenters state gratitude and approval of the company’s initiative. In fact, many people offer their own suggestions on how to continue the campaign and their personal stories of how their lives were changed. I found this letters format extremely important because as a collective, social media is where we input our voices instead of reading a general article and it is how we can change people’s views and actions. It is not to say that there is already a giant platform that exists (such as Facebook, Twitter, etc.), but it seems that this collection is much more professional than microblogging - yet more tolerable than a lengthy journal. Even though it is opinion based, the fact that the site requires registration and names per remark makes the piece at least verifiable overall.  

Meanwhile, in other parts of the world such as Siberia, we hear news of giant craters opening up in the ground. According to another article by The Guardian, Russian scientists have found giant craters in remote icy areas. This is a discovery article where we obtain information about when where and what these craters are. Apparently, as the Siberian ice melts, it releases methane gas. That can cause underground explosions which the land collapses into. This is, of course, still understudied and a speculation. The purpose of this article is to inform readers about potential damage of global climate change. It ties a very real event to the mathematical models and we are able to see some sort of perceptible event. While the article itself is relatively neutral, sometimes we should focus on the comments section of a debated topic such as global climate change. After all, that is where all the interaction between readers will occur. In this particular instance, we see people denying that humans can advance climate change. Then, we see others trying to educate them, but with sarcasm. This is very apparent in our online culture today - as many individuals who have the power of anonymity may turn to ridicule instead of honest explanations. 

Global climate change has an immense reach over worldly news, as many parts of the world are currently headlining the topic. In social media, the topic occasionally trends (having many posts in a short amount of time), but only if a major event occurs. We can see that this is a hugely debated topic - by looking at the comments section of many fair news articles, you will find a heated dispute. The government will not deny global climate change, but we also do not see a lot of media covering their actions on that topic. From what I gathered, politicians will do their best to avoid being seen as biased (or in this case, choosing a side) of the climate change debate. The majority of news organizations do portray global climate change as a real thing, but our scientific community only has models and not real life figures to effectively persuade many deniers - who incidentally actively seek out data that discredits previous climate change models. Overall, our media today does a very good job at forcing people to re-evaluate the news that they consume and through discussion, we can come to terms with very real problems. Unfortunately, it seems that the more people join in, the less the odds of one side giving in and eventually, there will be a stalemate that produces very slow results - which is exactly what is happening in our society these days. Global climate change may remain “tomorrow’s problem,” until the realities hit us today.