Media Criticism

The media’s new baby is going above and beyond their journalistic duties to expose the issue of global warming. It is refreshing that the media has gone from zero to environmentalist in a hurry but a new Foreign Policy article exposes one of the more insidious results of the “green press.�? Global warming is the new Communism and every side is girding their defenses to protect their natural resources interests.

The point of the Foreign Policy article is that the expansion of interest in global warming by world leaders has turned a substantive issue into a tool against tyranny. The military and civilian leaders alike have claimed that melting ice caps and desertification will lead to anarchy in lesser states. These assumptions make people in Africa and Asia seem like brutes in a way that is all too familiar in these areas. I think the point that Foreign Policy makes most effectively is that an overwhelming supply of natural resources are more dangerous than a dearth of resources.

The press has picked up on this new global antagonism because newspapers like the New York Times and the Washington Post need to stay current. The excitement over global warming has made editors and writers fall over each other on their way toward the top of the green mountain top. We need papers to write editorials on a regular basis denouncing this disturbing use of environmentalism as a way of creating a new breach between the developed and developing worlds. If we are going to solve climate change issues, our journalists need to break through the same garbage we went through in the Cold War to cultivate the moment of promise we have in front of us.

This week’s Economist is full of articles worth mentioning here. One, in particular, reveals how one candidate’s media image is shaping the whole of the campaign.

John Edwards, in an attempt to both distinguish himself as a candidate and create real change, outlines very specific policies in his speeches. Normally, candidates generalize the issues and offer a vague party platform in an attempt to gain votes. Edwards seems more interested in policy than politics, however. According to the Economist, “[h]e has grand, progressive, goals–to end the war in Iraq (obviously), provide universal health care, address global warming, eliminate poverty in America within 30 years–and detailed blueprints of how to do it all.”*

Even more amazing than Edwards’ bold move to make policy proposals is the fact that the other two Democratic candidates (Clinton and Obama, both leading Edwards in polls and money) are following suit. They’re not proposing as many specific policies, but the choices they make seem sometimes to be defined by Edwards’ position. For instance, Edwards has a comprehensive energy plan to “reduce America’s greenhouse-gas emissions by 80% before 2050 with a cap-and-trade system of carbon permits.” This is similar to one of the most radical bills in congress, which Clinton and Obama began supporting “soon after the Edwards energy plan was released.”

However, Edwards seems significantly more moderate than the two candidates leading him in the polls. He favors troops staying near Iraq to “prevent a genocide, deter a regional spillovr of the civil war, and prevent an al-Qaeda safe haven.” His health care plan echoes Republican candidate Mitt Romney’s. Ironically enough, Obama’s “paler version” of Edwards’ plan was criticized for being too watered down.

What’s the upshot? Ultimately, the Democrats are fighting about real issues of policy, and the political theater (while still in full force–Edwards’ speeches all begin the same way) is taking a back seat. The role of the media in this is substantial; the media’s portrayal of candidates has a calculable effect on the turnout of elections. For once, a candidate has decided to play a different angle. Instead of the empty platitudes of a “better America”, Edwards is offering real solutions to the problems facing the country. Even if you don’t like all of his solutions (I certainly don’t), you know what you’re getting.

I, for one, am harboring the (maybe vain) hope that we’re witnessing the emergence of a new politics. Right now, Edwards’ voice is what the left needs; all of the candidates are using his ideas. Maybe this year’s presidential battle will be more than the traditional theatric farce.

I’m hoping, but I’m not holding my breath.

*Source: “Man of the Left”. The Economist. 7/21/2007

Edwards, economist, Democrats, election, policy, health care, global warming

Though magazines like Popular Science are not considered part of the mainstream media, they are still an important source of information. How they present scientific information influences how people view science and technology. This, in turn, influences the actions of readers.

The August 2007 issue just passed across my desk, and I thought an article on its treatment of green technology was in order. Many of the articles revolve around the issue of the environment, which is interesting because it suggests that the general perception of the public is changing. When it comes to the environment, scientists often sound like doomsday predictors; our habits today have serious consequences in the foreseeable future.

However, the magazine offers a host of solutions to the problem. The article “Choking At The Olympics”, for instance, describes the methods by which China is trying to clean air for the 2008 Olympic Games. Most of the articles, in fact, are about the environment and deal with advancing technology to protect the planet. There are all sorts of interesting nuggets in here, including an idea to “re-ice the arctic” by building a giant water-powered ice machine. There are blueprints of everything from an environmentally friendly laptop to pumps that prevent hurricanes.

The ideas themselves are worth reading, and the issue as a whole reveals something new about the American scientific consciousness: we realize we face serious consequences if we do not act to protect our world. “Save the Trees”-style campaigns are no longer enough; we need technological innovation. We’re looking to science to pull us out of this mire, and, from the looks of it, science is working to deliver.

My only worry is that news of scientific progress may cause some to ignore their personal roles in protecting the environment. While technological advancement is necessary, it is not sufficient to sustaining life as we know it. We cannot rely too much on technology to solve our woes; by the time the scientists come up with new answers, it may be too late. Ideally, other media will do their jobs and speak this message, too.