A small segment of society refuses their opinions to be clouded by facts. Recent Yale polling shows that about 6 in 100 Americans seriously doubt the overwhelming majority of scientific evidence that 'global warming' or 'climate change' is caused by human activity. Media often portray it as a "debate" about climate science, where one side is fighting to get legislative action and the other side is against it because the evidence is "inconclusive." As if it were a 50/50 fight. Is this balance bias responsible journalism?In communications we often refer to this process as related to "framing." As in, the same information can be perceived as different depending on the angle to which it is referenced. Several right-wing politicians have shown great skill in pushing to cast doubt on the empirical results of decades of scientific research. This NYT article shows just this type of twisting of fact to fit political fiction. Is this effective politicking or the fleecing of an entitled, uninterested and apathetic citizenry? Probably both. And who will pay the price for delay and malaise regarding perhaps the most pressing (yet diffuse and distanced) environmental crisis the modern world has witnessed?
No comments:
Post a Comment