The purpose of this paper is to investigate the way in which mass media approaches the topic of climate change and thus how it influences the perspective of the public toward this issue. A wide variety of articles and studies related to this subject will be cited in order to observe the extent at which the mass media has or could influence the way climate change is perceived. A section will also be dedicated to data I collect personally from surveys distributed amongst local students. Their responses will also serve to determine whether the media has influenced their standpoint on the issue. Based on personal experience and preliminary research, it is assumed that this investigation will conclude that the media does have an active role in the dissemination of climate change information, and thus the approach it takes will in some way influence the perspective of its audience. Nevertheless, due to lack of information and supporting evidence, it is too soon to determine whether the general approach the media takes towards this topic is positive or negative.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis semester I'm taking Intro to Mass Communications. Just from my beginning research in media studies, I can tell you, with confidence, that you have a great topic. In reading your post, the first idea that came to mind was Maxwell McComb's and Donald Shaw's agenda-setting theory. Make sure you research this theory. It's very influential in the climate change debate in our media and in America as a whole.
ReplyDeleteThis is really interesting because I think the role of climate change is distorted through media all the time, and on both sides of the topic. I know this winter someone had the audacity to say on the news that global warming is a myth because it's snowing in D.C. At the same time, some singer (I want to say it was Billy Joel?) was in commercials a few years ago stating the hole in the ozone layer was an actual hole. I would be really interested to see the ways the climate change is depicted through media inaccurately as a scare tactic to audiences.
ReplyDeleteDid you by any chance get to see Dr. Schneider's lecture last semester? He is one of the most involved people in the study of climate change and he made some really good points about the fundamental difference between politicians/the media and scientists, which I'll try to summarize. Politics tends to think local and short-term, and avoid false negatives, while scientists (in particular those studying climate change) deal with issues on a global, long-term scale, and avoid false positives. In other words, politicians tend to be overly confident (hence, sweeping campaign promises), while scientists need to be cautious about making grand statements. Also, the media and the general public need to understand that science is not exact; as much as we look to it for facts, the conclusions drawn from them can and will vary with time and further research (Dr. Schneider and his colleagues first proposed a theory of global cooling. After realizing they'd undermined the effect of an important factor, they recalculated and eventually proposed global warming). Another obstacle facing scientists who try to communicate their findings is the public's attention span. As in politics, people relate more to short-term outcomes and definite answers; when scientists can't provide them, the public gets impatient and may stop listening, even though research is ongoing. Dr. Schneider says more about this in his book, "Science as a Contact Sport", although it is denser and not as to-the-point as his lectures.
ReplyDeleteoh, also, the media tends to value "fairness" and therefore provide both sides of a story. In most situations, this is admirable, but in the case of climate change, it means that some news outlets feel it necessary to give just as much time and consideration to largely unfounded alternative theories to climate change.
ReplyDelete