Why Trump Hates Traditional Journalism and Loves Digital Media (Videos)

Trump despises traditional media for exposing his lies and he loves digital media because it can be spun to support his false narrative. The post factual reality, fake news and alternate facts being spun by the Trump administration reads like an Orwellian nightmare.  If this sounds like hyperbole you have not been following closely.  If you need more proof simply watch Trump's most recent tirades against the press. Trump needs to deride fact-based reporting as a matter of survival. He must discredit the press if he is to have a hope of fulfilling his dark agenda. This is a man who has declared war on the EPA. He wants to take away regulations that protect the air that people breathe and the water that people drink. This is a man who wants to remove sanctions against Russia so that Exxon can drill for oil in the Arctic.

In a page right out of 1984, Trump's doublespeak consistently accuses others of what he himself is guilty of. This may have been the strategy behind Trump's first solo press conference since November 8th. The February 16th spectacle was described by some as surreal. During his hour and 17-minute rant, he lambasted "dishonest media" and then went on to utter a bold faced lie about his popularity. This is a one-two combination that is Trump's signature move. Attack those who would expose you then lay down a bed of lies for his base.

Watch this Democracy Now! video containing excerpts from Trump's February 17th press conference. He turns the truth on its head by suggesting that traditional news is fake news and his lies are the truth.



In this video from Fox News Shepard Smith slays Trump for his litany of lies at the press conference.



At his February 19th rally in Melbourne Florida Trump again went after the press accusing the media of doing what he himself has done on numerous occasions. Trump said the press writes stories even though they have "no sources" he then called journalists, "part of the corrupt system." He then equates his subterfuge with the words and deeds of the founding fathers.

We are at a turning point in history and it is far more sinister than many realize. Under the guise of populism, the Trump administration is a kakistocracy they are preparing to enrich themselves and subvert democracy. It is not only the US that is moving in this dark direction. Nations where there is growing support for nationalistic agendas, include the UK, France, and Germany.  The demagogues leading these right-wing movements have more in common with Adolph Hitler than America's founding fathers.

Trump's extreme views and erratic behavior are widely perceived as dangerous. At the 2017 Munich Security Conference, John McCain delivered an impassioned speech in which he expressed concerns about the "survival of the West". However, it may very well be that there is a goal if not a method to his madness. It is possible that Trump may be trying to augur a constitutional crisis which would allow him to centralize power and subvert democracy.  We can say for sure that his fervent support for fossil fuels and disdain for climate action are by all scientific accounts a threat to civilization as we know it.

New Narratives

It may not be hyperbole to say the fate of democracy and life on the planet may depend on counter-narratives.  The institutions of democracy have already proven a powerful counter-force to Trump's dark agenda. We also need new narratives that reach out to common people and address the issues and concerns of our times.

More than anything a new narrative needs to bring us together to resist the dystopia of the Trump administration. This is precisely what the new administration cannot allow. Trump willfully sows division, he is the Johnny Appleseed of hate. This division serves him as it pits his core followers against those who are interested in facts. He villainizes those who seek the truth as a prophylactic against his lies being exposed. Trump's fear of a fact-based appraisal of the world is well warranted. Facts are his undoing, so Americans perception of reality must be altered at all costs.

Journalistic malpractice

Traditional media is not blameless, they are at fault but not in the way that Trump suggests. Traditional media served up a sensationalist, low-fact diet that fattened the anti-science politics of our age. It is not overstating the case to say that they have helped to create the right conditions to allow a pathological liar to become the president of the United States.

Traditional media was guilty of journalistic malpractice long before the most recent election cycle. They inaccurately covered climate science and once it ceased to be of interest to readers or once it failed to generate good ratings it was dropped altogether. Failure to adequately communicate the magnitude of the threat makes Trump's climate denial seem a little less out of touch with reality.

Traditional media has been consistently losing market share to the digital world. Once a virtual license to print money in recent years desperation has driven the media to make commercial interests the paramount concern. Commercial interests have driven a host of factors that have diminished news and analysis. This includes convergence, newsroom integration, multimedia partnerships, cross-promotion and mergers. Corporate ownership of media has led to editorial intervention that detracts from the veracity of the news reporting. Even the so-called "promotional synergy" has not materialized to the extent many had hoped.

Newspapers and television fell asleep at the switch. In a bid for ratings they pandered to the basest aspects of human nature and abandoned the best journalistic standards. In the final analysis traditional media's preoccupation with financial viability inadvertently helped an ill-equipped narcissist to assume control of the oval office. 

We cannot give the media a pass, but by the same token we need them now more than ever. As John McCain said recently, dictators get started by suppressing free press.

Related
Trump Battles with CNN over the Existence of Reality
How Conservatives Use Fake News to Control the Narrative
Trump and the Darkness of Post-Factual Media
Fake News is Serious but so are Efforts to Combat it
Mainstream Media's Failed Climate Coverage
Mainstream Media is Distorting the Facts about Climate
Popular Media is to Blame for Inaction on Climate Change
Popular Media Panders to Conservative Politics and Legitimizes Climate Denial
The Science of Storytelling: Making Facts Matter in a Post-Factual World
Why We are Not Seeing More Action on Climate Change
Anti-Science Journalism Helped to End Progressive Climate Governance in Australia
The Slaughter of Innocents: Our Complicity in the Murder of Environmentalists
The Death of Mikhail Beketov and Environmental Journalism in Russia
The Persecution of Environmental Reporters
Environmental Advocacy Through Citizen Journalism

Read More»

The Importance and the Power of Protest: Why We Must Stand Up to Trump

The need for protests challenging the Trump administration's destructive actions and their deceptive narrative have become even more glaringly apparent in the wake of the tragic murder of peaceful Muslims in a Quebec city mosque. Look at the face of terrorism, note the pale skin and the light blue eyes. The man who committed this barbaric crime was not an ISIS sympathizer he supported Donald Trump and other racist nationalistic movements. This man is what is called in French "pure laine" literally meaning pure wool, referring to those whose ancestry is exclusively French-Canadian.  As reported by The Independent, the killer's Facebook page indicates that he is a supporter of nationalistic movements including Donald Trump in the US, Le Pen in France, and the separatist Parti Quebecois.

The Quebec City massacre killed six Muslims and wounded many others who were attending a mosque for evening prayers. The criminal whose name should be forgotten is a 27-year-old resident of Quebec. He has been charged with six counts of first-degree murder and five counts of attempted murder with a restricted weapon.

"I wrote him off as a xenophobe. I didn't even think of him as totally racist, but he was enthralled by a borderline racist nationalist movement," Vincent Boissoneault, a fellow Laval University student, told The Globe and Mail newspaper.

Perpetrators of hate crimes

Trump has inspired hateful acts of violence before he was elected. Here are some of the hate crimes committed at Trump rallies during the election campaign and violence inspired by Trump before the election. After his electoral victory, there was another uptick in violent hate crimes. This is the demagogue who now leads the free world.

In the alternate universe promulgated by Trump and his people, the homeland must be protected from outsiders. That may be the narrative that some white people want to hear, but the truth is that the real terror threat is not from Muslim refugees seeking to escape the horrors of war, these refugees have committed zero acts of terrorism and they actually have a lower incidence of criminality than Americans born in the country.

According to Global Research, in both the US and Europe the overwhelming majority of mass shootings were perpetrated by non-Muslims. According to Charles Kurzman, Professor of Sociology at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Muslim terrorism accounts for less than 1 percent of the 180,000 murders in the US since 9/11.

Some of the deadliest terrorist attacks in the US were perpetrated by white people. In 1995 Timothy James McVeigh killed 168 people and injured over 600 in Oklahoma. In 2015 Dylann Roof killed 9 black people in a South Carolina church.

Trump's revisionism

In yet another example of twisted logic, the Trump administration used this attack to support their xenophobic policies including the Muslim ban which has been condemned by world leaders. As they often do, DT co-opts real world events that challenge his legitimacy and revises the facts so that they support his narrative.

"We condemn this attack in the strongest possible terms. It’s a terrible reminder of why we must remain vigilant, and why the president is taking steps to be proactive, rather than reactive, when it comes to our nation’s safety and security," press secretary Sean Spicer said at his daily briefing on Monday.

The fact remains that Bissonnette is a Trump supporter who shares Trump's disdain for Muslims.

Control of the narrative

We cannot sit idly by and let the White House control the narrative. We must challenge their lies. Throughout his campaign, Trump lied repeatedly and even after being elected president he resorted to fake news with regard to Russia and he has attacked CNN dismissing the facts they report.  We must oppose fake news and the darkness of Trump's post-factual narrative.

Trump recently called the New York Times, the gold standard of fact-based reporting, "fake news" in a Twitter post. Donald Trump and his chief strategy advisor, a racist by the name of Steve Bannon are the real purveyors of fake news. What makes the situation even more troubling is that their deceitful narrative is now coming directly from the White House.

Power of protest

Now more than ever we need to acknowledge the importance and the power of protest. We must not forget that Trump lost the popular vote by an unprecedented three million people. There were massive protests against DT after he was elected. This continued on inauguration day and was followed by the Women's March on January 21. It is important to note that the Women's March had a far bigger turnout than Trump's Inauguration in Washington, D.C., a day earlier.

There are many who feel disheartened and beaten by the election of DT. However, we need to reflect upon what protest has accomplished. Consider what was accomplished through civil rights protests and the protest against the Vietnam war.

More recently climate protests have helped to augur change on the world stage. The People's Climate March in September 2014 helped to create momentum that ultimately culminated in the historic Paris Climate Agreement. Almost half a million people and more than 1,500 organizations took to the streets in New York City to demand climate action as world leaders convened at the United Nations headquarters. There were 2646 rallies in 162 countries. The event generated more than 5000 articles and over 630,000 social media posts.

The September 21st Climate March was the largest climate oriented march in history. There were a number of ground-breaking environmental protests that preceded it. In 2013 we were seeing signs of growing environmental activism and the beginnings of the new environmental movement. By the end of 2014 the people-powered environmental movement had come of age. In 2016 we saw how protest helped to kill the Dakota Access Pipeline. Previously, years of protest against the Keystone XL helped to create the support President Obama needed to cancel it.

Activists are also responding to DT's crimes against the environment and assaults on climate. This includes his revival of the KXL and DAPL pipelines, his war against the EPA (including naming a climate denier by the name of Scott Pruitt to head the agency), the nomination of Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson as the Secretary of State.

Recently, Greenpeace activists hung a massive, 70-by-35-foot banner reading "RESIST" from a crane only blocks from the White House Wednesday. Trump's Muslim ban has spawned ongoing protests in the US and around the world.

Trump's wall rhetoric spawned massive protests in Mexico and when Trump visits the UK this summer he will be greeted by what is being described as "the biggest protest ever" (tentatively scheduled for July 1).

This administration's is a kakistocracy and their unprecedented deceit warrants protest. There has never been a better reason to make our voices heard.

Another People's Climate March is scheduled to take place on April 29th, 2017. It will be a global opportunity to protest Trump's war against science, climate and the environment. This protest will take place in Washington, D.C., in cities nationwide and around the world.

Read More»

How Conservatives Use Fake News to Control the Narrative

Donald Trump and many members of his administration have capitalized on the fact that conservatives love fake news and reject facts and scientific evidence. While there are fake news sites on both sides of the political spectrum, research shows that the problem is far worse on the right than it is on the left.

The Washington Post reports that conservatives are both more likely to post fake news and more likely to believe it compared to liberals.

Conservatives have been found to be highly receptive to stories that reinforce their existing worldview. While this may be somewhat true of many people, there is evidence to show that liberals are not as receptive to fake news. Not only are conservatives more likely to fall for fake news they are more likely to produce it. A Buzzfeed analysis of Facebook revealed that leading conservative pages were twice as likely to publish fake news compared to leading liberal pages.

According to research conducted by New York University research psychologist John Jost and his colleagues conservatives tend not to be critical thinkers. This lack of affinity for critical thinking may explain why conservatives are more receptive to fake news. In his review of 40 studies, Jost found that liberals were far more likely to think critically than conservatives.

As Stefan Pfattheicher of Ulm University explained in an email to the post, conservatives, "are less reflective in information processing, especially when information is consistent with [their] own worldviews."

Pfattheicher found that conservatives were more likely to be duped by nonsense than liberals. A small study conducted by Pfattheicher showed a significant correlation between susceptibility to nonsensical statements and support for Trump and other Republican candidates. No such relationship was found in those who support Democratic candidates.

It is interesting to note that conservatives may not be less intelligent they may simply be less motivated to process information critically. Simply put, conservatives would rather consume news that supports their existing beliefs.

Daniel Kahan, a Yale professor of law and psychology, said that his research suggests that conservatives have the same level of political bias as liberals. However, Kahan's findings are at odds with 11 other studies that show people on the left are more apt to engage in cognitive reflection than those on the right.

During the presidential campaign Trump repeatedly used a fake news related tactic that appears to have served him well. He would call Clinton the very things that he himself is guilty of. The one that may have gained the most traction is "crooked Hilary".

The Trump campaign and now the administration in waiting hijack certain words to take control of a narrative that could be otherwise used against them.

By redefining fake news in their own terms and claiming that reporting by outlets such as The New York Times and CNN constitute fake news, right-wing media figures are bolstering the President-elect’s continued efforts to delegitimize mainstream news sources. This blurs the distinction between real and fake news. While fake news represents a serious impediment to an informed electorate, it is being used by conservatives as an effective instrument of disinformation.

Fake news is a large and growing problem but efforts are underway to combat it.

Related
Trump and the Darkness of Post-Factual Media
Fake News is Serious but so are Efforts to Combat it
Mainstream Media's Failed Climate Coverage
Mainstream Media is Distorting the Facts about Climate
Popular Media is to Blame for Inaction on Climate Change
The Science of Storytelling: Making Facts Matter in a Post-Factual World
The Implications of the Trump Administration's Disdain for Science 
Why We are Not Seeing More Action on Climate Change
Anti-Science Journalism Helped to End Progressive Climate Governance in Australia
The Slaughter of Innocents: Our Complicity in the Murder of Environmentalists
The Death of Mikhail Beketov and Environmental Journalism in Russia
The Persecution of Environmental Reporters
Environmental Advocacy Through Citizen Journalism

Read More»

Trump and the Darkness of Post Factual Media

Darkness is falling as a reality countering narrative is growing led by the subterfuge of unscrupulous fake news outlets. Facts undermine the alt-right agenda so they have created their own news which is little more than a collection of propaganda, spin and lies.

This will be the darkest night in half a millennia when the longest night of the year is accompanied by a lunar eclipse. However, the real darkness is emanating from the electoral victory of Donald Trump. The President-Elect was confirmed by electors on Monday, crushing the last hope of those who see him as unfit for the office. The result is that fact-based news is more likely than ever to be eclipsed by fake news. Trump's penchant for dishonesty and support for fake news are part of the reason why this is not a normal presidency. Trump's victory is but the latest example of a growing right wing movement whose political currency appears to be obfuscation. Trump's win can be tied to Brexit in the UK, and the surging popularity of the right in both France and Germany.

Steve Bannon has been a key Trump advisor throughout the campaign and after his win Trump announced that Bannon would be his chief strategist. Bannon is infamous for being the head of Breitbart, one of the world's foremost sources of racist fake news. To make matters worse Breitbart is expanding into France and Germany to try to influence the electoral outcome in these countries as it did in the US.

Fake news can sometimes appear to be real news, take for example an article on Trump.news which reports on Leonardo DiCaprio's meeting with Trump and his daughter Ivanka. The article starts out almost normally indicating that DiCaprio and his team made a presentation in support of green jobs. However, the article then begins to show its true colors when it asked the rhetorical question: "Isn’t DiCaprio the guy who flies all over the world while telling people not to fly all over the world?"

The article then goes on to its real purpose which is to question the scientific consensus on climate change.

"DiCaprio is a strong advocate of fighting so-called “climate change” that he insists is being created by humankind’s modern existence."

The article then makes it clear that, "Trump’s not ‘wavering’ on his global warming skepticism," and suggests that Trump was just being "presidential" when he agreed to meet with DiCaprio. The article reiterates the position of the President-Elect:

"Trump has made no secret of his disbelief in the notion of human-caused climate change/global warming, having mocked it in the past. Plus, it’s hard to take the “movement” seriously when its cultist adherents fake warming data all the time."

The article then goes on to say that Trump's decision to put Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt at the head of the Environmental Protection Agency makes the point that Trump is a bonafide climate denier. Trump agrees with Pruitt's view that global warming is a hoax, "perpetuated by the Left strictly for political purposes."

Then the article describes DiCaprio as an "environmental hack who has no special knowledge of such things." Then the article goes on to say, "...green jobs are not plentiful because green power production is not efficient or economically viable; the technology just isn’t there yet."

No mention is made of the scientific consensus on climate change, the ROI on sustainability or the fact that the opportunities associated with green jobs are far larger than the employment potential of the fossil fuel industry.

This is part of a wider trend that will see preferential access being given to fake news sites by the incoming administration. According to Salon, the conservative online media outlet Right Side Broadcasting Network (RSBN), dubbed “Trump TV” by the Washington Post, will get privileged access to Trump and the White House.

Related
How Conservatives Use Fake News to Control the Narrative
Fake News is Serious but so are Efforts to Combat it
Mainstream Media's Failed Climate Coverage
Mainstream Media is Distorting the Facts about Climate
Popular Media is to Blame for Inaction on Climate Change
The Implications of the Trump Administration's Disdain for Science 
The Science of Storytelling: Making Facts Matter in a Post-Factual World
Why We are Not Seeing More Action on Climate Change
Anti-Science Journalism Helped to End Progressive Climate Governance in Australia
The Slaughter of Innocents: Our Complicity in the Murder of Environmentalists
The Death of Mikhail Beketov and Environmental Journalism in Russia
The Persecution of Environmental Reporters
Environmental Advocacy Through Citizen Journalism

Read More»

Fake News is Serious but so are Efforts to Combat it

Fake news is not a joke it is a serious threat to the institution of democracy and planetary health. Indeed it is not overstating the case to say it threatens the very survival of our species. Fake news contributed to Trump's election victory, the Brexit vote in the UK and climate denial. To make good decisions people need to be well informed and this requires that they have access to accurate information.

After her election defeat, Hilary Clinton decried the "epidemic of fake news." She also said, "It’s now clear that so-called fake news can have real-world consequences." Hilary understands that fake news is a serious problem that has implications well beyond the election of 2016. "This isn’t about politics or partisanship. Lives are at risk," she said during a post-election speech on Capitol Hill.

In the most recent election cycle, Republicans bombarded digital media with fake news. According to G Shaw of Daily Kos, the Democrats have proven themselves to be feckless in their understanding of new media.

"Something created a bunch of fake news stories and they caused Democrats to lose. You don’t have to have a deep knowledge of the digital world to understand that."

The alt-right movement continues to dominate the net with a wide range of propaganda. The Democrats have yet to show any signs of understanding how new media factored into their defeat nor have they as yet articulated a cogent digital response.

There was a time when the serious purveyors of misinformation were pseudo-scientific conservative think tanks funded by the fossil fuel industry. They have been at the forefront of misinformation for decades. However, they are no longer the only purveyors of deceit, nor are they the most dominant.

Fake news is now the leading source of misinformation. While fossil fuel front groups tried to cast aspersions on climate science and sew doubt, fake news presents outlandish fabrications as facts. The number of fake news content creators and reach of such information through digital media is staggering.

We are living in dangerous times. When we most need to be reasonable we have become post-factual. We need a clear understanding of the facts if we are to have any chance of addressing serious global threats that we face. We need science-based action to combat climate change. We need a factual understanding of the issues if we are to address serious social problems, like poverty and inequality.

Vast numbers of people are ignoring science and embracing the alternate reality offered by fake news. This is leading to widespread confusion. People often consume the news without considering the source and its veracity. Alternatively, people become cynical and mistrust everything they read including science-based information related to climate change.

Traditional media has proven to be ineffective, they have failed to adequately cover the veracity of anthropogenic climate change and when they do they commonly get it wrong.

Despite the coming darkness, a number of individuals and organizations have vowed to fight fake news. In our post-factual age, there are people of conscience who still believe that facts matter. Among them is Clinton supporter David Brock. He said that Media Matters, a media monitoring arm of Brock's opposition research firm, will develop a coherent strategy to resist fake news.

For more information on how to distinguish fake news from real news by source see the graphic (top left). See Climate Feedback, a site that employs a team of scientists to evaluate the accuracy and credibility of information related to climate change.

Related
How Conservatives Use Fake News to Control the Narrative
Trump and the Darkness of Post-Factual Media
Mainstream Media's Failed Climate Coverage
Mainstream Media is Distorting the Facts about Climate
Popular Media is to Blame for Inaction on Climate Change
The Implications of the Trump Administration's Disdain for Science 
The Science of Storytelling: Making Facts Matter in a Post-Factual World
Why We are Not Seeing More Action on Climate Change
Anti-Science Journalism Helped to End Progressive Climate Governance in Australia
The Slaughter of Innocents: Our Complicity in the Murder of Environmentalists
The Death of Mikhail Beketov and Environmental Journalism in Russia
The Persecution of Environmental Reporters
Environmental Advocacy Through Citizen Journalism

Read More»

Mainstream Media's Failed Climate Coverage

The popular media has failed to communicate the science behind climate change. Combating climate change is not a priority issue for most people because because they don't understand anthropogenic global warming and the urgent need for climate action. We can't expect people to support mitigation and adaptation efforts if they do not have access to accurate information.

Shoddy climate reporting has been an issue for a number of years. As reported by Grist, a study by the University of Colorado’s Center for Science & Technology Research indicated that climate reporting declined in 2013 compared to 2012.

They documented mentions of global warming and climate change in five major U.S. newspapers. The New York Times coverage fell by 40 percent, the Washington Post’s coverage dropped by 33 percent. Declining coverage was also documented in the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, and USA Today. According to Robert Brulle of Drexel University, the nightly news programs at ABC, NBC, and CBS aired only 30 climate stories in 2013, compared to 29 in 2012.

Fox and CNN

When climate change is in the news, the information communicated is often inaccurate. According to a Pundit Fact analysis, more than half of all statements made on Fox News are untrue. Not only were more than half the statements on Fox false, less than 10 percent could be considered completely true. A study from the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) found that almost three quarters of Fox News climate coverage was misleading. Dishonest reporting at Fox News has also been covered by Mother Jones. Their coverage suggests that the reporting on Fox News breeds distrust for climate scientists.

Given their conservative slant, it would be reasonable to expect climate misrepresentation from Fox News. However, other more centrist news outlets also get it wrong. While other major TV news outlets were better than Fox, even mainstream channels like CNN were found to fall short in their climate coverage. The 2014 UCS study found that almost a third of CNN’s climate reporting was misleading.

A recent Grist article reported that CNN airs almost five times more oil industry advertising than climate coverage. Media Matters for America found that over a two week period, CNN aired 23 minutes and 30 seconds of American Petroleum Institute ads, compared to around five minutes of coverage of climate change and temperature records. These results cannot be attributed to an absence of breaking climate news as the data was compiled during a week in January and a week in March, in which major stories broke. In January, it was revealed that 2015 was the warmest year in recorded history. In March, it was announced that February broke a temperature record and it was also the month with the largest temperature deviation.

The same was true for other major television networks in 2015. The Guardian reviewed a Media Matters analysis which found that coverage of climate stories fell in 2015 despite a spate of news worthy climate stories. This included record breaking heat, the Pope’s environmental encyclical, revelations about Exxon’s obfuscation, the start of the Clean Power Plan, the rejection of the Keystone XL, and the climate deal reached at COP 21.

False balance

Media Matters reports that when the press covers global warming, they commonly included interviews with climate deniers. When the media gives air time to climate skeptics (aka deniers), this is known as “false balance.” There has been a chorus of voices calling for an end to this practice.

A group of almost 50 leading scientists, science journalists, and communicators sent a letter to the media, in which they said that it is a misnomer to call climate deniers “skeptics”. As quoted in a 2014 Think Progress article, the word skeptic does not describe those who deny the veracity of climate science.

"Proper skepticism promotes scientific inquiry, critical investigation, and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims," the letter reads. "It is foundational to the scientific method. Denial, on the other hand, is the a priori rejection of ideas without objective consideration."

The scientists go on to explain that journalists who perpetuate this confusion are granted "undeserved credibility to those who reject science and scientific inquiry."

In 2014, there was a movement to deny deniers equal time to promote their lies on popular media channels. As reported on EcoWatch, “a number of major outlets [are] refusing to allow deceit and subterfuge [to] masquerade as a counterpoint.”

One such outlet is BBC News. In response to criticisms that they provided too much airtime to unqualified climate commentators, BBC decided to drop deniers from their scientific coverage of climate change, as have Reddit, the Los Angeles Times, the Sydney Morning Herald, and Popular Science.

Explanation and impact

One of the reasons the media fails to accurately report on climate science or efforts to reign in emissions has to do with the extraordinary reach and influence of the fossil fuel industry. To illustrate this point, consider the case of Washington Post writer Ed Rogers. He is a writer who, among other things, called COP21 a “sham”. At the end of last year, it was revealed that as chairman of the lobbying firm BGR Group, he received more than $700,000 from the energy industry in 2015.

The frustration with the media is best exemplified by Russel Honore, a retired U.S. Army Lieutenant General, who lambasted oil industry influence and said to the press: "There’s never a time the world needs you more to shed light on environmental problems. Do your damn job!"

Sadly, these calls are falling on deaf ears, as the preoccupation with ratings and advertising dollars trumps fact based reporting. Each year, there are hopes that we will see responsible science based climate journalism. However, each year we are disappointed by ongoing media misrepresentations about climate change.

A January 2013 Business Green article with the title, "Is the media’s stance on climate risk finally shifting?" asked the question:

"Are we at some kind of tipping point where the mainstream media sees the error in years of under-powered or just plain inaccurate climate change reporting?"

While they cite some examples of climate coverage, more than three years later, we are forced to concede that the answer is "no", the hoped for shift from the media has not materialized.

The plethora of misinformation in the media leads people to question the veracity of science driven reporting. According to research from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, people were unreceptive and at times even hostile to science based news stories.

What can be done

For years, the popular media has either under-reported environmental stories or covered them inaccurately. This has to change if we are to make the requisite paradigm shift. We are not seeing more popular support for climate action because the media has failed to alert the public about the causes and the risks associated with climate change.

In the absence of factual climate journalism in the mainstream media, we need to find alternative approaches to inform the public. This is why citizen journalism is so important. Unlike traditional media, citizen journalists are not beholden to anyone or anything. They are free to speak truth to power and they are free to publish information that is being neglected in traditional media.

If you value fact based reporting, support citizen journalism. Tom Schueneman is one such citizen journalist. He is working on a project focused on sustainable development. His initiative offers information and insights you will not find in mainstream media. However this work takes time and requires your support. Click here for more information.

Source: Global Warming is Real

Related
Mainstream Media is Distorting the Facts about Climate
Popular Media is to Blame for Inaction on Climate Change
Why We are Not Seeing More Action on Climate Change
Anti-Science Journalism Helped to End Progressive Climate Governance in Australia
The Slaughter of Innocents: Our Complicity in the Murder of Environmentalists
The Death of Mikhail Beketov and Environmental Journalism in Russia
The Persecution of Environmental Reporters
Environmental Advocacy Through Citizen Journalism

Read More»

Popular Media Panders to Conservative Politics and Legitimizes Climate Denial

The media's portrayal of climate science has caused the discussion to devolve into a political debate. Coverage of global warming panders to conservative politics and this directly impacts public perception. Climate change is commonly presented as a matter of personal opinion. Presenting both sides, turns scientific observation into a debate which is like giving equal time to holocaust deniers or advocates of a flat earth. This approach undermines the veracity of the science and lends credence and legitimacy to climate denial.

When we politicize the findings of scientific inquiry we often ignore salient observations and focus on their political ramifications. Rather than addressing national strategies of action we continue to talk about the veracity of the science.

Climate science is one of the most prolific fields of study in the history of human inquiry. The body of evidence is strong and irrefutable. There is no debate among researchers as the vast majority (97%)of climate scientists agree. However, you would never know this from watching the coverage presented by many major media outlets.

While pandering to the ignorance of viewers may generate ratings, it reifies the lies. Take the example of the alleged global warming hiatus, this received considerable coverage, yet it is patently untrue.

When you give the stage to climate change deniers you are helping to substantiate their subterfuge. This is irresponsible journalism. For the same reason that the press does not give equal time to people who believe the earth is flat we should not be giving equal time to people who have political agenda's rather than a fact based understanding.

It is not necessary for deniers to win the debate, all they need do to keep us from acting is continue to interject an element of doubt.  Perpetuating misinformation can be as simple as pointing to a snow storm or a cold front. The fact that these isolated storms and cold fronts do not constitute a shift away from a consistent warming trend does not matter. People walk away with the idea that some snow or a few days of cold weather refutes the science.

Media is aiding and abetting the kind of fraudulent misrepresentations that spell calamity for the Earth and its inhabitants. Climate skeptics do not offer an alternate interpretation, they are purveyors of lies. Absurd statements from people like Rush Limbaugh do not deserve equal time.

The anti-science campaigns waged by conservative pundits and the Republican party are harmful to the national interest. The views of climate deniers should be challenged and they should not be given a platform that widely disseminates their obfuscation.

One of the reasons that these lies are so pernicious is in part due to the fact that they are tied into the religious views of Biblical literalists. These same people will argue that the Earth is 7000 years old and students should be taught creationism in school.

The vast majority of climate scientists agree that anthropogenic global warming is real. It is also true that we have reached 400 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere (and climbing). It is also true that if we do not change our current trajectory and substantially reduce our greenhouse gas emissions we invite calamity. 

Responsible politics is informed by science. What we commonly see in US media coverage of climate change is often irrational and this undermines popular support for action which imperils our future.

© 2014, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Articles
Popular Media is Distorting the Facts about Climate
Anti-Science Journalism Helped to End Progressive Climate Governance in Australia
Popular Media is to Blame for Inaction on Climate Change
Environmental Advocacy Through Citizen Journalism

Read More»

Young Reporters for the Environment

Young Reporters for the Environment (YRE) is an international program that engages youth in environmental journalism in more than 25 countries around the world. The program is coordinated by the Foundation for Environmental Education (FEE).

Young Reporters investigate environmental and sustainability issues and propose solutions through written, photographic and video journalism. Participants submit their work to a national competition for judging. Each country then sends its top article, photograph and video in each age category to an international competition, where additional honors are awarded.

In the United States, YRE is hosted by the National Wildlife Federation. Students between the ages of 13 and 21 are invited to participate. Entries must be relevant to participants’ local community, connect to a global perspective, include possible solutions, and be disseminated to an appropriate target audience. YRE-USA aims to make a valuable contribution to environmental journalism by helping youth develop their interest and skills in this important field, challenging them to play a key role in informing the public about critical environmental issues and their solutions.

ABOUT THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION (NWF)

For more than 75 years, the National Wildlife Federation has been educating people about the environment. NWF’s education efforts annually engage over 7,000 K-12 schools and nearly 5 million students through programs including Eco-Schools USA, Schoolyard Habitats, Be Out There, and Trees for Wildlife. NWF also publishes the children’s magazines Ranger Rick and its companion for younger children, Ranger Rick Jr. These magazines have introduced generations of young people to the wonders of wildlife and nature, fostering a lifetime commitment to environmental protection. On this foundation, NWF is delighted to build a new opportunity to engage youth with the environment through journalism.

ABOUT THE FOUNDATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION (FEE)

The Foundation for Environmental Education (FEE) is a non-governmental, non-profit organization promoting sustainable development through environmental education. As an international umbrella organization, FEE has member organizations in more than 60 countries worldwide. One member organization per country represents FEE on the national level and is in charge of implementing FEE programs nationally.

Since 1981, FEE has actively promoted and delivered environmental education through international programs which aim to deliver Agenda 21 commitments and involve people of all ages and nationalities through formal school education, training of staff and raising environmental awareness among the general public.

FEE’s five environmental education programs are Blue Flag, Green Key, Eco-Schools, Learning about Forests (LEAF) and Young Reporters for the Environment.

To view the webinar click here.

© 2013, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Articles
Environmental Advocacy Through Citizen Journalism
Popular Media is Distorting the Facts about Climate
Anti-Science Journalism Helped to End Progressive Climate Governance in Australia
Popular Media is to Blame for Inaction on Climate Change
Video - Homage to Environmental Pioneer Rachel Carson
The Death of Mikhail Beketov and Environmental Journalism in Russia

Read More»

Popular Media is to Blame for Inaction on Climate Change

The popular media needs to adopt a science based approach to presenting the news about climate issues. The role media plays is critical as most people do not read scientific papers.

Sadly the popular press has not lived up to their journalistic responsibilities. At best media coverage of climate change reflects their readers biases without regard for accuracy, at worse they promote anti-environment agendas.

The profoundly destructive tendency to present the facts alongside climate denying misrepresentations is an egregious lapse of journalistic integrity and responsibility. Although this is ostensibly done in the name of balanced coverage, the truth is that mainstream media panders to popular confusion by presenting subterfuge alongside peer reviewed science.

Reports from authoritative sources like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are commonly reported alongside skeptics. What does it say about journalism when massive bodies of scientific evidence are given equal time alongside representatives from climate denying front groups. The point is that there are powerful interests from the old energy economy that want to stave off the transition to a greener economy as long as possible. They can be expected to resist, the real issue is why are they being helped by popular media?

Consider an analogy pertaining to journalistic coverage of racial equality, do we provide equal time for racist misanthropes?

According to Media Matters, US network news shows have stopped talking about climate change. When it is mentioned it is commonly about the politics and not science. A Media Matters analysis finds that news coverage of climate change on ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX has dropped significantly since 2009. Nightly news coverage decreased 72 percent between 2009 and 2011.

Sunday show coverage of climate change fell 90 percent between 2009 and 2011. Sunday shows feature twice as many [climate denying] Republicans as Democrats on climate change. Scientists were excluded from discussions of climate change on Sunday shows.

This is very significant because of the important place Sunday shows have in American life. According to Media Matters, Sunday shows are particularly important in the US as they help set the agenda of official debate in Washington. They have a weekly audience of 9 million viewers and these shows are also followed closely by the journo-political establishment.

As evinced in a report by Professor Steve Jones, major global news outlets like the BBC continue to report on subjects that reify the misinformation of climate deniers. 

According to a 2011 report by Professor Wendy Bacon from the Australian Centre for Independent Journalism, the media response to climate change contains a lot of anti-science skepticism. 

In fairness there are some media outlets which offer stellar examples of good climate change journalism in 2013. The Guardian is a leading site that offers a steady stream of fact based reporting on the subject of climate change. Rolling Stone also publishes science based articles on climate including a game-changing piece by Bill McKibben on the math of climate change..

There are also a host of responsible blogs like InsideClimateNews, Climate Progress, ClimateWire, and Real Climate. Other business oriented sites like The Green Market Oracle also present science based coverage of climate and environmental issues.

Despite these responsible outlets, most people get their news from mainstream media sources. Green journalism often preaches to the converted. The message needs to be widely disseminated through popular media.

 Inaccurate reporting from the popular media is a salient part of the reason that we have so many people in North America and around the world who are woefully misinformed about the facts about climate change.

In 2013 we are beginning to see some responsible conduct from the mainstream press. Al Jazeera is increasing its environmental coverage in the US. The Los Angeles Times recently banned letters from climate skeptics because the information they present is inaccurate and The Sydney Morning Herald is considering doing the same. As explained by LA Times letters editor Paul Thornton, it’s a matter of being absolutely accurate in the coverage.

When climate change is covered it is far too often presented as an inevitable calamity that we can do nothing about. This was the finding in a report by James Painter, the head of the Journalism Fellowship Programme at the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at Oxford University. The media must make it clear that solving the climate crisis is possible.

Journalists need to focus on the fact that climate change is an issue that impacts human health, it also has far reaching social impacts. Perhaps most importantly people and businesses need to understand that climate change is an economic issue. The business community must come to terms with the fact that they have a leadership role to play in solving the climate crisis and the full weight of technological innovation must be brought to bear.

Business oriented publications that continue on the denier train are doing a profound disservice to their readership. With comments like “Global Warming is a Fraud," publications like Investors Business Daily are not only delaying action from the business community they are providing pretexts for businesses to position themselves on the wrong side of an issue that will have calamitous consequences both for the individual enterprise and for the global economy.

Of course the government must play an important role both in terms of supporting innovation, and through regulation and legislation that mandates environmentally responsible practices. However, in a democracy governments far too often respond to the demands of a critical mass rather than engage in responsible leadership. Popular support will cause governments to change and but this requires that people have a better understanding of the facts.

Objective reporting on the climate crisis and its systemic causes would go a long way to help people come to terms with the facts. We also need more reporting about the way which we can solve the climate crisis. 

Responsible reporting entails journalistic policies that are designed to circulate our best understanding of the facts not present economically motivated subterfuge.

The media has a crucial role to play in building global consensus. Until we have widespread understanding about the science of climate change politicians will not engage the issue on the scale required to make a difference.

© 2013, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Articles
Popular Media is Distorting the Facts about Climate
Anti-Science Journalism Helped to End Progressive Climate Governance in Australia
Video - Homage to Environmental Pioneer Rachel Carson
Climate Scientist Susan Solomon's heartening Look at Environmental Successes
The Death of Mikhail Beketov and Environmental Journalism in Russia
The Persecution of Environmentalists
Cambodian Environmentalist Murdered
Who Bombed Judi Bari? (Video Trailer)
Environmental Problems and Activists Struggling Against Abuse (Video)
Another Amazon Environmentalist Killed (Video)
Environmentalists Murdered for Protecting the Amazon (Video)
Murder of Two Environmentalists in the Amazon (Video)
Environmental Advocacy Through Citizen Journalism

Read More»

Web-Based Sustainability Reporting from GreenBox

A new startup is striving to simplify sustainability reporting making it easy and accessible to everyone. A company by the name of GreenBox is commercializing its web-based sustainability reporting software following a pilot program with real estate asset management firms.

"Sustainability is a standard business practice. The documents and reports supporting your sustainability program should be as well. GreenBox helps you create essential documents the right way with unique step-by-step wizards make creating industry-compliant reports and documents easy and affordable. Embrace sustainability without the headache!"

Sustainability reporting gives companies an edge through cost savings, risk reduction and reputation enhancement.

Sustainability, including reporting, is a huge and growing industry. According to Verdantix, US spending on sustainability will grow from $34.6 billion in 2012 to $43.6 billion in 2017. 

GreenBox is working with the Early Adopters Program to secure pilot participants. Up until now it is primarily large companies with significant assets that were able to afford sustainability reporting.

Sustainability reporting can be frustrating, particularly for smaller firms. GreenBox is making sustainability metrics and policies easy and inexpensive. As stated in their website "the new era of sustainability is here."

GreenBox has produced a software that makes it possible for every company to engage in sustainability reporting regardless of size, resources or level of expertise.

With the help of automatic data import technology and a step-by-step process companies can create industry compliant documents including sustainability policies, GHG inventory management plans and benchmark performance using analytics. Companies can use the software's training/engagement tools to turn disclosure into action. Companies report to the GRESB and the Carbon Disclosure Project.

The company’s Air Drop program also offers human advisers to help firms implement sustainability programs.

GreenBox has a goal of raising $1 million in investment capital before year-end. Investors see the need and the value and they are responding by providing more than $600,000 in seed capital to date.

The new product is scheduled for release in January 2014. 

For more information click here. 

© 2013, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts
GRI G4 and Other Sustainability Reporting Guidelines Briefing
Webinar - Why GRI G4 Will Trigger New Directions In Sustainability Reporting
Ernst & Young: 2012 Excellence in Integrated Reporting Awards
Corporate Sustainability Reporting
The Future of Integrated Sustainability Reporting
The GRI Sustainability Reporting
GRI Sustainability Reporting on Anti-Corruption and GHGs
GRI and Sustainability Reporting Framework in Business School
GRI Reporting Tool is Good for Business
G3 Guidelines and GRI Sustainability Reporting
GHG Protocol and Scope 3 Accounting and Reporting Standard
Sustainable Business Methods, Strategy, Management and Reporting
Stock Exchanges Increasingly Requesting Reporting from Listed Companies
Three SAP Reports on Sustainability
The Business Community is Moving Forward with Sustainability Including Reporting

Read More»

Event - The Future of Sustainability Reporting 2013

This event will take place on 6th of September 2013, 10.00 to 18.00, at the Conference Center of the Heinrich-Böll-Foundation, Schumannstrasse 8, 10117 Berlin. It will be in German with simultaneous translation of the plenary parts English-German and German-English. It is being presented by BSD and the Heinrich Böll Foundation. This is one of the most important events on sustainability and integrated reporting since GRI's launch of G4 in May and a few months before IIRC's framework launch in December.

This symposium will offer a critical reflection of the status quo of the ongoing development of Sustainability Reporting in the European and international context. It will include exciting panel discussions and workshops which will include Barbara Unmüßig (Heinrich Böll Foundation), Dr. Günther Bachmann (German Council for Sustainable Development), Jana Gebauer (IÖW) Marcello Palazzi (B Lab Europe), senior representatives from GRI, IIRC, SASB and GISR, the CEO's of Truecost, True Price Foundation and Ex'tax, as well as corporate representatives of Puma, EnBW, SAP, Thyssen Krupp, Flughafen München, WeSustain, Deloitte.

Sustainability Reporting is experiencing an exciting year in 2013. In April, the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) has released the Draft Framework for Integrated Reporting with the objective to launch Version 1 of the Framework by end of the year. At the end of May the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) has released GRI G4. Furthermore, the developments around the sector-specific indicator family of the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) and the development process of the principles and indicators of the Global Initiative for Sustainability Ratings (GISR) are relevant to the development of sustainability reporting.

Besides these short- and mid-term developments from the perspective of standard setting, political framing, best practices from corporates, and new initiatives around the internalization of external costs into ‘true pricing’ as well as the needed and aligned change of taxation systems towards a ‘sustainable’ economic model are of growing interest and importance. How will sustainability reports and integrated reports react to these new themes or possibly even support their further development?

Other questions that will be addressed:

• How should a company position itself in this variety of different developments?
• Which activities are meaningful now, which ones maybe next year?
• Which initiatives and standards will be accepted by the market players?
• What will the EU and its member states ask from companies in the future?
• How will stock exchanges move forward in requiring sustainability reporting information and how will the financial markets react to this new wave of players?
• Has sustainability reporting evolved substantially over the years?
• Do companies report what is really important, or should we rethink sustainability reporting, looking at the increasingly obvious problems deriving form climate change, water scarcity, biodiversity, labor and human rights as well as corruption issues? What do we really learn from sustainability and integrated reports so far?
• Is integrated reporting paving the way to integrated thinking?
• What effect will new initiatives around true costing, true pricing and true taxation have on sustainability and integrated reporting?
  

It’s time for a fundamental analysis of the current and potential future state of sustainability reporting, showing a clear correlation between the relevant developments and providing the ability to make strategic decisions regarding the future of your own sustainability reporting.

Participation fees: 350,-€ plus 66,50€ 19% VAT per participant, including materials and lunch/coffee breaks

The number of participants is limited. Sign up now and reserve your place for this important event. To register click here.

Related Posts
Webinar - Why GRI G4 Will Trigger New Directions In Sustainability Reporting
Ernst & Young: 2012 Excellence in Integrated Reporting Awards
Corporate Sustainability Reporting
The Future of Integrated Sustainability Reporting
The GRI Sustainability Reporting
GRI Sustainability Reporting on Anti-Corruption and GHGs
GRI & Sustainability Reporting Framework in Business School
GRI Reporting Tool is Good for Business
G3 Guidelines and GRI Sustainability Reporting
GHG Protocol and Scope 3 Accounting and Reporting Standard
Sustainable Business Methods, Strategy, Management and Reporting
Stock Exchanges Increasingly Requesting Reporting from Listed Companies
Mandatory Emissions Reporting on the UK Stock Exchange
Three SAP Reports on Sustainability
Puma's Reporting and Sustainable Supply Chain
The Business Community is Moving Forward with Sustainability Including Reporting

Read More»

UN's Global Development Goals are Important for the US

Despite the resistance of many Americans, UN Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) should matter to the US. This is the conclusion of a report from the Center for Strategic & International Studies' (CSIS) Global Health Policy Center. This non-profit, non-partisan, research group released a report at the end of May 2013 titled “Do UN Goals matter to the United States?” This report is relevant because many Americans have questioned the effectiveness of the UN and the value of global development goals for the US. In recent years the US has has an increasingly ambivalent relationship with the UN and Congress even withheld its dues from the organization. In the last decade the UN has also figured less prominently in US foreign policy than in previous decades.

A March 2013 Gallup Poll indicates that two thirds of Americans believe the UN is needed. Resistance to the UN comes largely from Republicans and older Americans. Only 46 percent of Republicans indicated they believe the UN is necessary compared to 80 percent of Democrats. The split between older and younger Americans is less pronounced but there is still a 20 point spread. A total of 76 percent of young Americans (18 - 29 years of age) feel that the UN is necessary, while only 56 percent of Americans over 65 share that view.

A January 2013 Heart Reseach poll shows that an overwhelming majority of Americans (86 percent) believe it’s important for the US to maintain an active role within the UN.

According to Nellie Bristol, the CSIS report's author, UN Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) matter to the US because they are:

• An effective tool for rallying resources for and attention to priority development issues worldwide. Donors and many developing countries explicitly use the goals as an organizing framework for foreign assistance delivery and application. 
• The goals sometimes played a behind the scenes role in US funding decisions, (although US programs have retained their own identities). Recent examples of their influence in the US include Feed the Future, AIDS-Free Generation, and the Child Survival Call to Action. 
• US development assistance feeds into progress on the MDGs, including goals 1 and 4 through 6, as they reflect long-standing US commitments to food security, maternal and child health, and combating infectious diseases.

Bristol goes on to say that going forward American input is critical to the future of global development:

"As the process gets under way to develop successor goals to the MDGs, U.S. involvement is critical to ensure UN goals continue to reflect U.S. strategies, to generate U.S. input into the future development agenda, and to foster political buy-in into growing development needs that are likely to go beyond traditional U.S. priorities."

To access to the full report click here.

© 2013, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Articles
Food Production and UN Millennium Development Goals
UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development
UN Secretary-General's Message for Business at the KPMG Sustainability Summit
UN Chief Asks G20 to Focus on a Sustainable Recovery
The Fifth Global Environmental Outlook Report (GEO-5)
Key Findings of the Global Environmental Outlook (GEO-5)
Biodiversity Global Environmental Outlook (GEO-5)

Read More»

Noesis Pro Energy Reporting Portal Overview Webinar & Kindle Giveaway

This webinar will take place on Tuesday, May 7th 2:00 PM - 2:30 PM EDT. It is designed for those who are tired of creating charts in Excel and attaching them to reports to share with colleagues and clients. The Noesis Pro Energy Reporting Portal (ERP) makes it easy for users to create, customize, schedule and distribute energy reports to facility managers, executives, and anyone else apart of the energy management team.

Join us for a 30-minute webinar where we'll discuss all aspects of the Noesis Pro ERP, including custom industry benchmarking report templates, automated scheduling/distributing, and pricing.



To register for the webinar click here.

Related Articles
Whitepaper - Top 5 Energy Reporting Mistakes
Energy Management Tips for IT (Whitepaper)
US Government Support for Renewable Energy Projects
The Solar Industry at a Glance: Past Present and Future
Global Wind Energy at a Glance (China, EU, US)
US Wind Energy Doubles and Eclipses Natural Gas in 2012
Why Oil Prices Matter for Renewable Energy
Republicans Oppose the PTC but Support Oil Subsidies
A Condensed History of the Production Tax Credit (PTC)
Video - Renewables to Eclipse Fossil Fuels in Europe, GE Wind Turbine, BP getting out of Renwables and Efficient Lithium Batteries

Read More»