[ad_1]
Several months ago, Australia’s Murdoch media news outlets launched a Climate change campaign launchesPromoting a path to net-zero emissions by 2020. The launch included a 16 page wraparound supplement in all tabloids, supporting climate action.
News media are not expected to campaign for social and political causes. This was the case with one of the largest media organizations in the country, which not only implied that it had held an editorial stance against Climate Action in the past, but also stated a plan for reversing this position.
News Corp. announced the launch. a major reason climate action has stalled in Australia is “the debate has fallen victim to a culture of constant complaint”.
[…] so here you will see only positive stories: real, practical and pragmatic solutions that will help the planet and also help Australia’s interests as well.
Can a leopard change its spots. My analysis of the Murdoch outlets’ recent flood coverage suggests not.
Continue reading:
What’s behind News Corp’s new spin on climate change?
Flood coverage is downplayed by climate change
Climate change is covered in a variety news media outlets to help viewers understand its causes, consequences, and policy responses.
Journalists can show the effects of climate change by capturing extreme weather events like floods and bushfires. ContributingTo assess the severity and impact of natural disasters, it is important to act quickly and visually.
However, my analysis of recent flood coverage in the Murdoch news outlets shows that although the terms “climate change” and “floods” were placed together in a range of articles, these outlets are still well behind others when it comes to emphasising the connection between extreme weather events and our warming planet.
I looked at 171 articles (both news and opinion) in major Australian print and online news media from March 1–13 that mentioned climate change and floods together – and those that downplayed the link between the two.
Some outstanding coverage was provided by news.com.au, at least one Murdoch outlet. This included a Report about the Climate Council’s warnings of the impact of climate change on flooding, and AnotherLearn more about the impacts of climate change upon food prices
However, the total number of articles linking climate changes to floods in Murdoch outlets (which also includes The Australian Herald Sun, Daily Telegraph, Courier Mail and Courier Mail), lag behind ABC News, The Guardian, The Conversation and The Nine newspapers.
The analysis also shows that Murdoch outlets are the only news outlets where voices were heard opposing the floods. They were notClimate change is causing these problems to get worse.
As reported by Crikey, The Guardian ABC’s Media WatchConservative commentators, such as Andrew Bolt or Chris Kenny, continue to make a mess of the issue of the climate’s impact on extreme weather.
Kenny, for example, wrote in The AustralianMarch 4, 2008:
This deceptive and emotive pretence that climate policies can alleviate us from natural traumas is ridiculously emotive.
The Australian’s Chris MitchellEven some complained that other media outlets, such as the ABC, put too much emphasis upon the link between climate change flooding.
How the media advocates for issues
This analysis shows that Murdoch outlets don’t advocate climate action. They also don’t link catastrophic flooding with the need to take political action to reach net zero by 2050.
Indeed, Murdoch’s editorial hostility to climate change is still alive and well. There are many Murdoch outlets that cover climate action, but the coverage seems more concerned with advocating against it than for it.
This article provides insight into the various styles of news reporting and their impact on democratic discussion.
Despite the fact that Australians expect it, media outlets to produce news that is objective, ideologically neutral and independent of politics, journalists and commentators sometimes play the role of “advocates” for particular issues and causes.
This type of journalism is not well-known because it conflicts with the idealised expectation of journalists ignoring their own perspectives in order to report without fear or favor.
Continue reading:
Extreme weather news may not make climate change skeptics more convinced
A recent study found that 85% of respondents were satisfied with their job. I conducted, I propose there are three styles of advocacy journalism – radical, collaborator and conservative. Each one either enhances democracy debate or degrades it.
What I call “radical advocacy” is when journalists deliberately campaign to increase the diversity of voices in news media, particularly when those voices are marginalised from mainstream debate.
One example is The Guardian’s “Keep it in the ground” campaign, which is transparently aimed at improving the public’s understanding of climate change. This style of journalism – although subjective and biased – arguably has a positive influence on democracy since its mission is to increase understanding of a crucial global issue and rally the public to join the cause.
“Collaborator advocacy” journalism is when media organisations cooperate with government, such as when they broadcast flood warnings, advise the public what to do in an emergency or agree not to publish the locations of troops at war.
This type of advocacy can be good for democracy if it is considered in the public interests. However, it can be harmful if the government restricts media coverage so that opposition voices are intentionally excluded.
The third style of advocacy – “conservative advocacy” – is one I’ve coined to describe journalism and commentary that promotes the agenda of powerful players in a political or social debate.
One obvious example is Murdoch media, which has a history of supporting big oil and fossil fuel interests through its coverage. longstanding editorial hostilityto implement policies to combat climate change.
Conservative advocacy is detrimental to democracy because it keeps less powerful voices from the debate, spreads misinformation, and deliberately downplays or blocks scientific research and evidence-based government policy.
If the Murdoch media fulfill their promise to advocate net zero by 2020, their campaign would be considered radical. This might be difficult because these outlets are rooted in conservative traditions.
Continue reading:
Climate doom and gloom. You can do it! But we also need stories about people taking action.
