Dear Examinator,

The coverage of climate change has
increased significantly over
the last few years and the pictures presented have
varied from using apocalyptic visions - to lengthy
scientific discussions that go over most people's
heads. In all it's no wonder that some people find
the entire subject of climate change - confusing,
contradictory and chaotic -
while others feel it's a "crucial issue."

The flood of information that's brought into the
home, much of it is highly selective or distorted.
News programs tend to feature the visually exciting,
controversial,
or emotionally moving stories that draw large viewing
audiences - even if this means omitting issues that
are more sober but perhaps significant also. With
climate change - using alarming images is commercially
motivated - mundane, domestic, and uncompelling - are
the words - the media translates for scientific evidence.
There's been no analysis of what their coverage amounts to -
and what impact it might be having - until now.

When a few errors are found amongst the thousands of pages
of scientific evidence - the media blows those errors out
of all proportion - and runs with it. It becomes newsworthy.

Climate change is an issue that is not about to disappear -
especially in an election year - and with the government's
push for the emissions trading scheme. It is a crucial
issue - the media is well aware of this fact - and it will
affect future generations in the years to come. It is time
that the media took its role far more seriously - and
did not distort things. But I guess that's wishful
thinking.

The relationship of the media and politicians is parasitic
and interdependent, like that of police and criminals.
Each side wishes to exploit the other and is disappointed
at its failure.

The same as hoping that politicians would leave politics
out of what needs to be done for the good of the nation.
How about we send them to live on one of the fast
disappearing Pacific Islands and see if tree planting is
going to help?

You and your author are very much on to something examinator.
I have watched and known this is the case for some time.
In 50 years todays climate change deniers may have much to answer for.

Well I'm glad you predicted that as I never would have. I am amazed. Almost everything I have seen in the mass media pumps the climate change message. I recall Cardinal Pell bumbling in and saying words to the effect that the emissions trading scheme will cause people a lot of suffering so we need to be sure that the climate change theory is valid before we take action. The media crucified him as a heretic for what would be taken as a reasonable statement if it were about anything else.

I agree 100% Examinator.
The news these days is utterly commercial and contentious, adjusting its content according to popular demand, thus reinforcing the various prejudices. It doesn't really matter what side is taken on issues so long as its sensational. I even find myself shaking my head through the ABC news and the 7.30 report more and more. SBS is better.
In my view, no intelligent person would watch commercial television News or current affairs, and of course the shock jocks are beneath contempt, as is most of the print media--good only for bringing "some" of the news: whatever's sexy or distressing or feeds the anxieties of our neurotic race.
The art of "thinking" seems nearly lost; much easier to consume pre-digested news that suits the palate.
I sound like a terrible cynic!
Of course I don't include the OLOers; a much more thoughtful bunch.

examinator, of course the media plays a huge role in modern society, primarily in shaping perceptions. It is no different with the topic of climate change. I find it fascinating that you are now shifting, and predictably so, to the “laying of blame”.

You are not alone, internationally; most of the AGW advocates have shifted their tactics to this position. What you are seeking to do is to blame skeptics for the failure of the movement to convince them. You then proceed to imply that there is a fundamental weakness in skeptics which makes them vulnerable to the media.

It is time you fully grasped reality, skeptics are totally and utterly immune to media hype.

In addition, skeptics have been consistently skeptical for the past 20 plus years whilst the UN, most MSM, many scientists and a huge dollop of NGO’s ran amock, and who was it that fell for it? Yes, you did.

Judging by many of the links you have posted on this forum, you seem to have been quite happy to use and quote from the media support you have enjoyed. Since the introduction of “reasonable doubt” in the past three months, now the media are to blame?

The last time we had this discussion I suggested that you were in anger/denial, and understandably so. I also suggested your next phase would be the “laying of blame”. So here you are. Perhaps now is an opportune time for you to move to the next phase, acceptance and reconciliation.

Don’t stop now, you’re on a roll.

I presume of course you are referring to mainstream Australian media not things like pyjamas media.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/breaking-senator-barbara-boxer-and-epa-administrator-lisa-jackson-throw-ipcc-under-the-bus/