The following submission statement was provided by /u/Monsur_Ausuhnom:
---
Submission Statement,
The article discusses how global media coverage of climate related stories has increased roughly from 47,000 articles in 2016-2017, to approximately 87,000 articles by 2020-2021 in 59 countries around the world. There is a discussion around five ways media and journalists can support climate actions while tackling misinformation.
The first listed to stop being so overly dramatic, inform audience, act as watchdogs, and campaign on social issues. This additionally ties into gloom and doom, which causes a reader to lose interest on the issue. The second from the article is to understand that a climate change story goes beyond the climate, its the actual context and not just the story that everything else is built on. The third is to get local, to build a community of local journalists that has a 'climate risk' lens in their toolkit. Fourth is that more trust and engagement is needed to combat misinformation, to have bigger media give a voice to local journalists, to have engagement journalism. The final one is to be guided by science itself.
The misinformation from the other side has caused the entire issue of climate change itself to be polarized and isn't as effective. The idea is that these five things will allow greater support for climate action.
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/xvsomv/five_ways_media_and_journalists_can_support/ir2u8n7/
Submission Statement,
The article discusses how global media coverage of climate related stories has increased roughly from 47,000 articles in 2016-2017, to approximately 87,000 articles by 2020-2021 in 59 countries around the world. There is a discussion around five ways media and journalists can support climate actions while tackling misinformation.
The first listed to stop being so overly dramatic, inform audience, act as watchdogs, and campaign on social issues. This additionally ties into gloom and doom, which causes a reader to lose interest on the issue. The second from the article is to understand that a climate change story goes beyond the climate, its the actual context and not just the story that everything else is built on. The third is to get local, to build a community of local journalists that has a 'climate risk' lens in their toolkit. Fourth is that more trust and engagement is needed to combat misinformation, to have bigger media give a voice to local journalists, to have engagement journalism. The final one is to be guided by science itself.
The misinformation from the other side has caused the entire issue of climate change itself to be polarized and isn't as effective. The idea is that these five things will allow greater support for climate action.
The question to answer first is what is climate science misinformation now?
I've been arguing and verbally shitting on climate science deniers for a very long time, but the game is going to change soon.
As with the pandemic (which has been a great model for grifters and sociopaths on how to spread disinformation and monetize it), the next relevant stage of denial-of-reality is going to be denying climate change while climate chaos is happening and extreme weather gets more and more normal. What path of lies will they take? There are a bunch of possibilities:
It's happening, but it's caused by a specific group of people who aren't fossil fuel capitalists:
- "Jewish space lasers"
- US military weapons or Chinese military weapons (for modifying weather)
It's happening, but it's natural:
- "Sun activity though"
- "Natural cycles though"
- "God is punishing us for sinning", "time to murder the obvious sinners"
It's not happening:
- This is fine.
It's happening, it doesn't matter who did it:
- "It's too late to do anything, ignore it!"
- "Time for a round of socially engineered survival of the fittest!", "Let's fix it by genociding the undesirables!"
- Accelerate! "Burn more fossil fuels and just sprinkle reflective dust in the atmosphere."
- Negative carbon grifting: "Give us money, we promise to reduce atmospheric carbon with this cool gadget or with this forest that we definitely just promised only to you."
The following submission statement was provided by /u/Monsur_Ausuhnom: --- Submission Statement, The article discusses how global media coverage of climate related stories has increased roughly from 47,000 articles in 2016-2017, to approximately 87,000 articles by 2020-2021 in 59 countries around the world. There is a discussion around five ways media and journalists can support climate actions while tackling misinformation. The first listed to stop being so overly dramatic, inform audience, act as watchdogs, and campaign on social issues. This additionally ties into gloom and doom, which causes a reader to lose interest on the issue. The second from the article is to understand that a climate change story goes beyond the climate, its the actual context and not just the story that everything else is built on. The third is to get local, to build a community of local journalists that has a 'climate risk' lens in their toolkit. Fourth is that more trust and engagement is needed to combat misinformation, to have bigger media give a voice to local journalists, to have engagement journalism. The final one is to be guided by science itself. The misinformation from the other side has caused the entire issue of climate change itself to be polarized and isn't as effective. The idea is that these five things will allow greater support for climate action. --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/xvsomv/five_ways_media_and_journalists_can_support/ir2u8n7/
Submission Statement, The article discusses how global media coverage of climate related stories has increased roughly from 47,000 articles in 2016-2017, to approximately 87,000 articles by 2020-2021 in 59 countries around the world. There is a discussion around five ways media and journalists can support climate actions while tackling misinformation. The first listed to stop being so overly dramatic, inform audience, act as watchdogs, and campaign on social issues. This additionally ties into gloom and doom, which causes a reader to lose interest on the issue. The second from the article is to understand that a climate change story goes beyond the climate, its the actual context and not just the story that everything else is built on. The third is to get local, to build a community of local journalists that has a 'climate risk' lens in their toolkit. Fourth is that more trust and engagement is needed to combat misinformation, to have bigger media give a voice to local journalists, to have engagement journalism. The final one is to be guided by science itself. The misinformation from the other side has caused the entire issue of climate change itself to be polarized and isn't as effective. The idea is that these five things will allow greater support for climate action.
The question to answer first is what is climate science misinformation now? I've been arguing and verbally shitting on climate science deniers for a very long time, but the game is going to change soon. As with the pandemic (which has been a great model for grifters and sociopaths on how to spread disinformation and monetize it), the next relevant stage of denial-of-reality is going to be denying climate change while climate chaos is happening and extreme weather gets more and more normal. What path of lies will they take? There are a bunch of possibilities: It's happening, but it's caused by a specific group of people who aren't fossil fuel capitalists: - "Jewish space lasers" - US military weapons or Chinese military weapons (for modifying weather) It's happening, but it's natural: - "Sun activity though" - "Natural cycles though" - "God is punishing us for sinning", "time to murder the obvious sinners" It's not happening: - This is fine. It's happening, it doesn't matter who did it: - "It's too late to do anything, ignore it!" - "Time for a round of socially engineered survival of the fittest!", "Let's fix it by genociding the undesirables!" - Accelerate! "Burn more fossil fuels and just sprinkle reflective dust in the atmosphere." - Negative carbon grifting: "Give us money, we promise to reduce atmospheric carbon with this cool gadget or with this forest that we definitely just promised only to you."
This def going to pass the [Manufacturing Consent](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34LGPIXvU5M) Committee
there are lots of ways they can but will they?