Media culture and climate change

Mass media increasingly prioritises entertainment, because entertainment shifts units. It is perceived, with more than a grain of truth, that ‘the audience’ en masse prioritise distraction over information. One way to encourage audience attention is to create conflict, encourage debate and attempt to strike a balance of voices, even when the reality of a situation is self-evident.

The struggle to prolong the presence of climate change on the media agenda is forced to meet the issue of manufactured debate for entertainment head-on. Climate change is not deemed to be news-worthy, at least in the context of events which occur with immediacy and international significance, therefore it is framed as a debate over existence rather than impact.

So many TV spots or column inches place a climate scientist into a discourse of debate with a climate sceptic: These sceptics are never scientists, but politicians or businessmen, sometimes even journalists, always people with an agenda to protect or sell, undermining the scientific reality of climate change for the criteria of entertainment.

Without this inhibiting construct how does climate change stay in the news? Often through scaremongering, the selection of the worst, most extreme findings from hypotheses designed to examine the most hostile planetary prognosis. Not necessarily the most scientifically rigorous, but always provoking the most reaction.

If legitimate climate science is deemed to be lacking the empirical qualities that create news, yet the evidence and scientific examination exists, the discourse of climate change becomes a tiny metal globe on the roulette wheel that is the blogosphere. Some bloggers are able to provide accurate first-hand interpretation of complex ideas which the media refuse to acknowledge. Others have louder voices, less analytical capacity, and amplify the ‘he says/she says’ structure of the entertainment-based news media.

“There is a sense that environmental journalism is about cataloging a decline,” a former environmental correspondent told me, and this is to do with media culture more than the desires and stories offered by the journalists themselves. When the outlets for climate discourse in the media are framed, irrelevant debate or cherry-picking the most extreme information, the possibility of solution-based journalism will always fall by the wayside.

Solution-based journalism II: Embeds and narratives

Peace journalism is a positive and progressive approach to reporting conflict, but is it a misnomer? Vocalising solutions and rejecting the sterotypical model of event-driven, zero-sum engagement is to be commended, but there are many ways to tell a story, many ways to tell the truth.

There is an element of self-censorship inherent in peace journalism, of the author potentially refusing to aknowledge that their stance is enabled by unrest, instability, violence.

Op-eds and analysis seem to fit the peace journalism model (Maslow et al offer a succint breakdown of categories in their March 2006 paper, below) but can embedded reporters really tell the true story from the frontline and conform to a model lexicon, overriding the truth of what they see to avoid negative semiotic associations?

Some of the most emotive, moving and inspiring journalism is born from the pen of the embed, for example Sebastian Jungers’ ‘Into the Valley of the Shadow of Death’. The feature tells the story of an American platoon in the Korengal Valley, Afghanistan, as they attempt to establish an outpost and secure one of the most dangerous and contested areas on the planet.

Junger inspires pathos towards all parties involved, fighters on both sides and civillians, through skillful prose and well-observed anecdotes. It is a reminder that armies are comprised of people and that during conflict, sadly, accidents do happen.

What this type of narration cannot offer, however, is solution-based journalism: It contributes to the wider discourse of understanding conflict rather than a reductive role as an advocate of peace.

Editorial may chose to frame writing such as this in lose and selective historical context, but this kind of experience-based prose is crucial in changing public perception of conflict and paving the way for the complementary discipline of journalism for peace.

Solution-based journalism: Peace in print?

Is the media telling us what to think, or what to think about? Even more likely is that the consumer is being told how to think about a story, through the way that it is framed or the selective lexicon which engages either empathy or condemnation.

Reporting conflict encompasses the dilemmas above and wears thin the notion of journalistic objectivity. At what juncture, if any, should a journalist become a utilitarian and use their skill to promote peace? Media does have the power to influence public opinion and perception therefore should writers and reporters go further than playing the role of arbiter?

Limitations exist in the structure and norm of mainstream media: Newspapers do not pretend to be history texts and the reporting of conflict is packaged in a selective historical narrative: Westernised, incomplete, and by design leading the reader to adopt this frame, restricting their own analytical capacity.

Inherent ideologyt in news values further stunts our own analysis: You cannot be a patriot if you do not support your nations’ army abroad, and it is easier to be patriotic without analysis of purpose. Mining a similar vein, what is the purpose of the journalist in the battlefield? Is it enough to wire reports of body-count and armed engagement, relaying the chronology of a conflict event by bloody event, without recourse to questioning why so much bloodshed is neccassary?

The imperative of objectivity creates a barrier between the journalist as a potential agent for peace and the traditional normative values of covering a story. If a journalist can use their access to provide a platform for marginalised voices and parties during conflict are they promoting an unbiased viewpoint?

By contemporary media standards, it would appear not: If repression is a characteristic of a conflict then the journalist is expected to report as such. By way of example, the mainstream Western media have never had any interest in reporting civilian casualties of war. Life during wartime in occupied territory is marginalised, but arguably contains more power to end conflict than any number of weapons.

The temporary, event-driven narratives of conflict journalism attempt to capture the chaotic events and significant engagments between two sides. The chosen lexicon tells us who to root for and our inherent ideology immediately places the audience in opposition to ‘insurgents’, ‘militias’ and ‘terrorists’.

Rarely is the consumer encouraged to think about why a group has taken up arms, it is implicit in the text that they are culpable. A common descriptor such as ‘Islamic fundamentalists’, for example, is a connotative term, ambiguous and broad in meaning, but its impact in print is instant ‘othering’ of the group in question.

Through this use of language conflict is endorsed and in many spectators the desire to question its validity is subdued. All that remains is an event-driven narrative and the inevitable declaration of success and victory, where politiking and spin become the new rhetoric. All eyes turn to the next war, the process of peace is overlooked, and the news cycle begins again.

Johan Galtung promotes ‘peace journalism’ as “solution oriented news and analysis”, encouraging socially conscious journalists to subvert the established model of reporting conflict. This is international journalism where impartiality can give way to necessity and utilitarianism overrides the competitive profit-driven media industry.

Like so much progressive journalism, however, it is also peripheral, although it has been embraced by some mainstream journalists. This Robert Fisk article refuses to advocate or criticise, prioritising a complete narrative rather than a Western perspective. Media does not have the power to engage diplomacy and dialogue between conflicting factions, but it does have the influence to endorse it.

A new lexicon; unheard voices; dispensed ideologies and nationalism; complete historical narratives; the intention of progression, not propagation. A new journalistic responsibility and, perhaps, a new frontier?