Rodney Tiffen writes on the last of three inquiries into the so-called Climategate emails however in his conclusion that the media created damage to popular support for action on carbon he fails to state the obvious question. Why?
Why did the mainstream media give so much credence and coverage to what was transparently a sensationalist stunt with the obvious purpose of derailing the Copenhagen summit?
A simple explanation may well be that the mainstream media, particularly the populist press were keen to reinforce their self importance in the minds of the public by “breaking” significant news. Since their reputation for accuracy is highly questionable anyway, truth was never really a consideration. They simply exploited the big story to sell their product.
While this simple and more conventional argument has some logic to it, there would seem to be a more sinister aspect to the source and motivation of some of the more outspoken mouthpieces for the denialist camp. Clearly they were politically motivated in their desire to undermine the science on climate change and furthermore they were enabled in that process by their position. The obvious objective was always to first undermine any consensus at Copenhagan with a second even more desirable objective to raise doubt in the minds of the public.
Have the reporters, journalists and editors responsible for spreading such a blatant piece of propaganda publicly admitted their wrong-doing and have they been summarily dismissed from their offices? No.
What’s more they wont be because they did exactly what they were supposed to do and did an excellent job of it. Strangely for an industry whose purpose is to manufacture consent, for once the industry decided to undermine popular belief in something it had helped create. It defies belief that such a course of action was merely the work of a handful of independent operators.
Climategate Scientists Cleared, But Media Slow To Report It.
Whoever said the media’s purpose was to manufacture consent? Consent of what, by whom, for whom? You said it above – media is mostly about maximising or at least aiming for healthy profit. Except for the beloved ABC of course. Why isn’t Kerry O’Brien going for PM?
I think everybody missed the point about the ClimateGate thing. I totally don’t buy into that truth vs propaganda stuff. CG exposed the typically hidden and rarely articulated inescapable human project aspect of science. Though I agree the papers might have had sinister motives as you describe. Ultimately it is all propaganda of some description. So trite but so important. Such an outrageous statement but so true. If you want no propaganda then the blank page is best. Though paper as a thing already speaks volumes. Some sort of agreed “blank slate” is the best we can ever have. But then there is the bias of the observer. Even on the blank. Bias is unavoidable in my eyes. And something that could be celebrated, spoken about, negotiated and deliberated instead of “stamped out’. We all have a context like it or not. Get used to it and get over it. Well that is what I think.
Have you read any of that stuff by Boykoff? I don’t really get into it but it makes some ok points. Interesting question about what is “authentic” and “fair” representation. Science likes 95% confidence intervals. Right and chance right or actual wrong. Still all about managing bias. Science and supposed truth will never get us out of this and history shows it never has. This hegemony of truth and liars is a waste of time as far as I can tell. It’s a values game through and through I’m certain. Science helps of course sketch out our lived experience. And we can model, test and predict. These are good things but never definitive. But still a human project, a partial snap shot taken in a particular cultural, geographical and temporal context. This is what I think. Science doesn’t paint the catastrophe, the observers paint the catastrophe(s), science being one way of knowing the reality scientist’s typically name as catastrophe”.
A colleague said something like this to me today – for once the scientific settlement appears to reflect values that they themselves endorse, instead of the usual vested interests. Apparently that makes critiquing climate change science off limits. Well i totally disagree. What represents “universal benefit” is also something that is inescapably negotiated irrespective of whether the offered benefit supports one’s point of view. But this is where I almost stand alone. But neverthless I am certain that I am right. Right not in a blank slate way of course.
And on a different but related topic. What do you make of the following story? What does it say about established ideas, uncertainty and definitive explanations?
A duke was hunting in a forest with his retinue of men-at-arms and servants; he came across a tree. Upon it, archery targets were painted, and smack in the middle of each was an arrow. “Who is this incredibly fine archer?” cried the duke. “I must find him!”. After continuing through the forest for a few miles he came across a small boy carrying a bow and arrow. Eventually the boy admitted that it was he who shot the arrows plumb in the centre of all the targets. “You just didn’t just walk up to the targets and hammer the arrows into the middle, did you?” asked the duke worriedly. “No, my lord. I shot them from a hundred paces. I swear it by all that I hold holy”. “That is truly astonishing” said the duke. “I hereby admit you into my service”. The boy thanked him profusely. “ But I must ask one favor in return” the duke continued. “You must tell me how you came to be such an outstanding shot”. “Well,” said the boy, “first I fire the arrow at the tree, and then I paint the target around it”. (Cohen and Stewart, 1994, p 219).
ps maybe this is too long and not something that I want to be put up as a public comment. I just wanted to take a look at your stuff.