Introduction
The media remains imperative in its effort to sensitize, inform, and educate the public about evolving issues that surrounds the world. Despite this, the media has addressed the impacts of global warming in a bias way and it has politicized the whole issue; hence, blowing the issue of global warming out of proportion. For this reason, it has changed the public perception about climatic change and global warming. With regard to this, this paper seeks to explore the credibility and reliability of the media in its efforts to address the impacts of climatic change and global warming. In this regard, the paper will proof that the situation about climatic changes and global warming is not the same as what is reported by the media.
Arguments and relationship about views
In many countries, various media houses, cable televisions, and networks identify with the ideologies of political parties. Interestingly, politically neutral media organizations have addressed the issue of global warming and climatic change differently. Indisputably, scientist, media, and the public are aware that human beings cause global warming and climatic changes majorly. However, the some of the media organizations such as Fox News and Wall Street journal have exaggerated the degree of involvement of human beings in influencing climatic changes. Fox News has come out strongly to defend its position by stating that balanced is not bias. Accordingly, this media house purports to have given a balanced coverage on the impacts of global warming. However, the United Nation Intergovernmental Panel on Climate disagrees with this position on the rationale that the media has stated that 97% of the scientist agrees with their position. Unlike Boykoff (475), Neil (769) is for the opinion that media houses that identify with one political party has been fair in their reporting about global warming. However, both authors share the view that human beings have contributed to the increasing rate of global warming.
After having a continuous heated debate about media’s involvement in reporting in an unbalanced way, the Oxford institute of study for Journalism conducted a study in 2009, which sought to establish the skepticism level of media reporting on global warming in six countries, which included America, the UK, Brazil, China, France, and India. The institution found out that media firms from English speaking countries America and UK reported in a bias way as opposed to media firms in other countries. With regard to this, Boykoff (476) observes that the unfair reporting for the English speaking countries is elicited by the presence of strong political parties, which politicize the issue. On the other hand, Neil (768) suggests that organized interest groups, which shape the media have contributed to the nature of reporting with regard to climatic change. Although this is so, both Authors agree that politics have played a vital role in influencing the position of media organizations in terms of giving “a-not-correct” coverage on climatic changes and global warming.
Indisputably, the media is the public’s mouthpiece in terms of addressing issues of the plight of people in the society. Indeed, the media is known also for informing the public and changing its perception about given pertinent issues that shapes people’s welfare. According to the report released by the United Nation Intergovernmental Panel on Climate, it is true that the media has influenced people’s perception about climatic change and global warming. Notably, many people are meant to think that the extent to which the global warming takes place is alarming and that they feel insecure about their lives on the planet. Apart from that, they understand that no matter what man does; he cannot alter the situation because too much damage has taken place. Scientist knows that global warming stopped in 1950’s and that there is an average temperature, which is usually 0.7 degrees centigrade less or more the normal (Lyytimaki and Tapio 730). For this reason, they have released many online publications and information to change public perception about global warming, but all the efforts have been in vain because social media, print media and other forms of disseminating information seems to be reaching a wider coverage. Despite the controversies, everyone knows that the media and not scientific reports influence the public perception about climatic change.
After conducting a survey in New York, to establish the public opinion on the issue relating bias media coverage on global warming, I found out that the majority of people acknowledged the reports of the media about global warming. The rationale behind it was, several media houses including print, and social media were reporting on the same thing from one point of view; a move that won the confidence of the public. Upon inquiring about any knowledge on scientific reports, a few people asserted that they have seen them, but they do not look convincing and real unlike reports from the media. The majority of people explained that they had not seen any official reports from scientists or public organizations about global warming. It is from this regard that, one would note that, the public has little information about scientific results and that the media has reached a wider coverage of such people and changed their perception about global warming because they have not had a chance to review any other alternative information.
Counterarguments
On the other side of the issue, one may feel convinced about the reports given by the media because these organizations get their information from scientific reports and other public publications. It is therefore had to discredit the information given by the media about global warming. Furthermore, it cannot happen that various media firms are taking the same position about the global warming; there must be some truth in it because most of the media firms have no scientific experts to guide them about it, they depend on external sources of information (Williams, Moore, and Markewitz 67). Nevertheless, if it were true that the media was not taking sides, then why are scientists coming up with contradicting reports? The answer is they have facts and have been conducting consistent surveys and experiments with regard to global warming; therefore, their reports should be accredited.
According to Fisher (26), scientific reports and organizations, which report about global warming are pro-government. Boykoff (473) observed that after interviewing a number of scientists, he found out that the majority were affiliated to political parties and stood strongly with the ideologies of their parties. This could explain why media houses in UK and America are the only one’s giving bias coverage about global warming, while others in Brazil and China are telling the truth (Boykoff 475). Additionally, it is known that politically neutral media organizations are observed to give unbalanced coverage about global warming. It might be certain that these media organizations may not be subscribing to the ideologies of any political party or the incumbent government. Despite all these, one may inquire to know the motives the government or political parties stand to gain for adopting one side of the issue; it is not realistic and that political parties and government are taking positions. Indisputably, they all reside on the planet earth and that the consequences will affect everyone. For this reason, scientific reports should be adopted instead of media reporting about global warming because the former is true and real unlike the latter, which is based on politics and unsubstantiated information.
Conclusion
The media is an important tool of communication every society uses to disseminate, educate, and inform the public about given issues affecting their welfare. However, it has taken different positions about global warming; a situation that has influenced public perception about the issue. Special interest groups who use politics to influence the information the public should access have caused this. Scientist and the governments have rejected the information given by the media about global warming. Notably, the media has exaggerated by increasing the degree to which the earth is warming. On contrary, scientists have argued that since 1950’s the earth temperature has increased by only 0.7 degrees Celsius. Although this is so, many analysts have stated that the media is right because some scientists have taken partisan positions to support the views of the government or political parties. Apart from that, other people have taken the media position saying that it gets information from scientists; therefore, it should be true. To discredit the media’s position, one should note that scientists are the one’s with updated information, which should be reliable and not the media because it has no expertise to analyze or give views about global warming.
Works cited
Boykoff, Maxwell. "Flogging a Dead Norm? Media Coverage of Anthropogenic Climate Change in United States and United Kingdom." Area 39.4 (2007): 470-481. Print.
Fisher, John. "Bias in Media Coverage." New American Periodical 24.16 (2008): 24-28. Print.
Lyytimaki, J, and P Tapio. "Climate change as reported in the press of Finland: From screaming headlines to penetrating background noise. ." International Journal of Environmental Studies 66.6 (2009): 723-735. Print.
Neil, Gavin. "Addressing climate change: a media perspective." Environmental Politics 18.5 (2009): 765-780. Print.
Tiffany, Williams, Rebecca Moore, and Daniel Markewitz. "Evaluating Potential Bias in Media Coverage of the Public Debate Over Acid Rain and Chlorofluorocarbons in the 1980s." Applied Environmental Education & Communication 11.2 (2012): 65-78. Print.
