EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Mon Nov 20, 2017 2:03 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1 post ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Jul 05, 2017 4:51 pm 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 4:31 pm
Posts: 44
(A related study to the post below is at: http://jspp.psychopen.eu/article/view/96/37 AND article: http://journews.concordia.ca/?p=234) ....
Although conservative mainstream news-media in North America (and perhaps even Britain) might generally be expected to behave implicitly apologetic towards big environmental polluters, such as the corporate crude-oil sector, the relatively few yet equally mainstream outlets of an outwardly liberal slant, conversely, might be expected to vastly voice the alarm on all ecological threats, both potentially and in ongoing practice.
However, from what I’ve observed over the last half-dozen years or so, the latter fail to do so, even though basic common sense, at least to me, would dictate that genuine ecological threats and disasters would be given the highest priority.
Meanwhile, those progressive-reputation newspapers are very zealous in printing numerous stories (which I find have an unfortunate distractive effect away from even serious eco-concerns) on persecuted and disadvantaged minority groups, most notably those of race (and perhaps that of relevant related religion), sexuality, gender, and especially stories involving society’s most disenfranchised -- the homeless and those with mindbogglingly decrepit living quarters very few of us would even think of inhabiting; and, to not be mistaken, I find stupendous and crucial such journalistic social activism. (As it were, the current and potently effective distraction, especially in conservative media, is that of the Omar Khadr compensation story.) But to me it’s clearly counterproductively absurd to stop that fervent extensive-coverage activism short of including the environment and eco-systems gravely threatened by big industries.
(As an aside, I believe that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, at this point in time anyway, has his re-election hopes pinned on the above-mentioned politics of race, gender and gender-bending, the three major social issues most enthusiastically covered by the overtly socially progressive Canadian newspapers, The Toronto Star and Metro.)
Furthermore, very disturbing is the corresponding tendency, in general, for polled voters heading into an election to rate the environment as the least, or next to it, of their listed election issues of importance and, equally troubling, the economy as their primary concern. After all, seemingly goes the prevailing mentality, what back and brain busting labourer will readily retain the energy to worry about such things immediately unseen regardless of their most immense importance?
Even worsening the entire situation, such widely published poll findings can perpetuate such skewed-logic priorities, as can a negligence of otherwise meriting eco-threat coverage erroneously imply there are no real, serious environmental concerns out there about which to worry (another two relevant articles at: https://www1.udel.edu/htr/American/Texts/campcov.html AND http://gcml.org/corporate-media-and-big-oil-coup).
To me, I see it somewhat like a cafeteria lineup consisting of diversely socially represented people, all adamantly arguing over which identifiable traditionally marginalized person should be at the front and, conversely, at the back of the line; and, furthermore, to whom amongst them should go the last piece of quality pie -- all the while the interstellar spaceship on which they’re all permanently confined is burning and suffering some serious storage-tank-breach spillage of lethally toxic chemicals at onboard locations that cannot be immediately seen.
But in their defense, how can the general populace truly know what is in fact most important when the immense gravity of a situation is basically neglected by the mainstream news-media -- except on the rare North American occasion of a Hurricane Katrina (New Orleans, etcetera, August 23-31, 2005) when there’s an unmistakably big brightly-lit sore-thumb large-human-toll (1,800-plus fatalities) event that no one can readily dismiss.
Granted, I could understand why a more palliative approach to our Earthly fate might be in order, such as significantly correcting primary social injustices amongst the planet’s populaces, had humankind’s fate been irreversibly solidified in regards to global warming,
as believed by a responding editor with a British monthly climate-concerned publication as well as many reputable climate scientists (a few examples being: https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ate-change & http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien ... 50236.html & https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... ate-change).
As a species, we really can be so narrow-mindedly over-preoccupied with our own admittedly overwhelming little worlds, that we’ll miss the most critical biggest of pictures.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1 post ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group