Media attacked for 'climate porn'

[TechBear_Seattle]

Media attacked for 'climate porn'

Apocalyptic visions of climate change used by newspapers, environmental groups and the UK government amount to "climate porn", a think-tank says.

The report from the Labour-leaning Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) says over-use of alarming images is a "counsel of despair".

It says they make people feel helpless and says the use of cataclysmic imagery is partly commercially motivated.

However, newspapers have defended their coverage of a "crucial issue".

The article continues at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5236482.stm

Isn't IPPR one of the main groups still claiming that global warming is a liberal hoax?

[sinkingfeeling]

1. Wow, Britain has wackos too!!

[C_U_L8R]

2. seems more like the climate is attacking back

don't the idiot repukes know...
it's not nice to fool with mother nature

[Junkdrawer]

3. Aside from the misleading title, the article isn't that bad...

Seems to me the main thrust is that presenting the problem as hopeless precludes action. I think that's a fair criticism.

[TechBear_Seattle]

4. The title comes from the group being quoted

Blame them. :hi:

[Junkdrawer]

6. Not blaming you.

:hi:

[patdem]

5. AEI's full name? American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research

Is this an ARM of the American Enterprise Institute? One must ask this to know WHERE these people are comming from.

[TechBear_Seattle]

8. I knew I heard the initials from somewhere else!

Thanks. :hi:

Added The Wikipedia has an interesting article about AEI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enterprise_Institute

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. Completely unrelated to this British group

which is progressive, and is pushing for ways to get people to make bigger changes to stop carbon dioxide production:

So how should we be discussing the issue? The first step is to spend less time trying to convince people that climate change is real, by treating the argument as having been won and the facts as so taken for granted that they need not be disputed. If the problem is discussed, we should steer well clear of using inflated or extreme language and giving the impression that we are all doomed.

Above all, we need to place the solutions upfront and inject communications about them with the energy they currently lack. That may mean shifting the focus away from small actions towards the big ones that people can take to address climate change, such as switching to a hybrid car, fitting a wind turbine or installing cavity wall insulation, which are more likely to make people feel they could actually make a difference. It could also involve appealing to the sense rooted in our culture of heroic collective action, as exemplified in the Battle of Britain and perhaps even the Make Poverty History campaign.

Ultimately, the greatest challenge is to make climate-friendly behaviour feel like "the kinds of things that people like us do" to large groups of people. We are far from that now, but to have a chance of doing so, we need to be much more thoughtful and shrewd about the way we communicate on this issue.

http://www.ippr.org.uk/articles/?id=2256

Wikipedia page for the IPPR: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Public_Policy_Research

[skids]

7. I prefer it to war porn.

Heck, what can I say, I'm breast guy, not an ass guy. :evilgrin:

[unpossibles]

9. but it's ok to constantly discuss the End Times

as if it were real?

[McCamy Taylor]

11. "Climate porn?" So the Mid East TV War Spectacular is now XXX

and every time Al Gonzales tells us about another terror cell he should be fined by the FCC 'cause its just as bad as Janet Jackson flashing her tit.And I know that Dick Cheney gets a hard on whenever the phrase "War on Terror" is used, so there is another FCC fine.