The image below is an article which was printed in The Independent, on February 3rd 2007. This particular article is a perfect example of the ways in which the media uses various devices to portray climate change as threatening - which although is not wrong to do, it is the ways in which they choose to do so which cause the topic to seem exaggerated and purely written about to make headlines.
So how does the article do this? Let me count the ways.
1) Short, snappy title of "FINAL WARNING". Given the article was written in 2007 and this is not the last time we heard about global warming, it is very obviously not our final warning.
2) The opening statement. By telling us "the world will be a hotter place by 2100", The Independent allow its readers to relinquish some of the fear they have so readily been holding onto for one simple reason. They'll be dead by the time this happens. Although this is not necessarily a comforting thought for some people, for others, it releases them from the responsibility of caring as they won't be around to deal with the consequences. 100 years is not a very long time at all in ecological terms, but it is more than a humans life spam. Thanks to the fact that the peril they are warning about is not imminent (personally I'm very sure people would only start to take climate change seriously if a 'Day After Tomorrow' scenario occurred), the seriousness of the situation is diluted in the readers eyes.
3) The ominous use of ellipsis. Found at the end of the two lines, this also serves to exaggerate the terror we are supposed to feel.
4) The well chosen colour scheme. The images of fire as the background for these are very eye catching, making the reader stop and look at the text covering them. They also link well to the idea of the Earth heating up which is the basis of the article, albeit in a dramatic way. It is this drama which ultimately takes away from the focus of the article by presenting the idea of the Earth burning - which is not something scientists studying global warming believe to be a possibility. The almost apocalyptic connotations implied by the picture of fire raises expectations of the level of seriousness of the situation, and lets be honest, there isn't anything that's as serious as the entire world being on fire, so the content of the article can but pale in comparison.
5) The step-by-step destruction of the planet. The article reduces the ruining of the world to '5 simple steps'. These bite-size chunks, though more digestible for the reader, do not necessarily give the balance they need in order to understand the full extent of the situation.
Some people reading this will think that I am being more dramatic than the article, and they are not necessarily wrong. The difference in our dramatisations of the situation is that the seriousness of global warming takes a back seat to presentation in The Independent's article, whereas I am being dramatic because of an awareness of the severity of our predicament.
Maybe I am reading too much into it, it's only an article after all. However, this is the format in which the majority of the population gain their information about global issues, so surely, how it's presented to them is exceptionally important. The points I have picked out are all things which were put there on purpose by the writer or the editor. The picture, the title, the segmentation of the process through which our planet will be destroyed, all of it was designed to catch our attention. To that effect, they have succeeded. But, and this is the sceptic in me shining through, I am not convinced that the format and phrasing of this article will have done anything to persuade their readers to change their habits and routines in order to prevent these outcomes. This may simply be because no form of resolution or change was offered to them. At no point in the article was there a "in order to prevent this, we as a global community can..." The question which really needs answering, is was this missing because The Independent omitted it, happy with their scaremongering piece of news; or because in actuality, no one really knows just how much the global community needs to change to stop this from happening?
Which is worse, your media trying to terrify you just to make headlines, or the fact that even leading scientists in the field which is the biggest threat to civilisation since the Ice Age?
No comments:
Post a Comment