Navigating Media in the Information Age

[anatess2]

I thoroughly enjoyed following this Reddit discussion.  The article that was discussed is symptomatic of the problem with Media.  It touched on the failures of Science in Climate Change to reach people to combat Anti-Science causing the US to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accords.  The article, as most of these Climate Change articles are, just couldn't grasp the REAL issues surrounding the science of Climate Change, and instead just skims the issues surrounding the PROPAGANDA of Climate Change.

The meat of what I'm trying to share here, though, is the discussion that ensued from scientists in the comment section.  Now, THAT discussion is golden.  One section of that discussion (it was the top thread when I read it) surrounds the use of Media and how people need to learn how to navigate media in the information age where all information is at one's fingertips.  I tried to explain this to @Just_A_Guy a while back on how I don't just read an article and dismiss the article as good or bad, fake or truth, etc.  Rather, I read the article, figure out the perspective of the writer of the article, figure out the sources the article used and their perspectives, etc. etc.  This way, I can try to be aware of what the writer and their sources are trying to say and what the writer and their sources are trying not to say and from that analysis I try to glean what I believe is reality.  I don't think I succeeded in explaining it clearly, though. 

This article on climate change is another one of those.  It's good reading but the reality can't be found within the article although the article itself has some useful facts.  For example, the article stated that only 2% of scientists are deniers... duh.  I would expect that to be 0% of scientists, but for it to be 2% means either there are 2% of scientists in the sample that climate change that caused the Ice Age and its subsequent melting occurred and continues to occur today... or maybe 2% of them did not understand the question.  But, does that support the article's claims on the Paris Climate Accords?  Of course not.  Because the Paris Climate Accords is not about whether Climate Change exists.  The Paris Climate Change Accords is about whether we really understand WHY the Climate is Changing and if we know exactly how to reduce temperatures by 2 degrees.  And, more importantly, if we should even spend all that money on it.  But see... all these nuances are lost in Media because it is not easy to navigate the world of journalists to be able to gain reality out of what journalists (and science publishers) and journalist sources (including scientists) want to lead you to believe.

 

Edited July 26, 2017 by anatess2