THE ROLE OF MEDIA IN SHAPING PEOPLE'S OPINIONS

Lets take for instance the Sun newspaper, their reading age is 9yrs which simply means that the paper is written to be read by anyone from 9yrs old. My question is, what serious issues would a nine year old understand? Would they really grasp the meaning of sustainable development or even the nitty gritty of climate change? I am guessing not but would like to hear otherwise. So I can honestly see where the paper is coming from by not writing serious issues. Having said that though, should the paper not have a moral responsibility to the society as a whole, given the fact that it is the most read newspaper in the country?

Key audience facts

The Sun:

Read by 8 million people Monday to Saturday
Over 3m copies are sold every day
44% of Sun readers are women
Reaches 1.25 million women with kids every day
22% of readers are 16-34 men



Based on the facts above, I am left to wonder what kind of a society we live in because this is a huge chunk of the population that are committed week in week out on reading junk, gossip and things that don't really matter much. Or is it because the majority of the population are not academically equipped to understand serious issues hence the reading age of nine. One thing is for sure though, the Sun newspaper and its likes are out to make money and not to save the planet and they know that once they start going down that route they will loose the market.Or do we all leave serious issues to experts and politicians because after all that's why we vote for them. But if we talk about the experts, they seem to be split in half on whats causing global warming, some think its man made some think its nature taking its course since there is no evidence to explain previous global warming. Politicians as well don't seem to have a stand on it either, a panel of politicians on BBC 1 Question time on 26th Nov 2009 were keen to point out that they accept global warming is happening but were also keen to point out that they were not sure its man made.There was a panel of five people, four politicians and a comedian who was the only one sure that global warming is man made. If the people we trust to tell us whats happening are giving out such signals why should the Tabloids take any role on serious issues?. But on the other hand why should they (politicians) convince us of something they have no evidence of?.

Lets go back to the picture on top of the page, "big opinions every day", what big opinions are the three likely to tell us? I think we can all guess, "Football" right?. The paper's target audience is 16-35yrs mainly men (BBC NEWS WEBSITE), they are quite clever in keeping up with the theme of who they are targeting. But I just wonder what would happen if the three faces were replaced with three scientists or a big picture of a melting glacier in the arctic. Their target audience would dramatically change and sales would fall plus I am guessing their reading age would have to rise. I also wonder why, just why, given the fact that we are told that global warming is a serious issue that we all need to act on, we are not using the tabloids, soaps and reality shows to influence and change people's opinions on living sustainably. Because in my opinion they have too much power and reach out to the younger generation that I think is not quite convinced on the issue. You can read through the whole of Sun newspaper or even the Mirror without the mention of global warming or climate change, or is the whole thing a con really? Because surely the tabloids and entertainment shows should have a moral and an ethical obligation to their audiences, shouldn't they? They should inform them of the dangers that we are facing and the fact that their children and grandchildren might not have a planet to live in if we carry on doing nothing. Or do they know something we don't? I would want to see a message from Green Peace or Friends Of the Earth at the beginning of the X Factor or Coronation street on global warming and even between the breaks. The message may not be consumed by the millions at once but I am sure it will get there slowly but surely. But I am still not convinced that climate change is as serious as we are told it is simply because when I think about it, I don't understand why we are not using the power of media to do something about it. It is there, it is available, it could do wonders, what is the problem then, unless this whole thing is a swindle?.
If you look at the broadsheet newspapers, The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, Financial Times, you can count the number of times climate change or global warming is mentioned with one hand. And even then the story is very shallow and usually right in the middle of the paper. How about some big headlines on climate change? Will be interesting to see what the headlines will be prior to the Copenhagen meeting, although having said that I have heard a lot already about how the meeting has already failed before it has began. President Obama is supposed to be passing by there when the meeting opens on his way to pick up his Nobel Prize, he has also announced that the US is committing itself to cutting 83% emissions in 40 years, surely they can do better than this can they? But he is not going to be at the meeting to sign the agreement on cutting emissions (BBC NEWS). So if this are the actions that we are getting from the leaders, how can we expect the media to have a role on serious issues? And how many agreements have they signed up before and lived up to them, none, eg Kyoto, Rio De Janiero. I think the leaders and politicians need to get the grip on the issue and promote it actively and I am sure the media will see the seriousness of the issue and follow suit.

Global problems global solutions

I think it is every ones duty to be informed on all issues that affect our day to day living, regardless on whether we all get the drift of the issue or not. Global warming is a global problem and needs a global solution. The problem is, we are all not on the same page when it comes to tackling problems or understanding them or even worse have the same capability. Sustainable development on a global level, will only be achieved, if we can first achieve equality and fairness among all involved. This will in turn create empowered citizens that are armed to make the planet a better place. I somehow agree with Bjorn Lomborg in his book "Cool It" published in 2007, "Climate change is a 100- year problem and we should not try to fix it in 10 years". He argues that "the cost and benefits of the proposed measures against global warming, is the worst way to spend our money".(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%c3%B8rn_Lomborg) There are other immediate problems like poverty, diseases eg malaria, AIDS,etc that could be tackled with some of the money.

This brings me to the great global warming swindle, where it is claimed that global warming is now a big business and lots of jobs. Definitely, there are no jobs in tackling poverty and diseases, which really supports the video. There are no institutions like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that have been created to look into causes of poverty and diseases around the world. This really posses a question on whether global warming is happening as quickly as they are telling us. The video states that there is no evidence to support that human CO2 is causing global warming as Al Gore suggests in his movie "the inconvenient truth". Al Gore says that there is a link between rising temperatures and CO2, the great global warming swindle video, opposes what he is suggesting and says that the link is the other way round- the rise in temperatures is leading the rise in CO2 by 800 years. The video claims that climate has always changed and what the inconvenient truth does not explain is why that none of the major climate change in the last 1000 years can be explained by CO2, or even why temperatures were higher than they are today in the medieval warm period. Am also intrigued by the fact that that during the post war economic boom, when assumably there was a rise in CO2 due to industrial development, temperatures fell for four decades (www.youtube.com). Despite the fact that no one is denying global warming, I can't help wondering whether human CO2 is the main cause and more so when you see the money involved in the global warming industry.

AS for leaving complicated decisions to others, I think each and every decision should be scrutinized by an independent body to make sure that peoples imaginations are not running away with them on the expense of others. Margaret Thatcher commissioned a group to produce a report on global warming simply to make her case on nuclear power strong, and used tax payers money to make funding available (the great global warming swindle video). I think we have to question motives and interests of all involved in making big decisions. If we can step away for a minute from global warming, Tony Blair made a decision to go to war in Iraq even though the experts on weapons of mass destruction had strongly advised against it(www.bbcnews.co.uk). Most recently, the government disagreed with an expert on drugs professor Nutts and even went as far as sucking him as an advisor,(www.bbc.co.uk) which brings me to ask the question, who should make decisions or should we all get involved?.

But I think in the end what we have to do is listen and evaluate the evidence used in big debates like global warming and then do what you think is right from there, because without the knowledge some areas are quite difficult to comprehend and you cannot be an expert on everything.For example Al Gore tells us that human CO2 is the major contributor to high temperatures, while the great global warming swindle tells us that volcanoes and oceans are the major contributors. Volcanoes produce more CO2 than people, cars and industries put together. And the warmer the oceans are the more CO2 they produce and can also be a major reservoir in that the cooler they are the more CO2 they suck in. The video also states that there is a time lag in oceans warming and the effects being seen(www.youtube.com).So may be, just may be, this is the cause of the global warming that we are experiencing. May be the oceans started warming up some time ago and we are only seeing the effects now, has anyone stopped to think about this? It could also be the reason why we see the glaciers in the arctic melting off so fast, right? It would be nice to blame it on the oceans warming up then we don't have to do anything about it, just chill and wait for the rising sea levels to come and drawn us off the face of the planet. When I weigh the two evidences, I honestly have no idea who to believe or whether we need to do anything to slow global warming or leave it to fate. One thing is for sure though, we need to do a lot of research, reading and questioning to be informed.