Introduction
Gradually but definitively, the information age is also becoming the age of propaganda. Traditionally, media houses were professional outfits with trained and licensed journalists. In the current age where the internet is an integral if not dominant component of the media, almost anyone can disseminate information. Taking center stage in the proliferation of voices within the information age is fear-based propaganda. In spite of the actual message, modern propaganda is still able to sow fear into the argument. One of the social issues that have fallen subject to modern propaganda is climate change. Climate change is an important issue revolving around the impact of modern human activity on nature. Two main propaganda-based narratives exist with regard to climate change, both of which rely heavily on fear. The first, mainly driven by conservative media is that climate change is a dangerous hoax. The second, mainly driven by environmental lobby groups is that climate change is an existential threat. Somewhere within the propaganda matrix lies some truth about climate change, which truth is now under threat as all most people can hear is the propaganda about the critical subject.
Overview of the Three Media Sources
The three media houses that form the basis for the instant paper all cite scientific data to present their respective forms of propaganda on the subject of climate change. The first one, CBSN. (2019) is a TV news show that CBS has also published on YouTube. The source cites data provided by the United Nations about the impact of climate change in the future. Whereas the article correctly cites data from the UN report, it goes out of its way to make the information sound as alarming and scary as possible. The words “ UN climate change report warns of dire consequences ” appear in the screen full caps and in red background. The anchors and reporters use scary words such as “climate crisis” and “dangers of climate change”. From the tone of the news article, climate change is just about to end the world.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Similarly, Hausfather (2019), an article by Carbon Brief Ltd presents data about potential rise in sea levels in the scariest way possible. The data provides comes from scientific nature with the propaganda effect stemming from the presentation. A careful perusal of the data reflects that the dangers cited might happen in the year 2100, which is about 80 years into the future. From the wording of the article, the situation seems dire and a casual reader might imagine that coastal town will soon be disappearing.
From a different perspective, the article Nolte (2019), published by conservative media house Breitbart argues that the entire subject of “man-made” climate change is a hoax. According to the article, scientists have established that the current levels of carbon dioxide concentration mirror data from three million years ago when no modern technology existed. The article still manages to propagate fear by arguing that climate change is a form of manipulation by liberal organizations! All three articles contain narratives about climate change but they have circumspectly designed their essential messages to propagate fear.
Pre-reading Assumptions
Even before perusing the articles, I already had a picture in my mind about the nature of propaganda effect that the articles would carry. US political commentary mainly falls into two schools of thought, the liberal and the conservative respectively (Druckman & McGrath, 2019). On the social issue of climate change and its human causation, the two schools of thought take two different approaches. For the conservatives, climate change is either not as bad as the liberal claim or for the extremists, it is merely a hoax. For liberals, climate change is a massive issue with major and urgent implications of which the world must take action immediately (Druckman & McGrath, 2019). Currently, the liberals have been winning the propaganda war on climate change as more scientists back the climate change-urgency narrative. Conversely, the conservative media has sought to attack proponents of climate change and present them as tricksters out to scare the populace. Even before I perused the three sources, I had some ideas about what to expect. On the one hand, the liberal-leaning media will seek media would, as expected carefully seek to remain within the precincts of truth. However, the narrative will try to make such a truth sound as scary as possible. On the other hand, the conservative media will try to find a means to attack the liberal media and provide some form of evidence that climate change proponents are manipulative liars. Based on the article synopsis in the segment above, the respective articles did not disappoint.
Evidence of Bias and Personal Point of View
For all the three sources above, even the most casual perusal can detect some element of bias. However, the bias in the two liberal-leaning articles is implied while the bias in the conservative article is open and articulate for all to see. The most outstanding bias in the article Nolte (2019) stems from its outright attack on liberal commentators. The article insults a liberal Congresswoman by calling her “ Alexandria Ocasio-Crazy ” and refers to “ Global Warming Hoax ”. In its narrative, it is also easy to see that the article seeks to present climate change and global warming as a farce and far-etched idea. Finally, the article openly and unambiguously defends conservative US President Donald Trump and his pro-mineral fuel agenda.
For the two liberal-leaning sources, their bias is masked but still evident for a careful evaluator. The articles focus only on evidence that provides the scariest narrative about climate change. Most scientists who study climatic issues provide a nuanced opinion, for example, by admitting that there is the propensity for inaccuracy (Nerem et al., 2018). However, the two articles propagate the dire aspects of the data in their most scary form. CBSN. (2019) shows videos of vast portions of land covered in flooded water that has submerged homes and vehicles. On its part, Hausfather (2019) shows a vast water body with no speck of land within it. Both sources are thus trying to instill fear on their target audience, a fact that shows a bias towards action against climate change.
My personal belief on the subject of climate change is nuanced, hence taking a view somewhere between the two extremities presented by the articles. On the one hand, I believe the science that climate change is real and that it might visit some adverse consequences on the earth in the future. However, I also believe that there is no reason to panic. As long as the populace acts ethically and responsibly by limiting excesses of pollution, the earth is resilient enough to survive without inordinate changes.
Peer-Reviewed Sources and their Insights in the Subject
The study of peer-reviewed articles enabled a better understanding of the overall subject of climate change. Further, the said articles provided insight into why different commentators have varying biases on the subject. By definition, per-reviewed articles are articles written by experts within a specific field. Further, the articles also subject to review by more experts within the field they address prior to their publication. A peer-reviewed article may not always be accurate but it does contain the general scientific belief on a specific subject at the time of its publication.
The peer-reviewed article Nerem et al. (2018) provides important insight into the issue of climate change in general and specifically with regard to the issue of the rise of oceans as addressed in the articles addressed above. According to the article, there is evidence of a spike in global temperatures that has resulted in a rise in ocean waters. Further, the rate of rising in ocean waters seems to be accelerating making it possible for ocean levels to have risen exponentially by the year 2100. The research informing that conclusion stems back to the last 25 years. However, the article clarifies that despite careful research over the past 25 years, it not possible to predict what will have happened by 2100 accurately. Global warming might have speeded up to levels not predicted currently or it may have slowed down exponentially. There are no accurate means of predicting future weather. If there is no accurate way of predicting future weather, one has to wonder why media sources provide such drastic prognosis about the future of climate change. The article Druckman & McGrath (2019) provides a plausible answer to the genesis of the debate. As per the article, the issue of climate change is now part of the liberal versus conservative political debate. Each side of the political divide cherry-picks the data that best supports their side of the narrative. The climate change debate has thus lost objectivity with even scientists taking sides in the issue.
Conclusion
The analysis above presents an unfortunate situation where the world might be facing an imminent threat or might be the subject of an elaborate hoax. Each of the two scenarios is scary and it is important for humanity to understand which of the two realities is accurate. Unfortunately, instead of undertaking an objective discourse on the subject, the world in general and the USA, in particular, stands divided on political lines with regard to the rising issue of climate change. Liberal commentators argue that climate change is a major active threat. Conservative commentators argue that perpetrators of the climate change hoax are a major active threat. The absence of clear science that can accurately predict future climatic conditions complicate the chances of resolving the climate change impasse. In the interim, the biased debate continues.
References
CBSN. (2019, September 25). U.N. report warns on the impacts of climate change. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQpIVsxx014 .
Druckman, J. N., & McGrath, M. C. (2019). The evidence for motivated reasoning in climate change preference formation. Nature Climate Change , 1.
Hausfather, Z. (2019, September 30). Explainer: How climate change is accelerating sea-level rise. Retrieved from https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-climate-change-is-accelerating-sea-level-rise .
Nerem, R. S., Beckley, B. D., Fasullo, J. T., Hamlington, B. D., Masters, D., & Mitchum, G. T. (2018). Climate-change–driven accelerated sea-level rise detected in the altimeter era. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 115 (9), 2022-2025.
Nolte, J. (2019, April 9). Nolte: Scientists Prove Man-Made Global Warming Is a Hoax. Retrieved from https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/04/09/nolte-scientists-prove-man-made-global-warming-is-a-hoax/ .
