Mitchell Anderson has written a long and insightful piece in this week’s Georgia Straight entitled Trust Us, We’re the Media. It’s about the media’s lack of critical thinking and laziness on climate change:
Radio One has programs for business, sports, advertising, science, Quebec culture, pop culture, food, storytelling, spirituality, comedy, and theatre. There are three shows on writing and books and 11 programs on music. CBC’s three television networks air programs on fashion, gardening, antiques, and fly-fishing.
Amid this dizzying Can-Con diversity, however, there is one glaring omission. For now, at least, there is no dedicated CBC radio or television program on the number-one issue of concern to Canadians: the environment.
Being somewhat cynical about the media and a Green Party supporter, I was keen to read this piece. Anderson makes a very strong case that the Canadian media has misrepresented the scientific consensus on climate change.
No Defence in Sight
I did, however, have one misgiving about the piece. While it’s full of quotes from the media and so-called climate change skeptics, there aren’t any specific responses to Mitchell’s allegations. The CBC or The Globe and Mail don’t get a chance to defend themselves (even if their failures are indefensable).
I emailed Mr. Anderson to ask about this, and this was his response, published here with his permission:
I quoted the people in the article from their published work. My intent was to explore what they we stating publicly because at the end of the day, that is what is important for public debate. As far the the perspective from the media, I contacted faculty at the UBC School of Journalism with a specialization in media ethics and science to quote their perspective and to ensure that I was on the right track. They agreed that I was. You can’t fit everything in an article and much was cut out already.
I replied that I can’t evaluate these media outlets’ reasoning if I don’t hear from them. Maybe they legitimately believe there’s still a lack of consensus? Maybe they just got it wrong, and want to say so? Maybe they’re on the take, and are ready to confess? I doubt it’s the final case, but you get the idea.
As for Mr. Anderson’s other points, I remain unsatisfied. The article is over 4000 words long–he could have found a way to squeeze in at least one response. And as for the School of Journalism, professors aren’t exactly reknowned for having their fingers on the pulse of the world beyond the rolling lawns of academia. They’re definitely useful sources, but I’m not sure they’re sufficient ‘perspective from the media’.
Without hearing the media’s response to his case, Mitchell has, ironically, written an excellent but one-sided story.
Disclosure: Let’s see here, this one’s a bit complicated. One of our clients is DeSmogBlog (where there’s some good discussion of the article), a site dedicated to ‘clearing the PR pollution that clouds climate change’. So you can decide if that biases me outright. Then, Mitchell Anderson has also written for DeSmogBlog, though I think only the one time.
UPDATE: Hah, that’s an awesome Freudian slip I made in the title–‘client change’ indeed. I’m not referring to DeSmogBlog there–they’re awesome. It’s been a busy week.
DarrenBarefoot.com 
I read the article yesterday and thought the same thing. It would have been very interesting to hear from the people who were being criticized as to why they’ve taken the positions they have.
Darren,
I think you’re being unfair when you write that journalism professors are less-than-ideal sources for a story about the media. Back in 2003, i found all of my professors in the journalism program at UWO to be fully aware of the world “beyond the rolling lawns.” Although they were working at a university, they all had extensive work experience in their field and many of them continued to work in media outside of the classroom. (As far as I can remember, one of the professors used her holidays at the university to work as an editor at a major American paper.)
Are you thinking of the stereotypical professor with his lunch on his tie but a firm understanding of the lives of atoms? This is not the sort of person who gets hired at journalism programs.
The journalism professors I met knew all about how media works. Even back then, many of the professors told us that the idea of “fair and balanced” was the cause of a lot of problems when it came to reporting. They all pointed to global warming as an example of how trying to give both sides of the story can create a false picture.
Also, I think you’re not giving enough credit to the writer’s response to your email. He tried to write about what and how the media has reported on an issue. Therefore, all he needs to do is quote what they have produced, not ask them for further explanations. Their reasons and reasoning are not important, because they’re not presented to their audiences. He is talking about the state of public debate and what fuels it.
Two things always strike me about these denier pieces: They’re almost always unbalanced, they’re usually not scientists or their backgrounds are vague and they seem to cluster geographically (I know that’s three) which is how Exxon Mobil paid deniers in London were exposed- too many new not-fot profit orgs suddenly popping up in London with climate ‘expertise’.
get a first life is great 😉
Err, The Nature of Things?
Last time I checked, nature was part of the environment, and Dr. Suzuki has been known on rare occasions to mention the environment…
There was also an interesting piece the CBC did about how the guys who were bought and paid for by cigarette companies to go out and “teach the controversy” are the same guys who now work for big oil.