Competition is good!
Beppe Grillo's red horizon
Fuel of War!
I've encountered these two links within two days time and got inspired to give put down my projects background view.
Every scenario I imagine that will bring meaningful change is broken in the link of informing the masses. Every major player in mass media is a branch that grows from the same root as the problems that worries people today. As 90% of the newspapers is paid by addvertisers, news becomes framing for adverts. Media is then given the right to censor in the name of profit. Not just it's own profit but it's clients profits- every profit. Media becomes the glass wall between us and from what I guess, it's now acting as a pretty big dam.
Climate change is all ready the new Holocaust. Not in body counts but it's the extreme you use to prove your point. But that's because it's simply stupid. Climate change was always stupid, already in the early 90's the scientific elite said what it's saying now. I read about it in high school for peace sake. But then there was silence. In 15 years there was silence. Until 2006 when Al Gore made a slide show and rented a plane. It seems like there's very few dots on the timeline. Wasn't there anything else? Kyoto? Katrina? A few hot summers? That's what the mainstream media refers back to anyway. While in the real world, the scientists never quit. They worked through their figures, got the same results being given the same cold hand from the media and did it all over again. The only thing that changed beside carbon rate in the atmosphere was the number of scientists and green activists raising their voices. Meanwhile, the media sullied the eco warriors as leftover lefties with a hidden agenda to take us all back to a farm in the middle ages and instead raised sceptical "pro growth-ex Greenpeacers" to the skies. No worry about the quantity of people on neither side, no worry about what the "expert" in question actually knows in the subject, no worry about the connections someone has to certain carbon energy companies. Good journalism is about a second opinion, about balance, about status quo, about business as usual.
But then there was a crack in the glass and then a flood. Gores film was a blockbuster and suddenly it was ok to write about CC. What has been happening with the debate since is not the issue here. The point is that there was a breaking point. A moment when media switch consensus. I think I start to see a pattern in that entertainment medium tends to penetrate this final layer while books shoot blanks. Still, I am certain in that when this final magic bullet is launched it's but the latest contribution to the pile of rejected material that's being piling up for years. I will happily throw my piece on the pile to rot but to bend the glass a little more.
Fuel of War!
I've encountered these two links within two days time and got inspired to give put down my projects background view.
Every scenario I imagine that will bring meaningful change is broken in the link of informing the masses. Every major player in mass media is a branch that grows from the same root as the problems that worries people today. As 90% of the newspapers is paid by addvertisers, news becomes framing for adverts. Media is then given the right to censor in the name of profit. Not just it's own profit but it's clients profits- every profit. Media becomes the glass wall between us and from what I guess, it's now acting as a pretty big dam.
Climate change is all ready the new Holocaust. Not in body counts but it's the extreme you use to prove your point. But that's because it's simply stupid. Climate change was always stupid, already in the early 90's the scientific elite said what it's saying now. I read about it in high school for peace sake. But then there was silence. In 15 years there was silence. Until 2006 when Al Gore made a slide show and rented a plane. It seems like there's very few dots on the timeline. Wasn't there anything else? Kyoto? Katrina? A few hot summers? That's what the mainstream media refers back to anyway. While in the real world, the scientists never quit. They worked through their figures, got the same results being given the same cold hand from the media and did it all over again. The only thing that changed beside carbon rate in the atmosphere was the number of scientists and green activists raising their voices. Meanwhile, the media sullied the eco warriors as leftover lefties with a hidden agenda to take us all back to a farm in the middle ages and instead raised sceptical "pro growth-ex Greenpeacers" to the skies. No worry about the quantity of people on neither side, no worry about what the "expert" in question actually knows in the subject, no worry about the connections someone has to certain carbon energy companies. Good journalism is about a second opinion, about balance, about status quo, about business as usual.
But then there was a crack in the glass and then a flood. Gores film was a blockbuster and suddenly it was ok to write about CC. What has been happening with the debate since is not the issue here. The point is that there was a breaking point. A moment when media switch consensus. I think I start to see a pattern in that entertainment medium tends to penetrate this final layer while books shoot blanks. Still, I am certain in that when this final magic bullet is launched it's but the latest contribution to the pile of rejected material that's being piling up for years. I will happily throw my piece on the pile to rot but to bend the glass a little more.
Comments