5 ms·

They're performing for their audience. They aren't trying to inform Alaska about climate change, they are catering to their readers' fears about climate change;

They're performing for their audience. They aren't trying to inform Alaska about climate change, they are catering to their readers' fears about climate change; and catering to their egos by reinforcing how stupid and uninformed everyone else is compared to them, the readers. I dunno what you call it, but it certainly isn't journalism; more like infotainment. Big bucks in that.

scohesc 5y ago
It's frustrating how close some people are to realizing that their favorite news sources are not news anymore. They're all propaganda pieces bought and paid for by big tech and government subsidies - being used to report on narratives and feelings to control how people react and think on social issues instead of thinking and reacting for themselves. If they truly wanted to be unbiased, you'd write an article like: - Permafrost is melting at faster rates than before in Alaska, showing varied studies and charts. - People are being displaced because their houses were built for permafrost and now that it's gone their houses are falling apart. The journalist seems to have done this from my reading. - We need to look at the future and see how this will affect our planet, our ecosystems around it, and the people directly affected by it. - We're looking at old traditions and cultures to try and come up with new unique ideas to living in the north as 'naturally' as possible. The journalist doesn't need to "tell" you you need to be concerned. They don't need to tell you "possible reasons or speculations in an industry or environment the journalist has next to no experience in, that may or may not directly correlate to the plight of the Alaskan permafrost but it's convenient and helps drive the narrative so we'll put it in". Tell us the facts and let us make our own opinions. I'd read the original washington post article in full, but they want me to pay for it so I'll pass. Pay for biased journalism? Nah, I'm good.
- jlund-molfese 5y ago
  If you're interested in the original article, it's indexed without the paywall by archive.is [0] [0] - https://archive.is/20210925074935/https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2021/09/24/alaska-housing-climate-change/ https://archive.is/20210925074935/https://www.washingtonpost...
- myfartsarefoul 5y ago
  I think a worse problem is the advertisement-based revenue stream and the analytics enabled by modern technology. They have to keep the audience’s attention, or their revenue dries up. So they try to maximize engagement, which often steers them in a direction that’s more about the feelings of the reader; what’s left is very little room for any serious thought. There’s also the Twitter mob. If you don’t toe the line to some people’s preferred narratives you start losing advertisers and getting death threats.
teawrecks 5y ago
Today I learned that up until the 90s, the general populous accepted global warming as scientific fact. At that point, numerous studies dating back to the 50s had confirmed the effect, and there was mostly bipartisan support for environment preserving legislation. So oil companies started media propaganda efforts specifically trying to change the public opinion on the matter, calling it "just a theory": https://www.climatefiles.com/denial-groups/ice-ad-campaign/ https://www.climatefiles.com/denial-groups/ice-ad-campaign/ And now we live in a world where you simply can't talk about climate science without running into spin and having to sink to that level to counter it.
- twofornone 5y ago
  This is misleading. No one has to this day "confirmed" that anthropogenic global warming is a "scientific fact". We have evidence which suggests that climate is changing and humans may be responsible. But the global climate system is complex, constantly oscillating on periods ranging from days to eons, and our data is sparse, especially going back 20+ years. The certainty behind this consensus has been drastically overstated by ideologues who have taken it upon themselves to prioritize action over accurate reporting. There fundamentally is no proof that the changing climate will be catastrophic or result in runaway, especially when our historic temperature data is not fine grained enough to measure abrupt changes on the scale of 100 years. Though it is taboo to discuss, there is in fact evidence that such a rapid change is not unprecedented, that the earth has been hotter than it is now in the past, and that past sudden temperature swings clearly did not result in a venuslike earth. The fact that virtually all major climate change model forecasts published in the last decade or two have significantly overpredicted temperature increases is telling of the bias in mainstream climate science. I similarly take issue with this revisionist history wherein oil companies "knew" of climate change 60 years ago and deliberately ignored the danger. A claim of catastrophic anthropogenic terraforming requires evidence collection and modeling capability that simply did not exist 60 years ago, and given the periodic nature of climate, we simply will not know if this warming will indeed continue and/or become catastrophic without a lens into the future. Our current modeling capabilities are still inadequate.
  - 5y ago

scohesc 5y ago

It's frustrating how close some people are to realizing that their favorite news sources are not news anymore. They're all propaganda pieces bought and paid for by big tech and government subsidies - being used to report on narratives and feelings to control how people react and think on social issues instead of thinking and reacting for themselves. If they truly wanted to be unbiased, you'd write an article like: - Permafrost is melting at faster rates than before in Alaska, showing varied studies and charts. - People are being displaced because their houses were built for permafrost and now that it's gone their houses are falling apart. The journalist seems to have done this from my reading. - We need to look at the future and see how this will affect our planet, our ecosystems around it, and the people directly affected by it. - We're looking at old traditions and cultures to try and come up with new unique ideas to living in the north as 'naturally' as possible. The journalist doesn't need to "tell" you you need to be concerned. They don't need to tell you "possible reasons or speculations in an industry or environment the journalist has next to no experience in, that may or may not directly correlate to the plight of the Alaskan permafrost but it's convenient and helps drive the narrative so we'll put it in". Tell us the facts and let us make our own opinions. I'd read the original washington post article in full, but they want me to pay for it so I'll pass. Pay for biased journalism? Nah, I'm good.

jlund-molfese 5y ago
If you're interested in the original article, it's indexed without the paywall by archive.is [0] [0] - https://archive.is/20210925074935/https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2021/09/24/alaska-housing-climate-change/ https://archive.is/20210925074935/https://www.washingtonpost...
myfartsarefoul 5y ago
I think a worse problem is the advertisement-based revenue stream and the analytics enabled by modern technology. They have to keep the audience’s attention, or their revenue dries up. So they try to maximize engagement, which often steers them in a direction that’s more about the feelings of the reader; what’s left is very little room for any serious thought. There’s also the Twitter mob. If you don’t toe the line to some people’s preferred narratives you start losing advertisers and getting death threats.

teawrecks 5y ago

Today I learned that up until the 90s, the general populous accepted global warming as scientific fact. At that point, numerous studies dating back to the 50s had confirmed the effect, and there was mostly bipartisan support for environment preserving legislation. So oil companies started media propaganda efforts specifically trying to change the public opinion on the matter, calling it "just a theory": https://www.climatefiles.com/denial-groups/ice-ad-campaign/ https://www.climatefiles.com/denial-groups/ice-ad-campaign/ And now we live in a world where you simply can't talk about climate science without running into spin and having to sink to that level to counter it.

twofornone 5y ago
This is misleading. No one has to this day "confirmed" that anthropogenic global warming is a "scientific fact". We have evidence which suggests that climate is changing and humans may be responsible. But the global climate system is complex, constantly oscillating on periods ranging from days to eons, and our data is sparse, especially going back 20+ years. The certainty behind this consensus has been drastically overstated by ideologues who have taken it upon themselves to prioritize action over accurate reporting. There fundamentally is no proof that the changing climate will be catastrophic or result in runaway, especially when our historic temperature data is not fine grained enough to measure abrupt changes on the scale of 100 years. Though it is taboo to discuss, there is in fact evidence that such a rapid change is not unprecedented, that the earth has been hotter than it is now in the past, and that past sudden temperature swings clearly did not result in a venuslike earth. The fact that virtually all major climate change model forecasts published in the last decade or two have significantly overpredicted temperature increases is telling of the bias in mainstream climate science. I similarly take issue with this revisionist history wherein oil companies "knew" of climate change 60 years ago and deliberately ignored the danger. A claim of catastrophic anthropogenic terraforming requires evidence collection and modeling capability that simply did not exist 60 years ago, and given the periodic nature of climate, we simply will not know if this warming will indeed continue and/or become catastrophic without a lens into the future. Our current modeling capabilities are still inadequate.
- 5y ago