Global Warming Did It! Well, Maybe Not. - washingtonpost.comHaven't you noticed that? Now, even the Weather Channel is all agog over the possibilitiy that t tropical storm MIGHT intensify into a hurricane! A CAT 1 hurricane to boot! The implications are horrible! The devastation will be immense! All because of global warming! How will we ever survive!?!?!?We're heading into the heart of hurricane season, and any day now, a storm will barrel toward the United States, inspiring all the TV weather reporters to find a beach where they can lash themselves to a palm tree. We can be certain of two things: First, we'll be told that the wind is blowing very hard and the surf is up. Second, some expert will tell us that this storm might be a harbinger of global warming.
Somewhere along the line, global warming became the explanation for everything. Right-thinking people are not supposed to discuss any meteorological or geophysical event -- a hurricane, a wildfire, a heat wave, a drought, a flood, a blizzard, a tornado, a lightning strike, an unfamiliar breeze, a strange tingling on the neck -- without immediately invoking the climate crisis. It causes earthquakes, plagues and backyard gardening disappointments. Weird fungus on your tomato plants? Classic sign of global warming.
Sheesh.
One of the real problems with a 24-7 news cycle is that a lot of fluff is thrown in to pad out the real news items. And the object of ANY news channel isn't to dissemenate information - it's to sell ad time. It's the old story - to get ratings, you have to get people to watch. People watch bad news - they ignore good news because it doesn't affect them. So you get a steady drum beat of bad, bad, bad news - and if it ISN'T bad, they'll spin it in a way you THINK is bad, because you'll keep checking on the bad stuff... and ignore the good.
I don't expect it to change, unfortunately. Every weather event will be spun as a catastrophe, worse than the one before. Sooner or later, we'll start tuning the news folk out - which means that eventually a normal rainstorm on the Gulf Coast will merit Katrina-like news coverage...
J.
Comments (3)
Every weather event IS spun out as a catastrophe already, if you check out the Weather Channel's home page. It seems like every other day I see a "Severe weather alert" there. My favorite is always "Severe cold expected! It will be in the teens in the North Georgia mountains tonight!" It's January already--YA THINK?
Posted by LindaY | August 4, 2008 8:03 AM
Posted on August 4, 2008 08:03
As I understand it, it has already been established that ostensible overall warming has no effect on the severity of weather, at least according to apolitical meteorologists (those who actually STUDY weather, as opposed to those who report on it), so it's not relevant, but they do not have a constant and immediate forum. As for bad news selling better, if 1,000,000 children leave home this morning, and 999,999 of them make it safely home tonight, which will you hear about on the News?
Posted by John C. | August 4, 2008 8:37 AM
Posted on August 4, 2008 08:37
'Bad news begets more bad news,' or maybe 'bad news coverage begets more bad news coverage,' and you can decide for yourself if 'bad' modifies 'news' or 'coverage.'
I think there is something to what I might call the 'News Echo Effect.' If you see a news article about a certain type of event, the odds are increased above normal that you will see an article about a similar event in the near future. Did you see an article about a shark attacking a man in Panama City? Odds are pretty good that you will see another article within the week about another shark attack -- even if it was in Australia.
Was there an article about an airliner making an emergency landing at Hartsfield-Jackson with an engine out? You can almost count on another article soon about another emergency landing, even if it was a 'crew smelled smoke in the cockpit' precautionary stop in Kalispell.
The first event established a 'template' in the corporate memory of the affected news organizations -- I'm almost tempted to call it a 'short-lived meme' -- that the raw data coming off the teletype or popping up on the computer screen can be fitted into. Hey, it worked (i.e., was bought off on by the editors) once!
If enough raw data that can be jammed into the template keep coming down the wire, the meme gets reinforced and the template comes closer to something kept in the permanent tool drawer. (See my earlier post on the 'New York Times,' 'Standing Room Only Seating,' and the 'airlines are evil' template.)
Context? Background? Expertise? What do those have to do with journalism?
Posted by RNB | August 4, 2008 1:04 PM
Posted on August 4, 2008 13:04