Jump to content

Talk:Media coverage of climate change

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dmcq (talk | contribs) at 21:11, 11 December 2011 (→Merge from climate change alarmism: I simply cannot ignore?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Community article probation


Aren't books considered Media? If books are, add some?

Aren't books considered Media? If books are, add some, or at least wikilinks? Some examples: Book:Global warming, Category:Climate change books, Category:Environmental non-fiction books, etc ... 99.88.230.179 (talk) 20:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well it means mass media really. So popular books would count. State of Fear is mentioned. Rd232 talk 21:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"State of Fear" is fictional crap, see Climate change denial; or better 2010's Merchants of Doubt, 2010's "The Climate War" by Eric Pooley (ISBN 978-1401323264) on the Politics of global warming (United States), and Michael Specter's 2009 book "Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet, and Threatens Our Lives". Or The Weather of the Future from The Weather Channel Climate Scientist. If you want to read about fear, read Fear, uncertainty and doubt, and the "State" start with State of the World (book series). 99.54.137.151 (talk) 06:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
State of Fear is fictional crap, but so are Age of Stupid, An Inconvenient Truth, and The Weather of the Future. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You, UseraR, have read the 2010, just in print, The Weather of the Future from The Weather Channel's Heidi Cullen (an attempt at non-fiction, extrapolation/prediction)? Or for that matter watched the U.K.'s 2009 The Age of Stupid (mostly documentary footage)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.88.149 (talk) 08:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Age of Stupid is not an attempt at being a documentary, as any sane person would realize. It may use (faked) documentary-style footage.
I can believe The Weather of the Future is an attempt at non-fiction; but so are Chariots of the Gods and Worlds in Collision. I can't say the "attempt" is successful without further research. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bla, bla, bla ... Climate change in popular culture, Soylent Green, Hard science fiction, Category:Dystopian films, are a closer matched rebuttal, as Credibility does actual matter, as blind words will fall, and they lower in the credibility bell curve with appropriate rigourous Scientific method application ... then R&D, with the mind always on the Engineering tolerance of the World, because "A Man HAS TO KNOW his LIMITATIONS" (One-line joke from Magnum Force); see Appropriate technology. 99.24.249.168 (talk) 20:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You don't get out much, do you User:arthur rubin?
Are you reading "The Climate War" from the Bloomberg Businessweek editor (a real one)?
No answer that you actually READ or WATCH any of them ... isn't the air in your bubble stuffy? 99.52.148.154 (talk) 09:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTFORUM. If anyone has any serious analysis of the impact of popular books (i.e. books aimed at the general public) and/or films, that would qualify for coverage here. But I'm quite wary of the danger of covering specific books or films in any detail, especially if their scientific accuracy is a big issue (easily expanding to a paragraph or even more per book/film). The current content is quite broad summary and I think from an overall quality perspective it would be best kept that way. Rd232 talk 20:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible bias in article

"This stance is out of step with the findings of the scientific community where the vast majority support the climate change scenarios." This sentence, particularly the part in bold, seems like bias. "The popular media in New Zealand often give equal weight to the those supporting anthropogenic climate change and thosewho deny it." This sentence also sounds biased (the part in bold is the problem). 99.224.93.55 (talk) 00:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this is bias. Objections to removing the tag? --TeaDrinker (talk) 04:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC) Never mind, it appears I misunderstood the originator and reasons for the tag. --TeaDrinker (talk) 04:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add Climate change in popular culture. 99.56.120.249 (talk) 05:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Seems tangential, at best. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Climate change in Popular Culture wp article includes Film, Literature, Television, Comic books, Video games, etc ... all forms of Media (communication), thus directly related within the sphere of this topic. 99.181.132.192 (talk) 18:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Media is more-or-less popular cultural, but the relevance is unclear. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

potential resource

Who Speaks for the Climate?: Making Sense of Media Reporting on Climate Change by Maxwell T. Boykoff, Cambridge University Press; 1 edition (September 30, 2011) ISBN-13: 978-0521133050

99.190.87.173 (talk) 19:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from climate change alarmism

Right. This is fairly decent, but there's a couple bit that could be worked on - for the section on global cooling, we need to move over more sources from global cooling; there's plenty there, but, while Scienceblogs is apparently usually considered a reliable source, due to the high bars to getting accepted there, it's still not the BEST source, and we could do better. Still, the pre-existing parts of this aren't that well-cited, so it's not going to hurt us too much if it takes a bit to beef up the sources, in what is, after all, the only way to salvage some useful content which, without that fix, was POV-pushing, and thus unmergeable. And if you wait too long to merge, stuff's likely to disappear. 86.** IP (talk) 03:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding it very hard to see how stuff put out by overnment and environment groups, private military contractors and think tanks, Charles Koch, a meteorologist or quotes from scientists are classified as media coverage. Media coverage is about the press itself. The way they try and 'balance' a debate or distort stuff to suit their readers leanings or to make it easier or get a catchy title. And that's what the rest of the article is about plus the different way media in different countries handle it. The stuff has just been plonked here without though about the suitability for this article. Do you have some reasoning behind this? Something better than that since newspapers report murders therefore murders should be put into media coverage articles. Dmcq (talk) 11:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Um... I'm sorry, it's self-evident that almost every line is talking about actions in media reporting; I don't see how on earth your claim holds weight. 86.** IP (talk) 18:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well you're removed the Charles Koch bit so lets try next 'The term alarmist is also commonly used as a pejorative by critics of mainstream climate science to describe those that endorse it. MIT meteorologist Kerry Emanuel wrote that labeling someone as an "alarmist" is "a particularly infantile smear considering what is at stake." He continued that using this "inflammatory terminology has a distinctly Orwellian flavor."' Exactly what has the media got to do with critics of mainstream climate science or what Kerry Emanuel wrote? Where is the media referred to in any of that or involved in any of that? Dmcq (talk) 18:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See next paragraph, which is full of examples of the behaviour mentioned in the news? You can provide context, you know. I removed Koch since you objected so strongly; They have their own article, anyway. 86.** IP (talk) 19:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the major problem here that 86.** ignores is that, while alarmism language often appear in media, it is mostly not the media that is employing the language. The conduit of language is not the originator of the language. This article is about the media itself..... about how the media handles communication. None of the merged content is about the media itself, it is about how language is employed in the debate, which is a significantly broader aspect than just media. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then, name, specifically, where you think it fits better, remembering we have a mandate to merge that we cannot simply ignore. 86.** IP (talk) 19:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion was started, you ignored it, and did what you wanted. The correct place to discuss the merger had been GWC or CCA. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is perfectly possible for a person to ignore something like that. No-one has compelled me to stick stuff into inappropriate articles. Don't include me in your 'we'. Dmcq (talk) 21:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Media_coverage_of_climate_change&oldid=465349800"