Pages

Thursday, May 27, 2010

Joe Millionaire Reporting Live

Guest Post By: Oliver Spicer

One of my biggest pet peeves– of which I have many – is the general inaccuracy of the television media. This is, of course, the only media an ignorant blue collar boy from B-Veg ever consumes.  We don’t read papers, we don’t listen to radio, we watch television.
While watching, I particularly resent how dumbed-down they present information to the average viewer (except when I’m shit-can hammered, then I appreciate it). A good example of broadcasters acknowledging how dim-witted they treat us was recently seen during an intermission of the Stanley Cup Playoffs. A guest panelist on TSN, Craig MacTavish began almost every segment with “I hate to point out the obvious”. His colleague, Bob McKenzie, finally acknowledged this trend by saying “Mac T keeps saying ‘I hate to point out the obvious’, well this is television Mac T and that is exactly what we do.”

It’s true that television broadcasters’ jobs are, for the most part, to point out the obvious when informing the viewer of daily happenings. Yet repeatedly in today’s media, journalists compromise their integrity to blur the obvious and make their point.  Perhaps this is most evident in the battle against Global Warming. For instance, airlines offering carbon offsets (usually the planting of trees which assimilate CO2 from the atmosphere) for their flights have become more common practice as of late. CNN would have you believe that by purchasing these offsets with your ticket you are reducing Global Warming. Well Wolf, that isn’t necessarily true. Trees reflect less ultra violet light and emit more infrared radiation than an empty treeless lot would and thus planting trees actually accelerates global warming. You could make the argument that the atmospheric CO2 reduction caused by planting trees will eventually reduce Global Warming, but you would be ignoring all of the volatile positive feedback loops  (e.g. decreased ocean circulation, increased tundra respiration, etc.) that could cause CO2 to sky-rocket with any increase in global mean average surface temperature.  

Now obviously the good from planting trees far outweighs the bad, and I do support carbon offsets. The real problem of mine is that I suspect that the average joe millionaire probably believes (falsly) that their trans-Canada flight has a neutral impact on the world because they paid for the carbon offset – ultimately a result of spotty reporting.  This is the same type of spotty reporting that would take a picture of a starved polar bear on a small slab of ice and have us believe the polar bear is endangered because of the warming of the planet and subsequent destruction of their habitat. In part, this is true. However if we really want polar bears to no longer starve, perhaps we should stop worrying about CO2 emissions and begin policing the arctic hunters that are depleting the polar bear’s main food source. Another idea that might preserve their populations is the reduction of pollutants like polychlorinated biphenyls that weaken their immune systems and lower their reproductive capacity. Yes it’s true that polar bear populations are decreasing*, but to use this as a rallying cry against global warming is deceptive and unnecessary.   

Whether it be Global Warming or the NHL, television reporters will find a way to distort the obvious to make their point. The reality is that the blurred lines connecting news headlines are often created because Wolf Blitzer huffed, puffed, and sneezed in your face with an array of inaccuracies and poorly explained concepts. The job of the viewer is to filter the garbage, decipher the truth, and never….never turn off your T.V.         

* Why do we care if polar bears go extinct, I heard they were they only animal that hunts humans.

No comments:

Post a Comment