The Relationship Between Mainstream Media on The One Hand and Written Press

It being the leading source of news since the printing press. We put our faith in the media to report accurate facts unbiasedly. Between 1983 and now the media industry has consolidated from 50 individual companies to 6. That means that though the impression given is that there are a multitude of sources to attain information, the messages being communicated are all one in the same. The limitation of media sources cause a ripple effect of limited information, allowing these companies to control the public’s perception on

The essay, “The Environmental Crisis: The Devil Is in the Generalities” by Ross McKitrick, points out the simple fact that most of the population is so overwhelmed by the environmental propaganda offered in the media that they do not seek to understand the factual science behind the messages. McKitrick highlights the fact that there exists a general belief that the condition of the environment has been deteriorating over the past years; however, he then references much scientific data that refutes this claim. His use of these scientific references reinforces his position as an environmental economist, and therefore; a specialist whom one should believe and trust. While he is an environmental economist, he argues that the term “environment”

The power and consequently the responsibility of media, especially mainstream, is something that shouldn’t be underestimated. It often sets the agenda amongst the general public and is the reference point for the majority of the discussion surrounding it. For many, what they see and read in the media forms the basis of their opinions on most important topics. Despite warnings not to, many believe that everything they read in the media must be true.

This raises the question of whether media influence can change ideologies and sway communities’ opinions on fracking. A study was conducted on how different types of media on both sides of the fracking debate influenced readers’ perceptions and beliefs about the gas industry. This experiment examined narrative versus informational types of news, meaning whether the information is presented as more of a story or as a more factual compilation. It also examined how participants’ perceptions were impacted when comparing environmental and economic “frames.” Framing refers to the “the process by which the mass media define and construct issues by emphasizing certain dimensions to the exclusion of others” (Shen, Ahern & Baker, 2014, p. 99). The study evaluated how people’s attitudes about fracking changed after reading either narrative or informational news articles on the topic, and framed with either an economic or environmental perspective (Shen et al., 2014, p. 101). The study found a significant relationship between the type of news presented and a change in the participants’ attitudes (Shen et al., 2014, p.

She emphasizes writings that surround social movements and the media, which are then studied within the conceptual/theoretical framework of political economy. Richardson goes on to analyze texts on Greenpeace and other NGO’s, particularly on what media tactics they use to push their ideas and gain recognition in the mainstream. In order to further explore her research questions, she conducted a Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) of media coverage on the Great Bear Rainforest from both the Globe and Mail and the Vancouver Sun from January 1, 1995 – January 1, 2007. In her analysis, she examined fifty-seven articles in order to study the way those protesting the logging of the Great Bear Rainforest were regarded in the media and if there was any common themes or developments in the ways the media reported on them. Through analyzing the news articles using the CDA methodology, the author can easily make connections within the political economy framework. CDA, a popular method used by researchers, can help to reveal the structures of domination in social relationships. Richardson looks at what can be learned from the achievements and shortcomings of the environmental movement and the ways in which they used the media to gain the support of the

What is a medium? How does a medium like outdoor magazines affect the public? What type of consumer is interested in outdoor magazines? How are outdoor magazines purchased and obtained? What is inside an outdoor magazine? Most importantly, how does this medium affect public opinion and what is its impact in the world of politics? These are all viable questions regarding this particular medium. First of all, a medium is a vehicle by which messages are displayed. They can form or change opinions of people. On the contrary, people and special interest groups can change the brand of an outdoor magazine. In this particular medium, the public has tremendous influence on what is printed.

The world population surpassed 3 billion in 1960 and continues to put a strain on natural resources and the environment (Ortiz-Ospina and Roser, 2016). During the mid to late twentieth century, the environment became a popular topic in politics. Walls declared, “by 1988 Democratic and Republican Presidential candidates alike were hailing themselves as champions of the environment” (Walls, 2014). The Boomers and the general population were “increasingly environmentally conscious and supportive of the green movement and green products and services" (Williams and Page, 2010). According to David Walls, “Seventy-five percent of Americans in 1989 identified themselves as environmentalists… all the more remarkable given that twenty-five years

The Article, “Uncertainty, Risk, Trust, and Information: Public Perceptions of Environmental Issues and Willingness to Take Action” written by Reneé J. Johnson and Michael J. Scicchitano in its current form is unfit for publication. Johnson and Scicchitano should be commended for identifying a gap in our ability to accurately quantify the strength and intensity of environmental concerns. This gap is certainly worthy of further study; however, their execution and attempt to quantify this phenomena does not have the necessary wherewithal to close the gap in the literature as it stands.

There are many different factors that play into one’s behavioral intent when it comes to environmental affairs. Without the media coverage, the inceptive behavioral intent from the public was to continue supporting CPW, without the knowledge of the issue, thus there would have been no change in behavior. Now that information on the subject has become more readily available, the behavioral intent has a very likely chance of changing. This type of change can come in many different forms, leading to an array of different behaviors depending on the interests of the targeted audience. When looking at the different audiences included in this issue, there is a wide spectrum of attitudes that could be influenced. For hunters, the blogs and hunting outlets can create a new attitude towards CPW. What once seemed like an agency creating restrictions is now an agency fully supporting herd health for hunters. For other targeted audiences, such as advocacy organizations and researchers, the media coverage could change attitudes towards the issue in the opposite direction of audiences with particular

With mass media, they follow the collective action frames by targeting the problem then attacking with a form of direct action. This makes the viewers notice what going behind the walls of a company, whether there is animal testing or pollution it will be seen as problematic. Since they might not be able to persuade the law to help them, then aim to overcome it through some sort of action. Thus, Earth First! Uses framing to help identify their problem and then the solution to the problem. Identify the perpetrators by name next target them (Earth First! Journal). This is dualism where they try to persuade people to believe their actions are right since they understand that the declared perpetrators as hurting the environment. In doing so cause it to where witnessing somebody that is not worthy since they act against their ideologies then it makes their direct action justified. As if the dehumanization of their target causes somebody to believe it be okay that they are just ending up acting as cruel as their

The approach to environmental news stories can also differ depending on the media outlet that is writing or printing the story. The Sun and The Daily Mail are aimed at middle to working class people and a younger audience, which means that they often use shocking headlines to grab people’s attention. For example, Cheyenne Macdonald’s 3rd March article in the daily mail (see above table), uses adjectives like ‘killer’ and ‘super’, which don’t actually provide any extra

“The media are a primary source of those pictures in our heads about the larger world of public affairs, a world that for most citizens is ‘out of reach, out sight, out of mind’ and what we know about the world is largely based on what the media decide to tell us” (McCombs).

How do people affect the world? In Thomas Hayden’s (2002) article, “Trashing the Ocean,” he discusses how people are destroying the world, and he creates a feeling of intrigue and curiosity by using ethos and pathos arguments to connect to people on a deeper level by appealing to their emotions and using sources who are reliable. He is the director of Master of Arts in Earth Systems, Environmental Communication Program at Stanford University. On the opposite end of persuasion techniques there is John Tibbett’s “Managing Marine Plastic Pollution,” who uses a plethora of logistics and factual information to persuade readers to help stop plastic pollution. He published articles in Science Careers, BioScience, Hakai Magazine, The Washington

Media draws from various sources to gather facts and assemble stories for their readership. When a story comes out about a new scientific discovery or an impending extinction of a species, the source must be considered. In a paper by Jeremy Corbett entitled “Testing Public Uncertainty of Science” he discusses how newspapers especially just don’t have the manpower to go straight to the scientific source. Media often rely on information sourced from governmental and private entities rather than cutting edge scientific information. This allows them to provide information that is easily understood and likely widely accepted. Corbett gives the example of a magazine that cites scientific reports but changes their story constantly: cell phones cause cancer, no they don`t, then months later they are back to the initial assumption.

There is fairly sound evidence out there that points to the devastating repercussions we may face if we carry on exploiting our natural resources at the same pace. Most Americans are familiar with the environmental “crisis” to some extent but evidently not enough to take necessary action to reverse the damage we may have caused. Although people are aware that recycling is good and many might even go to the extent of changing light bulbs and driving hybrid cars, it isn’t quite enough, as many seem to think considering their minor efforts. As the evidence states, playing dice with Mother Nature doesn’t give us the best stakes. As a result there are plenty of educated people and organizations out there trying hard to make a difference, and yet people seem very reluctant to fully engage in environmental causes. This lack of engagement is what I wanted to investigate by looking at it from an angle of how the media are presenting valuable information to the public.