Cross-posted at Clark Community Network.
About a month ago, while scanning my Reuters homepage for interesting stories, I spotted the following headline:
"Spring coming soon, according to U.S. groundhog"
Groundhog Day. When millions of people abandon all reason and turn to a woodchuck for what legend says is a reliable indication of complex climatic events to come in the impending 6 weeks. Ridiculous? Sure, but this year’s Groundhog Day turned out to be even more departed from reality.
This year, February 2nd also marked the conclusion of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change conference which is why Raw Story had posted the following headline in big, bold, red letters:
"Global Warming Unstoppable"
That got me to thinking...
How were mainstream American news outlets covering the annual climate prediction of a rodent in comparison to their coverage of the unprecedented climate predictions of the world’s leading climate scientists?
In all fairness, in the weeks since the conference’s conclusion, the media have done a fairly respectable job of covering the event. In spite of the current media environment in which news is here today and gone tomorrow, news organizations have continued to reference the findings of the UN-created IPCC. We should be thankful for that.
But merely covering the story doesn’t really tell the whole tale of an informed public. After all, a watchdog can bark all night long, but if no one heeds the warning, the dog’s good deeds are all for nothing. And eventually, the dog merely loses its voice. So the question for me was not simply how the media covered the two events, but what impact the news coverage had on our collective knowledge of Groundhog Day versus Climate Change.
Using an admittedly very unscientific method, I e-mailed 33 friends and coworkers at 2:08 p.m. on February 2 with this message:
Subject: Survey Questions – Please Respond
Without consulting the news or the Web or asking others for help (The Honor System is in place) please reply with answers to the following questions. I may use the results (anonymously, of course) as a part of a future blog...
What event occurred in Pennsylvania this morning (February 2)?
What news was announced this morning in regards to this event?
What event concluded in Paris, France this morning (February 2)?
What news was announced this morning in regards to this event?
Thanks for your participation.
I’ve gotta say, the results fascinated me. Especially considering that the sample, with a few exceptions, was made up of better-than-average-educated, white-collar, moderate to left-leaning young adults.
From the 33 recipients, I received responses from 20 people. Here’s the breakdown:
What event occurred in Pennsylvania this morning (February 2)?
10 correct, 10 incorrect
What news was announced this morning in regards to this event?
10 correct, 10 incorrect
What event concluded in Paris, France this morning (February 2)?
9 correct, 11 incorrect
What news was announced this morning in regards to this event?
4 correct, 16 incorrect
So approximately 50 percent knew that, in recognition of Groundhog Day, Puxatawny Phil didn't see his shadow, indicating an early spring.
Approximately, the same number knew about the IPCC conference.
But only 20 percent knew the most important news, the findings of that conference.
Like I said, this was a highly unscientific poll but still disturbing, especially considering the gravity of the IPCC findings. Only half of the people had learned the day’s two leading news stories. And out of those, a seriously troubling number didn’t know anything beyond the most basic information.
Hopefully, in the days since, more of these respondents learned about – or learned more about – the conference on climate crisis. And hopefully, the Oscars exposure of "An Inconvenient Truth" has encouraged people to learn still more.
I suppose that this is another example of the USA Today/CNN effect, in which the majority of people just learn the surface-level of news stories, not enough to make informed decisions about anything.
But at a time when our voting public needs to be more informed, not less informed, about climate change, about the Iraq War, about the war in Afghanistan, about the potential war in Iran, about the national debt and about everything else going on -- this disinterest in the day's most important events makes me want to hide in a hole and not come out until next February.
How ironic is that? That I don't want to hear about all the people who don't want to hear about the world?
Hmmmm, if only I can get Phil to agree to wind power...