My concerned response to Kos’ Comment to my post re his post… (climate vs war)
On Thursday March 9th, I posted an article titled “Kos’ Top 16 Posts reflect DK Bigger Interests which throw shade over our vital Best Interests”
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/3/9/2157126/-Kos-Top-16-Posts-reflects-DK-Bigger-Interests-which-throw-shade-over-our-vital-Best-Interests
In it I pointed out that of the top 16 posts of February, only one (written by Kos) addressed climate change, but did so only as incidental to the actual topic.
Kos weighed into the comments with this:
“You aren't wrong in the assessment that climate change content doesn't do well on the site. I'm struck that you didn't mention an author we had, who wrote exclusively about climate issues and the environment. Do you remember her name?
She was our lowest-traffic writer, despite writing excellent content.
What I will say, however, is that doesn't mean the community doesn't care about the environment. It's actually the opposite-they don't need to read another story about the climate crisis to know there's a climate crisis. They already get it. So they skip the stuff that already fits their worldview, because there's nothing left to add to it.
Same with issue-centric stuff. Community is already heavily pro-trans rights, so they don't feel the need to read a story about the importance of trans rights. That's why it's better to integrate those issues in an intersectional matter in the coverage people want to read, which is about elections and politics and the culture wars.
In the end, what people say they want to read isn't what they really want to read.
Compare the many people say "write stories about the good things Democrats do!" compared to how many people actually read those stories. We'll write them as long as they land in our focus areas, but no one is pretending they're great traffic generators. And yes, people say they want more climate coverage, but really, the painful reality is that they don't. In general, people don't click on stuff that reinforces what they already think they know.”
Kos, in the hopes that you may actually read this, I’d like to begin by expressing my sincere gratitude for your extraordinary efforts covering the illegal Russian war in Ukraine, which I have been following along since the inception. Fundamentally, war can be seen as an explosive intersection of chaos and order which breeds atrocities. Your balanced reporting, military acumen and the compelling clarity of your writing have helped me enormously to fill out this otherwise too objective and emotionally impoverished view. The exhaustive coverage you and Mark provide is doing great things on many levels.
That said, I was a bit stunned when you weighed into the comments for my recent post. Within the limits of my nevertheless extensive use of the DK site, this seemed unusual, particularly regarding environmental issues.
I feel I owe it to you to speak clearly, in the form a post, about aspects of your comment that I find concerning.
While I remain grateful for your opening statement supporting the superficial subject of my post, I felt that the substance of your comment missed the underlying intention behind it.
As stated in your comment, there is an accepted understanding on DK, that the readership as a whole ‘cares about the environment’. While I see no reason to doubt this, I have come to question exactly what this ‘concern’ constitutes. When stunted by the shunning of current climate information, concern can become reduced to little value in a crisis of this magnitude, even to the point of becoming counter productive. While I am certain there are exceptions to this, I am equally convinced they are few.
For if someone is Climate aware only to the point of having an aversion to engaging with it, that, for the most part, effectively stops active progressive involvement. ‘Caring’ and ‘doing things’ should not become excuses for failing to keep up with the evolving nature of this emergency. I would love to avoid confronting environmental information, but I clearly see through the transparent rationale put forward for doing so.
The fallacy in thinking that it is enough that liberals are more environmentally informed and concerned than conservatives, is that while that may be true, it doesn’t mean they are fully clear of the thickets of denial and cognitive dissonance. This can easily cut across all cerebral boundaries and beliefs. The vast majority of my intelligent liberal friends and likeminded people I meet still exhibit some form of climate denial or another. Indeed, I still guard my own door vigilantly, only to find this ‘shape shifter’ has managed to slip in past me. But I’ve learned to quickly recognize it and kick it back out.
Which brings me to this remark, that unintentionally speaks to the very core of my purpose:
‘What I will say, however, is that doesn't mean the community doesn't care about the environment. It's actually the opposite-they don't need to read another story about the climate crisis to know there's a climate crisis. They already get it. So they skip the stuff that already fits their worldview, because there's nothing left to add to it.”
Kos, this statement brought me up short. I’d like to assume that you posited this as an explanation of the rationale of others behind climate avoidance, but your words do not lend themselves easily to that interpretation. However, I leave a lot of comments and I understand that the time constraints of doing so can sometimes muddle our meaning, so perhaps your ending statement was meant to qualify this:
“And yes, people say they want more climate coverage, but really, the painful reality is that they don't. In general, people don't click on stuff that reinforces what they already think they know.” (boldface added)
But hypothetically speaking or not, the fact of the matter is, they do need to read about climate, the same way they need to read about Ukraine or the ongoing shit show in Washington. I already know the Russian illegal War is a war, so does that mean “there’s nothing left to add to it” as it “already fits my world view”? Worldviews need to be constantly updated or they risk becoming irrelevant, thereby effectively undermining pro-action.
For climate collapse is not a static issue.
Just because reading about the environment has a predictable effect on our inner comfort zone, doesn’t mean it’s static…it means we are. We’ve rallied on this site when faced with upcoming and seemingly ‘doomed’ elections, because as bad as things may seem, unlike with climate, our minds don’t block our grasp of what is at stake and we retain our focus on the necessity of working together for a common goal. What’s more, we don’t hesitate to keep constantly updated as events unfold, no matter how alarming and disheartening, because we don’t question the necessity of current information and the value it provides for maximizing our effectiveness.
Climate collapse demands the same level of engagement and we’re not getting there through resigned acceptance of readership limitations.
Quite frankly, the time has long since passed for continuing to sidestep the issue of what DK readership is willing to accept in the way of environmental information, as if their recalcitrance is carved in stone, because the climate crisis is not some ossified inconvenient annoyance that can continue to be shoved aside.
I understand that readers cannot be compelled to read articles, but a more concerted, multi-pronged effort to engage them should start to be pursued now, because soon climate collapse will become compelling news we will no longer be able to ignore.
And finally I get to this:
“That's why it's better to integrate those issues in an intersectional matter in the coverage people want to read, which is about elections and politics and the culture wars.” (boldface and cross-outs added)
Kos, if I took your well intentioned suggestion to employ this tactic of integrating climate information, would mute my message that climate foot dragging can no longer be ignored. When there’s an incoming missile, you don’t adjust the siren to a less annoying frequency, in case some may want to sleep in late.
Integrating climate into other topics is rarely practiced on Kos, especially in the Ukraine updates, despite the fact that environmental damage is a critical aspect of the war, impacting the population in much the same way the bombing of infrastructure and residential dwellings does, but with the caveat that its stealth effects are longer term and farther reaching. Please forgive me for speaking bluntly, but never before have circumstances so warranted its inclusion.
Yet you and Mark consistently fail to embed it.
It is not my place or purpose to tell you what to do, but this crisis compels me to at least suggest that you would do well to ask yourselves why this is so.
In our present circumstances, ignoring the environment as a part of your coverage is a very serious omission and unintentionally enables a general misconception that the environment is a ‘poor relation of this conflict’ and so, not invited to the ‘grownups table’.
While unpredictable, there are nevertheless ways that climate collapse could have a surprising impact on the trajectory of this war. The record breaking unseasonable temperatures of this past winter enabling ‘General Mud’ to interfere with Ukraine strategic planning is just a taste of what could come.
Furthermore, this lapse in your reporting priorities may leave the impression that you think you are doing enough by covering this war to justify leaving it up to volunteer writers to contend with a far vaster war we are up to our necks in with far greater consequences at stake. Climate collapse is an apocalyptic global war we are currently on the precipice of losing.
So I pass your suggestion back, for the simple reason that if you and Mark were to take the lead and start to provide information about the impact environmental issues have and the threat they pose to the Ukraine conflict as an important, integral and frequently integrated part of your ongoing reports, it might go a hell of a lot further to help raise awareness by bringing more readers on board.
We’re all in this ship traveling through the cosmos together and this ship is sinking. Whether you realize it or not, as de facto leaders of this site your leadership in this war is desperately needed. You both have enormous influence on DK. When you and Mark speak, DK listens.
As things stand, climate posters can become demoralized by disinterest, while those readers who do care and possess varying levels of awareness can become discouraged and fatalistic. Yet DK itself mostly ignores the seriousness of the issue and allows the algorithm to undermine climate posts because they are unpopular by nature. Recently, perhaps in an effort to keep the U.N. I.P.C.C. Report topical, members of the DK climate community have been running back-to-back posts referencing it and these articles have been receiving abysmally low recs.
Pakalolo had this to say in his post addressing wetland methane release:
“Meteor Blades and boatsie both wrote diaries on the release of the IPCC AR6. Neither received many eyes. Considering the gravity of the crisis, the lack of curiosity is beyond disappointing.”
Environmental posts rarely if ever appear in “Community Spotlight” even though other low rec posts often do, they seldom get carried over to the next day, despite, or perhaps because of the import of their content, and from what I’ve seen, ‘climate/environment’ is not consistently on the hashtag bar.
Letting popularity rule is part of the reason we’re in this mess in the first place.
This site is admirably situated to have a chance of influencing environmental policy, but, generally speaking, is not mobilizing to achieve this goal, much less even recognizing that it is one. This leaves individuals that care about the climate on DK without a forceful and cohesive platform for group action.
Kos, it could be a game changer if you and Mark stepped forward to foster and support climate action on DK. Without your leadership, it will never be taken seriously by the majority of readership until climate collapse forces them too, which may prove to be too late.
Group action and exchange can go a long way towards mitigating the overbearing burden climate awareness can impose on us when we try to shoulder it alone. Clearly, ‘many heads are better than one’ at producing superior pro-action agendas and solutions that can be arrived at faster as opposed to working, each in our own ‘cell’. As a block, DK will be better able to join forces with other coordinated fronts in this battle.
Kos, by kicking in to rally Kossacks, we might no longer be sidelined in this battle.
One way or another, there will be no sitting this one out.