Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The audacious PR plot that seeded doubt about climate change

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 70 posts

Re: The audacious PR plot that seeded doubt about climate change

#21

Post by Comevius »

flooow wrote: post #5

> "My role was to identify the voices that were not in the mainstream and to give those voices a stage," Rheem says. [...] > He says the media was hungry for these perspectives. > "Journalists were actually actively looking for the contrarians. It was really feeding an appetite that was already there." A rare example of the BBC breaking the media omertà on itself here. You thought journalism was supposed to help you…

Just because a perspective is different it doesn't mean that it's the truth, or should be treated equally importantly for the sake of some kind of balance.

Climate change denial is a good example, because it's not the truth, and it's not important. It doesn't have it's own scientific literature, nobody ever tries to prove it, it's contrarianism at best, propaganda at worst. And yet the media tends to give it an equal amount of screen time, which makes the public believe in it's legitimacy.

This might be shocking to the HN audience, but contrarianism by itself is not enough to discover the truth.

Re: The audacious PR plot that seeded doubt about climate change

#22

Post by [deleted] »

Barrin92 wrote: post #11
headsoup wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you at least appreciate the irony of the BBC here saying we shouldn't give contrary opinions a stage as a way of ensuring integrity?

The BBC as a public broadcaster isn't in the business of hosting contrarians for profit but to broadcast factful news, so.. not really. The opinion of scientists qualified to speak on the question of CC matters, letting literal oil lobbyists speak is like asking the fox if we should keep the door to the henhouse open.

[deleted]

Re: The audacious PR plot that seeded doubt about climate change

#23

Post by sammalloy »

> On an early autumn day in 1992, E Bruce Harrison, a man widely acknowledged as the father of environmental PR, stood up in a room full of business leaders and delivered a pitch like no other.

Sadly, the article makes no mention of his wife Patricia, who has run the Corporation for Public Broadcasting since 2005.

Re: The audacious PR plot that seeded doubt about climate change

#24

Post by flooow »

truculent wrote: post #14
flooow wrote: post #5

> "My role was to identify the voices that were not in the mainstream and to give those voices a stage," Rheem says. [...] > He says the media was hungry for these perspectives. > "Journalists were actually actively looking for the contrarians. It was really feeding an appetite that was already there." A rare example of the BBC breaking the media omertà on itself here. You thought journalism was supposed to help you…

In the UK, you need a substantial amount of meta-knowledge about the media outlets and political landscape in order to use news reporting to become more, not less or dis-, informed. It’s a shame that the idea of learning media studies and related subjects at school or university were so maligned in the 00s, but probably not a coincidence either.

> In the UK, you need a substantial amount of meta-knowledge about the media outlets and political landscape in order to use news reporting to become more, not less or dis-, informed.

This is most-certainly true, and an interesting corrollary is that journalists themselves very likely underestimate the impact their work can have. Being on the inside, they of course know (because 'everybody knows') that this Daily Mail article about Jeremy Corbyn being a soviet spy (yes, it is real [1]) is utter dreck, basically just popcorn nonsense for bored retirees to flick past on the way to the sports pages. Journalists might have a hard time believing/understanding that people actually trust and respect them, and may even take what they say at face value, with actual consequences.

Of course, their proprieters understand this full-well, which is why e.g. Murdoch is willing to plough endless cash into loss-making endeavours like The Times.

Not that I intend to absolve journalists whatsoever. Their actions have literally destroyed everything (we just haven't realised it yet).

[1] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5401097/Jeremy-Corb...

Re: The audacious PR plot that seeded doubt about climate change

#25

Post by mhh__ »

truculent wrote: post #14
flooow wrote: post #5

> "My role was to identify the voices that were not in the mainstream and to give those voices a stage," Rheem says. [...] > He says the media was hungry for these perspectives. > "Journalists were actually actively looking for the contrarians. It was really feeding an appetite that was already there." A rare example of the BBC breaking the media omertà on itself here. You thought journalism was supposed to help you…

In the UK, you need a substantial amount of meta-knowledge about the media outlets and political landscape in order to use news reporting to become more, not less or dis-, informed. It’s a shame that the idea of learning media studies and related subjects at school or university were so maligned in the 00s, but probably not a coincidence either.

Informed about what? The vast majority of news articles are factual, it's more subtle than you suggest.

Re: The audacious PR plot that seeded doubt about climate change

#26

Post by consp »

Comevius wrote: post #21
flooow wrote: post #5

> "My role was to identify the voices that were not in the mainstream and to give those voices a stage," Rheem says. [...] > He says the media was hungry for these perspectives. > "Journalists were actually actively looking for the contrarians. It was really feeding an appetite that was already there." A rare example of the BBC breaking the media omertà on itself here. You thought journalism was supposed to help you…

Just because a perspective is different it doesn't mean that it's the truth, or should be treated equally importantly for the sake of some kind of balance. Climate change denial is a good example, because it's not the truth, and it's not important. It doesn't have it's own scientific literature, nobody ever tries to prove it, it's contrarianism at best, propaganda at worst. And yet the media tends to give it an equal…

There is a nice visual example of this made by John Oliver on his show to illustrate this to a more understandable level: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg

Re: The audacious PR plot that seeded doubt about climate change

#27

Post by flooow »

Comevius wrote: post #21
flooow wrote: post #5

> "My role was to identify the voices that were not in the mainstream and to give those voices a stage," Rheem says. [...] > He says the media was hungry for these perspectives. > "Journalists were actually actively looking for the contrarians. It was really feeding an appetite that was already there." A rare example of the BBC breaking the media omertà on itself here. You thought journalism was supposed to help you…

Just because a perspective is different it doesn't mean that it's the truth, or should be treated equally importantly for the sake of some kind of balance. Climate change denial is a good example, because it's not the truth, and it's not important. It doesn't have it's own scientific literature, nobody ever tries to prove it, it's contrarianism at best, propaganda at worst. And yet the media tends to give it an equal…

Thank you for semi-articulately saying my argument back to me.

Re: The audacious PR plot that seeded doubt about climate change

#28

Post by celdon25 »

Comevius wrote: post #12
hunglee2 wrote: post #2

it is high time we called 'PR' what it is - corporate propaganda - in order to strip the discipline of the legitimacy it somehow retains. It's basically paid for BS, and when it comes to climate change, everyone is going to be paying the price

It's crimes against humanity, it's what it is. Sabotaging the human race for personal gain is the ultimate crime, it makes Hitler look like a saint. Any sentient species in the Universe wishing to prevail must, absolutely must be able to effectively discourage such behavior.

> it makes Hitler look like a saint.

You clearly don't understand what you are talking about, based on this.

Re: The audacious PR plot that seeded doubt about climate change

#29

Post by Comevius »

silverpepsi wrote: post #19
Comevius wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's crimes against humanity, it's what it is. Sabotaging the human race for personal gain is the ultimate crime, it makes Hitler look like a saint. Any sentient species in the Universe wishing to prevail must, absolutely must be able to effectively discourage such behavior.

...Sentence two, and y'all folks keep wondering who is fueling the lack of trust & emergence of conspiracy theories. When you're fueling the emotional aspect with your words that unabashedly, you are making people who are on the fence or unsure certain something is really wrong with the mainstream claims. I can tell you this just from the reaction you gave me in the pit of my stomach.

I have strong sense of justice, but this is how countries are built to last. Rest assured that I wouldn't let some libertarian think tank and their corporate sponsors get away with such manipulation of public opinion for personal gain.

On the other hand if you are on the fence about climate change please call me ASAP, I have some property to sell.

Re: The audacious PR plot that seeded doubt about climate change

#30

Post by Beldin »

silverpepsi wrote: post #20
simiones wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Integrity in news reporting has nothing to do with presenting every possible view as legitimate. A news report about the Earth that invites both physicists and flat earth loonies is not in any way better than one that doesn't even mention the flat Earth "theory". You are actively misleading the public when inviting climate change deniers to a discussion about climate change.

Here's a challenge I bet your little principle can't sustain: find a major long standing theory in human history that turned out to be wrong. Then apply your idea . The desired outcome for a rational principle would be that the truth and reality bubbles efficiently to the surface instead of gets burried and is taboo and something people are ostracized for promoting. I have yet to hear a principle that can deliver thi…

Like Newton's gravity? Its replacement bubbled efficiently to the surface...
Post reply on HN