Media Focus, Fascination and “Fake News”

person reading the daily fake news newspaper sitting on gray couch
Photo by on

I talked in my last post about whether the controversial journalist George Monbiot was right to attack Sir David Attenborough in quite the way he did in his article a few weeks ago. This got me thinking about wider representations in the media and how this can distort our perceptions of the things we see reported, and thus the world around us.

Obviously this is an environmentally focused blog, but I think its important for us to ask questions of the wider media and how it portrays certain items of news (or doesn’t as the case may be).

Following Monbiot’s article, Sir David Attenborough is to take the people’s seat at UN climate talks in December – does that really seem like the action of a man who wants to disregard or play-down major environmental issues? Also interestingly this has been widely reported across news media outlets, whereas at the same time, the grassroots group Extinction Rebellion managed to actually cause widespread disruption in our nation’s capital, and later other cities, yet in the media were relegated to a mere mention or short article.

So, is neglecting to report on events on the part of the media tantamount to deception?

I dislike the term “fake news” but I’m going to mention it here because I think there are different guises under which news can be “fake”. Selecting specific information and disregarding others, only quoting part or an interview, taking a quote out of context, not thoroughly researching a piece or making assumptions – all of these things contain an element of deceit.

Now I’m going to use plastics (*yawn* again?) as an example, it had a massive watershed moment in the media last year, sure it’s build up was a combination of work carried out by NGOs and regular reporting by a well-known rag, but its red-letter day was the BBC’s broadcast of Blue Planet II (and the shocking effects on our marine wildlife). The programme seemed to really cement the issue in the forefront of the public’s consciousness. Yet, another extremely critical issue, ocean acidification due to climate change remains massively under-reported. Both of these issues are extremely important and reporting on one doesn’t in any way diminish the other, so why do some stories get so eagerly taken up by the media and not others?

It has been a long and well known phenomenon that he media likes a scandal, from the early days of Stanley Cohen’s theory of “moral panics” right through to our current cult of the celebrity. And environmental news is no different, the more sensational, visceral, and visible something is, the chances are its going to get a lot more attention than say, some equally important but less headline grabbing issue.

In her 1997 book, Media Culture and the Environment, Alison Anderson, Professor of Sociology at the University of Plymouth, argues that environmental reporting (along with many story presented in the media) focuses on dramatic events with “goodies and baddies”, and that objectivity is not easily achievable especially for complex environmental issues such as climate change, due to the sheer nature and scale of different view-points and vested interests.

The question is, how do we as members of the general public, most with no specialist knowledge, discern what we can actually take from the media?

This is a really difficult question to answer, but what I do is read widely and don’t just stick to the same outlets. And if it comes to hard science or factual information I get it from the horse’s mouth, not everyone will want to read peer-reviewed journals of course, but lots of researchers have their own twitter, blogs and other social media outlets where you can get a little closer to the source material. Read the arguments and counter arguments, interpret it for yourself. And the most important thing to remember is… don’t blindly believe everything you read, see and hear.


3 thoughts on “Media Focus, Fascination and “Fake News”

  1. If, as a writer interviewing someone I take a quote that goes “I like little boys who are kind to animals, respect the elderly and regularly attend Sunday School,” and I publish a headline that says “He said he likes little boys,” am I being ethical? The media is in business, as are politicians and many environmentalists. Their mission is to sell, sell, sell. They know the tremendous profits of paranoia. (The church has for millenia) The media must return to the simple five W’s and stop the absurd speculations we eagerly swallow and reinterpret as pristine truth.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. The ubiquitous access to publication allows almost anyone, representing any cause or point of view, to become “the media.”
    We didn’t always prosper in the news world dominated by “yellow press” — the days of William Randolph Hearst’s empire, which was often not only swayed by but in full support of a variety of causes, rather than ethical journalism, to use Mr. Bailey’s term, above.
    In the environmental arena, it’s still shocking to read Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring,” and understand the vast opposition the facts she was presenting encountered, requiring decades to become fully disseminated. Of course, the battle seems scarcely engaged — perhaps a losing one at present — in the face of sheer anti-fact bias by not only select (self-appointed) “media” but influential, powerful governments. We have one here in the States, last time I checked.
    Thanks for your willingness to dive into a messy, amorphous mass. Fake news is our own intellectual mid-Pacific trash-dump, swirling in a lot of people’s heads.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s