Was reading today at a cafe, that electricity prices will go up significantly more in the inner suburbs in Melbourne (according to the Age, p1, Environment Editor) due to the carbon tax, and also I read that they will go up moreso in the fringe suburbs (according to the Herald Sun on page 11). This is rather intriguing, or perhaps not, given that each newspaper has such a different readership according to their social background and political beliefs. But please papers, let's get the facts right! Green communications are becoming increasingly important, as we edge closer to the big day when the carbon tax is introduced. Have sent in a comment to the Age, but I suspect it got dumped, being viewed as another greenie being a 'smarty-pants'. We do have a reputation for being like that, I'm afraid.
Anyway this reminds me of something else I have been reading in 'Environmental Communication - A Journal of Nature and Culture - Volume 6' about Climate in the News: How Differences in Media Discourse Between the US and the UK reflect National Priorities. At page 44 there is a discussion about the use of words and phrases and the indicators as to the conclusions about climate change reached by writers for the London Times as opposed to the New York Times. I don't fully understand the linguistic science which is used throughout the article but clearly readers need to be taking a much more analytical approach to what they read.
In summary, the view was that the London Times articles on climate change between 2000 and 2009 take a much more action and solutions oriented 'take' on the issue of climate in the news, whereas the New York Times takes a far more problem and scientific framework focus and therefore it's not clearly accepted scientifically in the U.S that anthropogenic climate change is a problem.
Very interesting. Metropolitan differences, and national differences alike .... this area of comparative environmental discourse is still in its early stages, but is a reflection of the great divide that exists regionally and natioanlly as a whole..
Anyway this reminds me of something else I have been reading in 'Environmental Communication - A Journal of Nature and Culture - Volume 6' about Climate in the News: How Differences in Media Discourse Between the US and the UK reflect National Priorities. At page 44 there is a discussion about the use of words and phrases and the indicators as to the conclusions about climate change reached by writers for the London Times as opposed to the New York Times. I don't fully understand the linguistic science which is used throughout the article but clearly readers need to be taking a much more analytical approach to what they read.
In summary, the view was that the London Times articles on climate change between 2000 and 2009 take a much more action and solutions oriented 'take' on the issue of climate in the news, whereas the New York Times takes a far more problem and scientific framework focus and therefore it's not clearly accepted scientifically in the U.S that anthropogenic climate change is a problem.
Very interesting. Metropolitan differences, and national differences alike .... this area of comparative environmental discourse is still in its early stages, but is a reflection of the great divide that exists regionally and natioanlly as a whole..
RSS Feed
