Climate Change: A Critical Analysis

Whether we like it or not, much of the information if not all of the information that we possess and access in our everyday lives comes from the media. We use it to fill our brains with knowledge and use common sense to figure out whether the information presented is valid and contemporary. Among information that we are exposed to, a large chunk of it happens to be scientific. An example that many are familiar with is global climate change. After reading these two pieces of writing, Climate Change as News: Challenges in Communicating Environmental Science, by Andrew C. Revkin, and The Missing Climate Change Narrative, by Michael Segal I’ve observed how they each explain the role of the media and how it plays a part in the general public's comprehension …show more content…
The problem can even start from the source itself. Climate change is a very complicated and dispersed subject, and it can leave journalist on a loop, which is where scientist enter the equation. Scientist with their large knowledge and studies of climate change are there to relay information to the media in order for it to be properly translated again to the public. However, according to Revkin there is a split between journalists and scientist communication which can impact the clarity and importance behind climate change (247). This can further lead to what Segal explains on page 125, “...communication effort from the traditional core of science media...steps around the narrative fray and focuses on reiterating the naked facts of climate change…”. The media is then subjected to being general and stating the same plain information about climate change that many of us will see in most climate change …show more content…
In fact there are boatloads of articles regarding climate change, with various opinions and statements. Unfortunately this can lead to the confusion of the public and render their understanding incomplete. With the variety of media such as the internet and the different information that contradicts each other the public can be sent out on their own to create new assertions. Segal explains that, “Each side of the climate debate accuses the other of exaggeration and suffers from its own….Each narrative doesn’t just oppose the next but is deeply incompatible with it” (122). These can lead to the media indirectly portraying a loss in credibility to the information presented by scientist. Also explained on page 124, “If you look at how the media treats scientific discoveries….[They’ll say] ‘here’s this thing that’s been discovered,’ not the process of how we figured it out...If you don’t help people understand what those processes are...now they can go onto the web and dial up an alternate answer” (Segal). This kind of portrayal by the media ruins the credibility of science and lead the public no