Monday, 21 July 2008

Does the media care enough about the environment?


Everyone with a modicum of education is aware that the world’s environment is in crisis.  Put it simply, the natural world as existed before the advent of industrialized exploitation is shrinking and elements of it are becoming extinct too fast for people to even care.  Some scientists believe that we are experiencing a mass extinction event like the one that deposed the dinosaurs sixty five million years ago.  Sadly, if this trend continues, we will be the ultimate victims, or at least, the planet will simply not deserve to be called Earth.
We would expect our televisions and alternative media channels to be howling with rage and indignation.  We would expect them to take our supermarkets and politicians to task for contributing to the destruction of our world.  For example, the British supermarket Sainsbury’s sells some 700,000 tonnes of tuna in the UK annually, add that to the tally of Tesco, Asda Wallmart and a handful of others and you can see where and why tuna numbers are plummeting.  Does anyone care?  Is the media paying any attention?  Or take the example of the British Prime minister Gordon Brown at the time of writing saying that if the supermarkets will carry on giving away free plastic bags, he will have to take action:  rather like a policeman telling a thief that if he does not stop burgling ….  When all the prime minister has to do is to follow the lead of several governments and impose a tax on them.
I look at the typical Sunday newspaper.  One glossy magazine for men.  Another glossy magazine for women.  A sports section.  A business section.   A travel/holiday section.  Perhaps even a gardening section.  And there will also be endless features devoted to beauty/fashion/books/films/television/gadgets.  An environment section?  No.  No one is interested in the E word.  The E word is bad news.  It’s too liberal, makes you feel guilty and no one really understands – right?
Actually the E word is more than the sum of its perceptions.  It means new kinds of architecture, - think of a large building which allows trees and plants to grow on its roof; a building that helps compensate for the green space it may have destroyed.  It means new kinds of energy: think of an air-conditioning system that is solar powered.  It means environmentally friendly food like Alaskan Salmon that has been sustainably harvested.  It means super-efficient hybrid cars.  It means decentralized energy production based on waste and renewables.  It means making money on scrap and commercial recycling.  It means encouraging the disappearing house sparrow and countless species of bird, mammal and insect.  It means using sewage to power our towns.  It can mean lots of things including a celebration of the diversity of life itself.
Instead, the media is obsessed with news connected with some tin pot leader or other; what they said; what some celebrity wore; what they said; comedies, jokes, entertainment and even some deep profound theory about Kandinsky or the world we once had but not anymore.  I do not decry these things, but the E word is largely absent.  Most editors think that we are not interested.  I for one, find most media without the E a total turnoff.
So until the media does begin to pay attention, we just have to tune in more wisely and act as consumers and communicators more wisely.  We have to harangue the editors and tell them why we can’t be bothered with their desultory output and create the channels on behalf of creation ourselves.  Our politicians will only do something in their self interest, so we have to act ourselves and hopefully, keep the flag flying for biodiversity and the big E.

No comments: