The First Step is Admitting You Have a Problem

I assumed my own writing would be free of the journalistic sins I seek to uncover. As it turns out, review of my analysis proves I'm as guility as the next guy.

"Scientists and academics agree on at least two aspects of climate change: it’s real and it’s our fault. So why haven’t we done anything about it?" is the introduction of my academic essay-in-progress. It sounds good, right? I mean, I'm declaring the scientific consensus and indicating that humans are at fault. I'm also framing the argument for discussion of progressive social change. But who is "we"? And is it truly all of "our fault"?

You see, I have made grand assertions in these simple remarks. By saying that "it's our fault," I assume that my entire audience lives in ways that contribute to climate change, like driving a car or consuming plastic junk. What about the nonconformists who live on organic farmsteads? They are probably living guilt-free. What about the indigenous cultures of Brazilian rain forest? It's not their fault they couldn't resist the bulldozers destroying their homeland. In fact, saying it's our fault makes us out to be oil tycoons or corrupt politicians.

There are many levels of society - structures and processes - that need to be accounted for. Scientists are on the ground testing hypotheses about climate change. They publish their work, which is circulated among other academics. Then they are mediated for the rest of us, a diverse group. Some of us are defined by consumption, others by production and others by capital. Each of us has a different motive and potential for stemming or encouraging climate change. Some have ideological power but most do not. So even if the scientist is absolutely spot-on and media justly cite that science, can't media still legitimize the tragedy we call status quo?

So the questions I seek to answer in my blog are two-fold. First and simply, do media get the science right? Second and more importantly, do media get the social structures right? My hypothesis: (1) by now media probably can't ignore the scientific consensus and (2) that doesn't mean they have transcended their ideological constraints.

The first step to solving my problem is admitting I have a problem. From here, all I can do is educate myself and promise to do my best, to strive for my own ethical horizon. Prose can always be reinterpreted - such is the agony and ectasy of my craft. That is why I am thankful for this blog; it allows me to keep it subjective and forces me to be honest. I think that's what readers want anyway.